Halloween: who does it?

[middletree]

Am I the only one here who doesn't celebrate Halloween?

Note 1: I am not judging anyone who does celebrate it.
Note 2: I don't have a problem participating in an alternative church event if -- and only if -- it's an outreach to non-church members as well as church members.

[Musicdude]

Am I the only one here who doesn't celebrate Halloween?

Note 1: I am not judging anyone who does celebrate it.
Note 2: I don't have a problem participating in an alternative church event if -- and only if -- it's an outreach to non-church members as well as church members.

I don't either. Can't really see how it celebrates anything good at all.

[Grank]

I'm go'n to Ohio U for halloween this year. Me and the lady are gonna be zombie rednecks. Last year we were a cowboy and Indian. After this year I doubt we'll do anything for halloween though. It's her senior year and she wanted to be a part of it. Which I understand... it's a big thing there. Plus her apt overlooks the street it's mainly on. It should be fun.

I'd rather stay in and watch scary movies lol

[jesus loves me]

I use to love Halloween when I was a kid...don't celebrate it in any way now...nothing about it to celebrate.

[The Unknown Gomer]

I honestly wasn't aware that anyone DIDN'T celebrate Halloween until I moved from CA to NC back in 95; it's an entirely different ballgame here, with more "harvest festivals" and less witch, vampire and zombie costumes. If anyone didn't celebrate it back home, I never heard about it...

But we still decorated a little for it and gave out candy up until a year or so ago, when we got so few kids coming to the door (just enough to botch up our tv watching for the night) it wasn't worth buying the candy anymore. So now we pull a Scrooge and turn off our lights for the night. :P

But I still have a vampire bat beanie baby and an orange weepul with a witch hat on my desk at work, that's pretty much the extent of my halloween celebrations these days. :)

Then it's off to the store the day after to get the candy at 50% off. :D

[middletree]

I realized I didn't answer my question: I will let my kids dress up, and we'll go to the event at church, called the Glow in the Dark festival. It's an outreach, and we go to some lengths to get kids from the surrounding neighborhoods to come. Of course, there's candy, plus games, and various opportunities to spread joy and all that sort of thing. It's free, of course.

http://gracearlington.sitewrench .com/glowinthedark

[Aussie3rddayfan]

Halloween is only 'celebrated' by a few people here in Auz. I have no idea what the history of it is. Seems very pagan to me...

[sandie]

Yes, I'll agree with your comments, Col.

It is becoming more popular in shops, as a revenue earner. I've had a coupld of kids try to trick and treat in the past, but I've told them that I don't like Halloween. It seems a bit creepy with its ghosts and ghouls and I don't feel it would be right for me, as a Christian to encourage it.

[The Unknown Gomer]

Oh, and I forgot about my halloween socks. They're black with various halloween patterns knitted into them. I'll be wearing those today, actually. :)

[Salome]

My youngest loves to decorate the house with me. Mostly autumn inspired, but in october a few ghosts, spiders and jack o'lanterns scattered here and there.

oh, and my favorite decoration: a styrofoam tombstone that says "I told you I was sick".

My husband and I have always split the fun -- when they were litte, he would take the boys trick or treating. I get to pass out the candy. You know ..... if there's any left from buying it too early and my family consistently digging into it. ;) We live in an enclosed neighborhood so I know the majority of the kids that come up to my door. Take pics of some of the closer neighborhood kids that I know well.

[ausgirl]

My youngest loves to decorate the house with me. Mostly autumn inspired, but in october a few ghosts, spiders and jack o'lanterns scattered here and there.

oh, and my favorite decoration: a styrofoam tombstone that says "I told you I was sick".

My husband and I have always split the fun -- when they were litte, he would take the boys trick or treating. I get to pass out the candy. You know ..... if there's any left from buying it too early and my family consistently digging into it. ;) We live in an enclosed neighborhood so I know the majority of the kids that come up to my door. Take pics of some of the closer neighborhood kids that I know well.

I'm with Sandie and Col, don't, never have and never will celebrate any pagan day.

[middletree]

I'm with Sandie and Col, don't, never have and never will celebrate any pagan day.
So no Christmas or easter for you, huh? Great! I thought I was the only one!

[cheewiee]

I'm with Sandie and Col, don't, never have and never will celebrate any pagan day.

So you don't celebrate Easter or Christmas either?

[Musicdude]

I just looked up the word pagan out of curiosity. It seems there are many different uses of the word.

[middletree]

So you don't celebrate Easter or Christmas either?

I do to some extent, because my wife doesn't share my convictions. But I only do it for her. And I try to refer to that Spring holiday as Resurrection Day, because the name Easter is a big part of the my problem with that day.

Mostly, I posted that remark as a tongue-in-cheek thing. Halloween is about as pagan as Christmas and Easter, IMO, in that it has so much in it that harkens back to pagan rituals.

[cheewiee]

I do to some extent, because my wife doesn't share my convictions. But I only do it for her. And I try to refer to that Spring holiday as Resurrection Day, because the name Easter is a big part of the my problem with that day.

Mostly, I posted that remark as a tongue-in-cheek thing. Halloween is about as pagan as Christmas and Easter, IMO, in that it has so much in it that harkens back to pagan rituals.

I don't have a problem with Halloween, easter, or Christmas in theory.. but I don't like the demons, vampires and general obsession with death in relation with Halloween...

[Musicdude]

I don't have a problem with Halloween, easter, or Christmas in theory.. but I don't like the demons, vampires and general obsession with death in relation with Halloween...

What is the theory of halloween?

[Valpo]

Halloween: "All Hallows Even--All Hallows Eve" The Eve of the CHRISTIAN holiday, All Saints Day.

Christmas: Christ Mass. The fact it is close to the winter solstice is completely irrelevant. It falls this way because of the universal churches historic practice of a liturgical calendar at the end of the advent season which prepares our hearts and minds for Christ's return, even as we celebrate his first coming.

Easter: The only thing "pagan" about the day is the name. I know not of one Christian Church that practices pagan rituals on the day they commemorate Christ's resurrection at the end of another church season, Lent.

The fact that the world bastardizes these days does not make them any less holy for Christians.

[cheewiee]

Halloween: "All Hallows Even--All Hallows Eve" The Eve of the CHRISTIAN holiday, All Saints Day.

Christmas: Christ Mass. The fact it is close to the winter solstice is completely irrelevant. It falls this way because of the universal churches historic practice of a liturgical calendar at the end of the advent season which prepares our hearts and minds for Christ's return, even as we celebrate his first coming.

Easter: The only thing "pagan" about the day is the name. I know not of one Christian Church that practices pagan rituals on the day they commemorate Christ's resurrection at the end of another church season, Lent.

The fact that the world bastardizes these days does not make them any less holy for Christians.

Christmas... So, while I don't agree with his Legalism, Messianic One, had a spot on post about the right date of Christ's birth. The fact is the Church co-opted a pagan holiday... Nothing necessarly wrong about that, Paul Co-opted a pagan temple...

Easter... So the very planning of Easter is based on lunar cycles, and not the passover (which would be the more accurate celebration of Christ's resurrection)... Again, a Christian celebration that co-opted a pagan holiday...

All Hollowes eve, may have started the All Saints Day celebration, however what we celebrate today has very celtic origions...

[Valpo]

Christmas... So, while I don't agree with his Legalism, Messianic One, had a spot on post about the right date of Christ's birth. The fact is the Church co-opted a pagan holiday... Nothing necessarly wrong about that, Paul Co-opted a pagan temple...

Easter... So the very planning of Easter is based on lunar cycles, and not the passover (which would be the more accurate celebration of Christ's resurrection)... Again, a Christian celebration that co-opted a pagan holiday...

All Hollowes eve, may have started the All Saints Day celebration, however what we celebrate today has very celtic origions...

Cheewie: My point being the church may have taken over these holidays because they were pagan, but the church using a liturgical calendar to teach the faith and celebrate all the holy days in good order is not pagan. What Christians choose to do in Christian freedom is up to them. Dressing up as something other than yourself and going around for candy is not inherently pagan or sinful. Dressing up like you're glorifying death or as a sex symbol would be pagan/sinful. But kids dressing up as sports players or politicians or pumpkins or whatever is not sinful. It's cute.

I know my church celebrates Reformation Day and All Saint's Day. So that's a shame that a lot of churches got away from celebrating All Saint's Day. It's a great holiday.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

If we are to remove all things pagan in our lives. We should probably start with the days of the week:

Sunday was named after the Sun god.

Monday was named after the moon goddess.

Tuesday was named after the god Tyr.

Wednesday was named after the god Odin.

Thursday was named after the god Thor.

Friday was named after the goddess Frigga.

Saturday was named after the god Saturn.

The same goes for months.

Are we to ignore them as well, since they are from pagan origins?

It all comes down to context. Why do YOU celebrate, and WHAT you celebrate. These Holidays were created a while back by Christian missionaries who were attempting to inject Christianity into their lives and culture. Christmas was celebrated as a pagan holiday ( Yule, Saturnalia in Rome, though most of the Christmas traditions come from ancient Babylon during the feast of the Son of Isis where glutonny and gift giving were big part of December 25th). Christians, still wanting to celebrate gave it their own definition. Their own reason to celebrate. Very much like what most churches do during halloween, when instead of celebrating something they believe is evil, they celebrate what they would call "fall harvest day" or what have you.

I think this is very much like the situation with eating meat from idol-sacrificed animals. These gods have now power over us. We do not serve them. Our weekdays are named because they keep us organized, not because we serve these 7 gods. We put up a tree in Christmas because it looks nice. Not because we worship the pine. You treak-or-treat because you like candy, not because you're demanding money for the church.

[Valpo]

If we are to remove all things pagan in our lives. We should probably start with the days of the week:

Sunday was named after the Sun god.

Monday was named after the moon goddess.

Tuesday was named after the god Tyr.

Wednesday was named after the god Odin.

Thursday was named after the god Thor.

Friday was named after the goddess Frigga.

Saturday was named after the god Saturn.

The same goes for months.

Are we to ignore them as well, since they are from pagan origins?

It all comes down to context. Why do YOU celebrate, and WHAT you celebrate. These Holidays were created a while back by Christian missionaries who were attempting to inject Christianity into their lives and culture. Christmas was celebrated as a pagan holiday ( Yule, Saturnalia in Rome, though most of the Christmas traditions come from ancient Babylon during the feast of the Son of Isis where glutonny and gift giving were big part of December 25th). Christians, still wanting to celebrate gave it their own definition. Their own reason to celebrate. Very much like what most churches do during halloween, when instead of celebrating something they believe is evil, they celebrate what they would call "fall harvest day" or what have you.

I think this is very much like the situation with eating meat from idol-sacrificed animals. These gods have now power over us. We do not serve them. Our weekdays are named because they keep us organized, not because we serve these 7 gods. We put up a tree in Christmas because it looks nice. Not because we worship the pine. You treak-or-treat because you like candy, not because you're demanding money for the church.

great post

[NurseBettyLu]

I don't like halloween. It's not religious, I just don't like a holiday with occult icons and decomposing corpses as decorating themes. And all you brats go out and buy yer own stinkin' candy. Bah humbug.

[danbos]

Easter: The only thing "pagan" about the day is the name. I know not of one Christian Church that practices pagan rituals on the day they commemorate Christ's resurrection at the end of another church season, Lent.

The whole eggs and bunnies thing has it's roots in ancient idolatry as well...something about an old goddess of fertility.

[Valpo]

The whole eggs and bunnies thing has it's roots in ancient idolatry as well...something about an old goddess of fertility.

Yes, but in the worship service? I've heard of easter egg hunts for little children on church grounds. If we're equating that with worshipping the pagan goddess from where "Easter" gets its name, then the church in this country is in more trouble than I thought.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

I don't like halloween. It's not religious, I just don't like a holiday with occult icons and decomposing corpses as decorating themes. And all you brats go out and buy yer own stinkin' candy. Boo! humbug.

In the spirit of halloween, I went on ahead and corrected your final retort!

[Musicdude]

If we are to remove all things pagan in our lives. We should probably start with the days of the week:

Sunday was named after the Sun god.

Monday was named after the moon goddess.

Tuesday was named after the god Tyr.

Wednesday was named after the god Odin.

Thursday was named after the god Thor.

Friday was named after the goddess Frigga.

Saturday was named after the god Saturn.

The same goes for months.

Are we to ignore them as well, since they are from pagan origins?

It all comes down to context. Why do YOU celebrate, and WHAT you celebrate. These Holidays were created a while back by Christian missionaries who were attempting to inject Christianity into their lives and culture. Christmas was celebrated as a pagan holiday ( Yule, Saturnalia in Rome, though most of the Christmas traditions come from ancient Babylon during the feast of the Son of Isis where glutonny and gift giving were big part of December 25th). Christians, still wanting to celebrate gave it their own definition. Their own reason to celebrate. Very much like what most churches do during halloween, when instead of celebrating something they believe is evil, they celebrate what they would call "fall harvest day" or what have you.

I think this is very much like the situation with eating meat from idol-sacrificed animals. These gods have now power over us. We do not serve them. Our weekdays are named because they keep us organized, not because we serve these 7 gods. We put up a tree in Christmas because it looks nice. Not because we worship the pine. You treak-or-treat because you like candy, not because you're demanding money for the church.

In the chapter about eating meat sacrificed to idols, Paul made it clear that in spite of his freedom in Christ, if eating meat caused his brother to stumble, he would never eat meat again. We should be willing to give up any and all of our freedoms for the sake of not causing our brothers and sisters in Christ to stumble.

Using the traditional names of the week is probably not going to cause anyone to stumble. Dressing up as the chainsaw massacre, and your wife in a skimpy cat-suit and going to a halloween party definitely has stumbling potential.

You have to use good judgement.
If you're not sure if something might be a stumbling block, why chance it?

[WeaselInYerFoot]

In the chapter about eating meat sacrificed to idols, Paul made it clear that in spite of his freedom in Christ, if eating meat caused his brother to stumble, he would never eat meat again. We should be willing to give up any and all of our freedoms for the sake of not causing our brothers and sisters in Christ to stumble.

Using the traditional names of the week is probably not going to cause anyone to stumble. Dressing up as the chainsaw massacre, and your wife in a skimpy cat-suit and going to a halloween party definitely has stumbling potential.

You have to use good judgment.
If you're not sure if something might be a stumbling block, why chance it?


1 Corinthians 8 has always been manipulative card the legalists have used for generations. I'm not saying that you're using it in such a way. But the abuse of this chapter is so common that the misinterpretation has been pounded into our heads. I struggled with this chapter for a very long time. I mean, if you're going to interpret it as several pastors have for their own means, then you're pretty much a stumbling block in everything you do. My wife wears pants and cuts her hair - she's a stumbling block to the Pentecostals. We use the term God, we're a stumbling block to MessianicOne. I drive a car, I'm a stumbling block to the Amish. I eat pork, I'm a stumbling block to the Christian Jews. I go to the movie theater, I'm a stumbling block. I'm a stumbling block if I drink coffee. I can't remember what denomination equates it with alcohol abuse but it's out there. Like you say... why chance it?

It all once again, comes down to context. 1 Corinthians was written for a church that was going through some serious drama. I mean, they're about to tare each other to shreds over these issues. So Paul sends them a letter before things get any worse. Chapter after chapter Paul hits every single issue the church has with a solution. Chapter 8 is Paul saying "Look! a piece of meat is not worth dividing the church over! It's a stupid piece of meat. You can get it somewhere else!". The people he refers to as in risk of stumbling are brand new Christians who have a history in idol worship. They aren't Christian scholars who have written several books about the dangers of Idol-meat or created YouTube videos showing the history and origins of cheaper meat. They're brand new people getting their spiritual feet on the ground, and they look up to the wiser church members for support. Say you just rescued someone from alcoholism. You wouldn't invite them to a bar to hang out with you and your smallgroup, would you?

[Jason]

I don't do Halloween.

[middletree]

Christmas: Christ Mass. The fact it is close to the winter solstice is completely irrelevant.

My problem with Christmas is all the paganistic rituals incorporated. For example, the tree. All through Scripture, there are references to evergreen trees being used for idol worship.

Besides idolatry (there are many other examples), there's also the gluttony and materialism and covetness that results from Christmas. Besides all that, God seems to go out of His way to not tell us when Jesus was born.


Easter: The only thing "pagan" about the day is the name.


Not true, but the name is enough for me. It's derived from Astoreth, which is alongside Baal as one of the two big idols that Israelites worshipped. If I were Satan, and I knew that Christians were gonna celebrate Jesus' resurrection, I'd be very happy to know they did it in the name of an idol.
But there is more besides the name. Fertility cults have always been around, and IMO, they conjure up evil spirits. In the case of easter, we have the eggs and the rabbits as the tie-in to fertility cults.


The fact that the world bastardizes these days does not make them any less holy for Christians.

IMO, they never were holy to begin with. Only God makes holy things, and these days are all man-made.

[middletree]

It all comes down to context. Why do YOU celebrate, and WHAT you celebrate.


You are entitled to think that. I do not. It comes down not to context, but to who's being worshipped. IMO, there are real demons behind those idols.



Like I said in another post, if I were Satan, and knew Christians were gonna celebrate some days about Jesus, I'd incorporate as much demonic stuff as I could.

[Jesuslove]

I just got back from a Halloween party at my son's school. I personally don't celebrate Halloween, but I will give out candy and my son goes Trick-or-Treating. I'm especially not crazy about going out this year due to the high levels of swine flu.

[Jesuslove]

I used to be friendly with a friend of mine (a northerner) who moved to Greer SC. I recall her saying that due to the high concentration of Southern Baptists, their schools and neighborhoods don't do Halloween. Is celebrating Halloween becoming more of a regional thing? I'd be curious to know if there are regional differences based on who does and who doesn't celebrate Halloween.

[sandie]

There is something strange about Christians dressing up as witches, ghosts and ghouls, as scripture tells us not to contact spirits. As the Aussies here have said, it's not a cultural tradition here, anyway.

Although Christmas and Easter have ancient pagan origins, they are the two central remembrances / celebrations of Christ's work of salvation. It is wonderful to hear of the coming of Jesus in church, and to sing some great Christmas carols and songs to worship Him. I like to go to Handel's Messiah most years - it's an amazing piece of music that ends in Heaven, worshipping the Lamb that was slain.

Easter is even more special. We have a large cross in church which is decorated with flowers at Easter and people at church seem to sing even more strongly to worship the Lord on Easter Sunday. There is a special spirit at church, as we focus on the work of Christ.

I also understand James' point of view concerning Christmas and Easter.

[The Unknown Gomer]

I used to be friendly with a friend of mine (a northerner) who moved to Greer SC. I recall her saying that due to the high concentration of Southern Baptists, their schools and neighborhoods don't do Halloween. Is celebrating Halloween becoming more of a regional thing? I'd be curious to know if there are regional differences based on who does and who doesn't celebrate Halloween.

Like I mentioned in my other post, I moved from the Bay Area in CA to Raleigh, NC, and after I moved here, I was completely blown away by how Halloween is handled (or not handled, actually) in many areas here. In all my 28 years in CA, I never knew anyone who didn't do at least SOMETHING for Halloween, whether it was dressing up to go door to door, or giving out the goodies, or doing some serious haunted houses at schools and malls. Cue the move to Raleigh, and it's a whole different ball game, the things I mentioned before about doing Harvest Festivals, and forbidding certain costumes, right down to there being some serious talk several years ago about having the trick or treating done on November 1 instead, because Halloween fell on a Sunday that year.

Yep. Santa Clara and Raleigh... two entirely different animals when it comes to Halloween.

[NurseBettyLu]

I do, however, really get into the half price candy the next day.

[sandie]

A classic reply, Beth. :D

[onesawthelight]

I don't do halloween. It was only an excuse to get candy...it never meant anything more then that. I did let my kids when youger do halloween...but like I said...it was never about anything more then getting candy.:)

[middletree]

Some people use that "it's only about kids getting a lot of candy" as an excuse to say it's not a demonic day, but since gluttony and greed and coveting are sins, doesn't that still qualify as demonic on one level?

[onesawthelight]

As I said....it was only about free candy...and nothing at all to do with demons. It is what you make of it...or not. I am aware of the paganism involved...I just don't care. As for anything to do with demons...that was never further from my mind. No celebration of anything...candy and some light hearted fun for the kids. I may be wrong...but that is all it meant to us.

middletree wrote,

since gluttony and greed and coveting are sins, doesn't that still qualify as demonic on one level?

What does greed gluttony and coveting have to do with anything demonic?
They are sins of course...and Satan and the demons will cheer us on in sin of course...but how do these particular things qualify as demonic?

[WeaselInYerFoot]

You are entitled to think that. I do not. It comes down not to context, but to who's being worshipped. IMO, there are real demons behind those idols.


I may be wrong, but I honestly don't think that you can unintentionally worship something.


Like I said in another post, if I were Satan, and knew Christians were gonna celebrate some days about Jesus, I'd incorporate as much demonic stuff as I could.

I agree. I also think Satan has indeed done so with merchandise, big sales and stressfull family times, and he battles this every year. But seeing that the pagan celebrations that took place in December existed way before Christians did, wouldn't it be possible that the exact opposite happened? I mean these were holidays strictly dedicated to dozens of idols and the methods of honoring them weren't the best and were excessive in all ways. Then Christ comes in and changes it. The very definition of December 25th went from being a holiday celebrated in honor of countless gods, to now widely celebrated as the begining of God's greates gift! He literally hijacked Satan's biggest holidays! That's pretty much being all up in Satan's grill.

[middletree]

What does greed gluttony and coveting have to do with anything demonic?
They are sins of course...and Satan and the demons will cheer us on in sin of course...but how do these particular things qualify as demonic?

All sin is demonic.

[onesawthelight]

All sin is demonic.


I would be interested to see your biblical reference for this statement.
I'm not trying to say you are wrong...but would like to hear more of your position on this.

[Jesuslove]

Some people use that "it's only about kids getting a lot of candy" as an excuse to say it's not a demonic day, but since gluttony and greed and coveting are sins, doesn't that still qualify as demonic on one level?

I think that's a bit of a stretch. Much like kids don't view Santa Claus and the Easter bunny as demonic, I don't think children see Halloween as demonic. My church has requested kids come tomorrow (All Saints Day) dressed in costume. I think one can separate demonic ideals from Halloween. Most Christians I know celebrate Halloween, but again, I live in the Northeast.

[sandie]

If your church dressed the children for a Christmas play, they would be angels, or shepherds, or Mary or Joseph etc, but for Halloween they could be witches, ghosts, demons, or the grim reaper. There's quite a difference!

[Jesuslove]

If your church dressed the children for a Christmas play, they would be angels, or shepherds, or Mary or Joseph etc, but for Halloween they could be witches, ghosts, demons, or the grim reaper. There's quite a difference!

Nobody says I'm taking my child to church dressed as a witch, ghost, demon or the grim reaper. How about parents who dress their kids for Halloween as Jesus, the Virgin Mary, or an angel?

Furthermore, I didn't think all ghosts were demonic. I have a ghost in my home that is very non-threatening.

[ausgirl]

Furthermore, I didn't think all ghosts were demonic. I have a ghost in my home that is very non-threatening.

:confused: Well there's another thread entirely......

[ausgirl]

If your church dressed the children for a Christmas play, they would be angels, or shepherds, or Mary or Joseph etc, but for Halloween they could be witches, ghosts, demons, or the grim reaper. There's quite a difference!

Yep that^^^

[middletree]

Much like kids don't view Santa Claus and the Easter bunny as demonic, I don't think children see Halloween as demonic. .

I agree that they don't see it as such, but I would say that how they see it is lrrelevant.

[middletree]

I would be interested to see your biblical reference for this statement.
I'm not trying to say you are wrong...but would like to hear more of your position on this.

I don't know how to answer this. To me, the entire bible says this. The first sin by a non-human was when Lucifer rebelled and took a lot of angels with him, and they became demons. Since then, they have been causing men and women to sin, starting with what he said to Eve.

I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who said sin isn't demonic, so I don't really know how to respond. I mean, there are only two kingdoms, you know? There's no neutral ground. It's not like you can be Switzerland, and sit back and withdraw from both kingdoms and be sort of in the middle.

[onesawthelight]

I don't know how to answer this. To me, the entire bible says this. The first sin by a non-human was when Lucifer rebelled and took a lot of angels with him, and they became demons. Since then, they have been causing men and women to sin, starting with what he said to Eve.

I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who said sin isn't demonic, so I don't really know how to respond. I mean, there are only two kingdoms, you know? There's no neutral ground. It's not like you can be Switzerland, and sit back and withdraw from both kingdoms and be sort of in the middle.

I see what you are saying with the way that you phrased this. I just don't equate all sin with being demonic...I just don't view it that way. Maybe I'm wrong to think that. But I do see what you are saying.

As far as pointing out that there are only two kingdoms with no neutral ground...I think that statement is more then a little ridiculous. I, and I would think most others are very well aware of that. Sin belongs to the kingdom of evil. All things good come from the Kingdom of God.

[middletree]

I see what you are saying with the way that you phrased this. I just don't equate all sin with being demonic...I just don't view it that way. Maybe I'm wrong to think that. But I do see what you are saying.

As far as pointing out that there are only two kingdoms with no neutral ground...I think that statement is more then a little ridiculous. I, and I would think most others are very well aware of that. Sin belongs to the kingdom of evil. All things good come from the Kingdom of God.

I know you are aware of it. I was using it as part of my explanation.

[Jesuslove]

I agree that they don't see it as such, but I would say that how they see it is lrrelevant.

The pastor at my church is encouraging everyone to dress up tomorrow. Are you suggesting he's not Christian?

[middletree]

The pastor at my church is encouraging everyone to dress up tomorrow. Are you suggesting he's not Christian?

What a weird question. I would suggest a person is not a Christian if they don't believe in Jesus and allow Him to be Lord and Savior of their life.

[onesawthelight]

The pastor at my church is encouraging everyone to dress up tomorrow. Are you suggesting he's not Christian?

Middletrees comments were directed at how kids see Halloween as being Irrelavent. What does this have to do with your pastor being Christian or not?
He said no such thing...nor was it implied.

[Jesuslove]

Some people use that "it's only about kids getting a lot of candy" as an excuse to say it's not a demonic day, but since gluttony and greed and coveting are sins, doesn't that still qualify as demonic on one level?

What a weird question. I would suggest a person is not a Christian if they don't believe in Jesus and allow Him to be Lord and Savior of their life.

Middletrees comments were directed at how kids see Halloween as being Irrelavent. What does this have to do with your pastor being Christian or not?
He said no such thing...nor was it implied.

Middle suggested that celebrating Halloween is an excuse for demonic activity...at least that's what I understood. If my interpretation was wrong, I apollogize. If one believes Halloween is a demonic activity, would a church allowing kids to come dressed for halloween, also be considered demonic.

[freakysoccer]

as a kid trick or treating was a fun part of my life. my dad's my best friend so he'd always take me. i understand some people don't like to be a part of it but for me it was always just about the candy and to have some fun. like for one day out of the year you can dress like a complete idiot and no one cares. today i may dress up...this year i didn't but basically have a party with friends, hang out around a bonfire with hotdogs and smores. and pass out candy if we get any kids. i know halloween may have a pagan past but the way ive always done it is just innocent fun and fellowship with friends.

[SueQ]

Halloween: "All Hallows Even--All Hallows Eve" The Eve of the CHRISTIAN holiday, All Saints Day.

Christmas: Christ Mass. The fact it is close to the winter solstice is completely irrelevant. It falls this way because of the universal churches historic practice of a liturgical calendar at the end of the advent season which prepares our hearts and minds for Christ's return, even as we celebrate his first coming.

Easter: The only thing "pagan" about the day is the name. I know not of one Christian Church that practices pagan rituals on the day they commemorate Christ's resurrection at the end of another church season, Lent.

The fact that the world bastardizes these days does not make them any less holy for Christians.

Christmas... So, while I don't agree with his Legalism, Messianic One, had a spot on post about the right date of Christ's birth. The fact is the Church co-opted a pagan holiday... Nothing necessarly wrong about that, Paul Co-opted a pagan temple...

Easter... So the very planning of Easter is based on lunar cycles, and not the passover (which would be the more accurate celebration of Christ's resurrection)... Again, a Christian celebration that co-opted a pagan holiday...

All Hollowes eve, may have started the All Saints Day celebration, however what we celebrate today has very celtic origions...

It is my understanding that All Hallow's Eve was indeed a Christian holiday celebrated before All Saint's Day as way to acknowledge good over evil. I was listening to Moody Bible radio and a woman was talking about recent research indicating some began to dress up as a way to mock evil in a "you can't scare me" tone. Pagan cultures then tried to take over the holiday and put an occultic spin on it. Christians celebrated this holiday first as a joyful "good (God) always triumphs over evil". The passing out of candy originally began as people gave to those less fortunate at that time.

I did some research for my church many years ago about the origins of the day we celebrate Christmas. What I discovered was that the time was chosen around the celebration of the solstice because Christians were being persecuted and having their celebration at the same time could help them "blend in" without harm.

I'm with middletree on Easter.....I choose to observe it as Resurrection Day.

[SueQ]

I just got back from a Halloween party at my son's school. I personally don't celebrate Halloween, but I will give out candy and my son goes Trick-or-Treating. I'm especially not crazy about going out this year due to the high levels of swine flu.

I think that explains why I had so few T&Ters this year...

I used to be friendly with a friend of mine (a northerner) who moved to Greer SC. I recall her saying that due to the high concentration of Southern Baptists, their schools and neighborhoods don't do Halloween. Is celebrating Halloween becoming more of a regional thing? I'd be curious to know if there are regional differences based on who does and who doesn't celebrate Halloween.

We don't celebrate any holidays in our distirct (except Valentine's Day now that I think of it). We have a diverse population that includes fundamental Christians, cultural Christians, Jehovah's Witness, Muslim, Hindu, Unitarians...so we have a Fall party and a Winter party...of course any kids who are JW can't participate so we have to find another activity for them if they come to school that day.

We have had parents in the past that have kept their kids home on the days we used to have Halloween and Christmas parties. Schools lose money when kids aren't in school so while we changed things to respect cultures, it doesn't hurt to save money as well.

[SueQ]

All sin is demonic.

When Jesus became sin for us did He become demonic? Sin is human nature that can lead us to an eternity with satan but if sin is demonic then we are demons. Even after we are saved we still sin so we must still be demons. I'm not convinced of that.

[middletree]

Middle suggested that celebrating Halloween is an excuse for demonic activity...at least that's what I understood. If my interpretation was wrong, I apollogize. If one believes Halloween is a demonic activity, would a church allowing kids to come dressed for halloween, also be considered demonic.

But that's a different question than whether or not someone is saved.

[middletree]

When Jesus became sin for us did He become demonic?

No

Sin is human nature that can lead us to an eternity with satan but if sin is demonic then we are demons.

Not even.

Even after we are saved we still sin so we must still be demons.

Weird leap in logic.

[NurseBettyLu]

I think all of you think too much. I'm off to Walgreens for some half price candy corn. And maybe some wax vampire teeth. Do they still make those?

[Aussie3rddayfan]

I don't know how to answer this. To me, the entire bible says this. The first sin by a non-human was when Lucifer rebelled and took a lot of angels with him, and they became demons. Since then, they have been causing men and women to sin, starting with what he said to Eve.

I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who said sin isn't demonic, so I don't really know how to respond. I mean, there are only two kingdoms, you know? There's no neutral ground. It's not like you can be Switzerland, and sit back and withdraw from both kingdoms and be sort of in the middle.

Sin is not demonic; sin is rebellion against God. It is effectively telling God that we want to decide right from wrong ourselves - just like Adam and Eve did.

[middletree]

Sin is not demonic; sin is rebellion against God. It is effectively telling God that we want to decide right from wrong ourselves - just like Adam and Eve did.

And Adam and Eve were introduced to the idea by the chief demon himself. Thanks for proving my point.

[onesawthelight]

I think all of you think too much. I'm off to Walgreens for some half price candy corn. And maybe some wax vampire teeth. Do they still make those?


Bring me some...:P :P

[onesawthelight]

And Adam and Eve were introduced to the idea by the chief demon himself. Thanks for proving my point.

Adam and Eve chose to accept the lie Satan presented to them. This in no way makes all sin demonic. Demonic would be any activity perpetuated by demons.
We are not demons. Demonic in my mind would be demon worship by a human...not disobeying God...which is obviously sinful. Just my opinion.

[middletree]

Adam and Eve chose to accept the lie Satan presented to them. This in no way makes all sin demonic. Demonic would be any activity perpetuated by demons.


I guess you and I have different definitions of demonic, then. I meant that all sin is influenced by demons, because Satan has worked tirelessly for centuries getting us to listen to him and to choose to sin.

We see this truth in the conversation with Eve in Genesis 3.
We see Satan trying to get Job to sin.
We see Satan trying to get Jesus to sin.
We see Jesus tell us to make deliverance from demonic temptation part of our prayers (Matt 6--the Lord's prayer)
We see Paul warn us that our enemy is not other humans, but Satan's army (Ephesians 6;12)
We see Paul spend the rest of that chapter telling us how to equip ourselves to fend off the work of demons.

Seems pretty clear to me that demons are the one tempting us. We choose to listen or not, and if we sin, it's on us, because it comes down to our choice. But that doesn't make the original temptation not demonic.

We are not demons.

Why do people keep telling me that? I never said any such thing. I'm tired of people arguing with what I didn't say. I could use the same tactic and argue with you by saying "You're wrong about Halloween because peanut butter is made of peanuts, and the sky is blue."

[Aussie3rddayfan]

And Adam and Eve were introduced to the idea by the chief demon himself. Thanks for proving my point.

Satan and his demons certainly tempt us (after all, Satan can't be everywhere at once) but that in no way makes sin demonic.

[middletree]

Satan and his demons certainly tempt us (after all, Satan can't be everywhere at once) but that in no way makes sin demonic.

yes it does.

[Musicdude]

And Adam and Eve were introduced to the idea by the chief demon himself. Thanks for proving my point.

Satan didn't invent sin, he merely discovered it.
When a demon sins it's demonic. But demons are not the only ones capable of sinning. Satan was not a demon when he first sinned.
I'd bet a paycheck that Adam and Eve would've eventually sinned even without Satan tempting them. Satan sinned without anyone tempting Him, and angels are supposedly smarter than humans. lol


I think that you are right in the main idea of what you are saying. I know the Americanized halloween is not idolatrous of any false gods.
I know that to most people it's not about that, but it's just about fun and candy. And gluttony doesn't always happen either. I know plenty of parents who ration the candy out over the following weeks after halloween so the kids don't eat too much at a time. And lots of kids don't dress as demons or anything remotely evil at all. I've seen kids, especially the younger ones in bunny outfits, power rangers, my nephew (1 year old) dressed as kermit the frog. I've seen luke skywalker, superman, batman, etc. But also there are a lot of ghouls and goblins as well. My point was they are not all ghouls and goblins, etc.

But that is the Americanized version of a celebration that is probably much older than America. I will honestly admit I don't know the history of Halloween near as well as you probably do.
But I know enough to be sure that it's origin is not as innocent as the modern version.

I don't want to just assume something is ok, just because everybody I know participates in it.

If this ritual has even remote connections to idolatry, then it doesn't bring glory to God. And if that is the case, it is just wrong, period, regardless of how many people think it is perfectly innocent.

Middletree isn't saying that those of you who are Christians and celebrate halloween are intentionally doing so to honor demons. But that is exactly what the demons are using it for.
So why even associate with it, if that is the case? If it's really only about the candy, you can get a ton of candy at walmart for not that much money, especially after halloween. So just buy your kids some candy, if that's all it's about. Or if it's about dressing up in a costume that is not evil in nature, fine let them have a costume and wear it whenever they want to. But why acknowledge a day that is quite obviously glorifying evil? God doesn't tell us to approach evil. He tells us to completely avoid even the appearance of evil. It doesn't even have to be evil. If it even looks like it might be evil, we are to avoid it.

So what is more important? Glorifying God? Or fitting in with your friends and family who all participate in this celebration of evil (even though most of them don't realize that is what they are participating in)?

Anyway, that's my two cents worth. That's why at the risk of offending even my own parents, I'm not letting my daughter participate in halloween.

[middletree]

Satan didn't invent sin, he merely discovered it.
When a demon sins it's demonic. But demons are not the only ones capable of sinning. Satan was not a demon when he first sinned.


While each statement above is true, none of it refutes my point that all sin is demonic.



I don't want to just assume something is ok, just because everybody I know participates in it.


Excellent way to put it!

I see people justifying all sorts of sin, up to and including homosexuality, because large numbers of people, or society in general, or large numbers of Christians, find it acceptable, and that has nothing to do with whether or not it's sin or not. Thanks for saying it better than I did.

[Evanescence]

pagan holiday = no

[middletree]

pagan holiday = no

It's the intelligent discourse that goes on here that just brings me back time and time again.

[Evanescence]

Well, you aksed a simple question...thus a simple answer. To each their own...but I dont do pagan holidays. Christmas and Easter are exceptions....as we try to get close to the key moments in Christ.

[middletree]

Well, you aksed a simple question...thus a simple answer.

That changes everything. I thought you were saying that it's not a pagan holiday.

[onesawthelight]

I guess you and I have different definitions of demonic, then. I meant that all sin is influenced by demons, because Satan has worked tirelessly for centuries getting us to listen to him and to choose to sin.

We see this truth in the conversation with Eve in Genesis 3.
We see Satan trying to get Job to sin.
We see Satan trying to get Jesus to sin.
We see Jesus tell us to make deliverance from demonic temptation part of our prayers (Matt 6--the Lord's prayer)
We see Paul warn us that our enemy is not other humans, but Satan's army (Ephesians 6;12)
We see Paul spend the rest of that chapter telling us how to equip ourselves to fend off the work of demons.

Seems pretty clear to me that demons are the one tempting us. We choose to listen or not, and if we sin, it's on us, because it comes down to our choice. But that doesn't make the original temptation not demonic.



Why do people keep telling me that? I never said any such thing. I'm tired of people arguing with what I didn't say. I could use the same tactic and argue with you by saying "You're wrong about Halloween because peanut butter is made of peanuts, and the sky is blue."


You had said all sin is demonic. That is different then all sin is influenced by demons. I'm not trying to split hairs here...but there is a difference. I agree that sin is influenced by Satan and his demons. We can however make poor choices all on our own without Satan's help...we are human after all. We as you said make our own choice to sin. Being sinful is far easier then trying to be Christlike. Sin can be pleasent, and we are human. We all who know the Lord want to honor Him and obey Him...all I'm saying is we do fail...but it is not always becaused of Satan. Only my opinion...I may be wrong.
As far as my statement about *we are not demons*...that was only part of my thoughts. I never said that you said that...nor did I mean to imply that you did. I understand and respect your position on this...I just don't completely agree with it.

[middletree]

You had said all sin is demonic. That is different then all sin is influenced by demons.

To me it's not different. It's exactly what I meant.

[middletree]

We can however make poor choices all on our own without Satan's help.

Here's why I don't agree with this: we'll never know if we can sin without the enemy's help. He has, for all of human history, launched a barrage of attacks our way, trying to do all that he can to derail all of us. He does it with lies, with childhood wounds, with temptation, and many other weapons. They all come into play into every decision we make.

For example, if I lash out in anger at someone because I am offended by something they said, (something which most people wouldn't have found offensive), I will most likely be able to trace that back to some past hurt of mine, which was set up many years ago by the enemy to wound me in some way, or might make me believe something that isn't true, leading to insecurity on my part which leads to paranoia or self-hate, or defensiveness.

I could think of a million examples, and that may not be a perfect one. But the bottom line is this: Have you ever seen Saving Private Ryan? The first 30 minutes, there are bullets flying everywhere, and nowhere to hide. This is how the enemy is toward us. A temptation isn't something he occasionally whispers in our ear. It's one of many countless messages he sends us, and like the movie, if most of the bullets miss their target, but one or two hit, then that's enough to do some damage.

[NurseBettyLu]

Bring me some...:P :P

As if. Back away from the candy corn and nobody gets hurt.

[onesawthelight]

As if. Back away from the candy corn and nobody gets hurt.

Aw mom.....:D :P :P

[onesawthelight]

Here's why I don't agree with this: we'll never know if we can sin without the enemy's help. He has, for all of human history, launched a barrage of attacks our way, trying to do all that he can to derail all of us. He does it with lies, with childhood wounds, with temptation, and many other weapons. They all come into play into every decision we make.

For example, if I lash out in anger at someone because I am offended by something they said, (something which most people wouldn't have found offensive), I will most likely be able to trace that back to some past hurt of mine, which was set up many years ago by the enemy to wound me in some way, or might make me believe something that isn't true, leading to insecurity on my part which leads to paranoia or self-hate, or defensiveness.

I could think of a million examples, and that may not be a perfect one. But the bottom line is this: Have you ever seen Saving Private Ryan? The first 30 minutes, there are bullets flying everywhere, and nowhere to hide. This is how the enemy is toward us. A temptation isn't something he occasionally whispers in our ear. It's one of many countless messages he sends us, and like the movie, if most of the bullets miss their target, but one or two hit, then that's enough to do some damage.

I do see your point here...and it is well taken. As I said...maybe I'm wrong. I won't say you are wrong...I just see both sides of the story. We are human...if it feels good we naturally want to do it. And *it* may be sinful. I just don't see that Satan's fingerprints have to be all over everything we do wrong. I may be wrong...but as previously posted by someone else...Satan was an angel...and then he sinned. So who tempted him? Certainly not God. We I think would sin without Satan. We were created in His image...not like God...but in His image. We are therefore not perfect and would sin at some point simply because we are human. Satan and his demons do have a lot of influence in this world...and it is getting stronger. I just don't see that every sin is atributable to Satan. Don't get me wrong...I'm perfectly willing to listen to your thoughts, and those of others. I may learn something as I for sure do not have it all straight by any means.

Any other thoughts out there on this?.....Where is Rock hiding anyway?

[Musicdude]

Here's why I don't agree with this: we'll never know if we can sin without the enemy's help. He has, for all of human history, launched a barrage of attacks our way, trying to do all that he can to derail all of us. He does it with lies, with childhood wounds, with temptation, and many other weapons. They all come into play into every decision we make.

For example, if I lash out in anger at someone because I am offended by something they said, (something which most people wouldn't have found offensive), I will most likely be able to trace that back to some past hurt of mine, which was set up many years ago by the enemy to wound me in some way, or might make me believe something that isn't true, leading to insecurity on my part which leads to paranoia or self-hate, or defensiveness.

I could think of a million examples, and that may not be a perfect one. But the bottom line is this: Have you ever seen Saving Private Ryan? The first 30 minutes, there are bullets flying everywhere, and nowhere to hide. This is how the enemy is toward us. A temptation isn't something he occasionally whispers in our ear. It's one of many countless messages he sends us, and like the movie, if most of the bullets miss their target, but one or two hit, then that's enough to do some damage.

But lets not remove all responsibility for sin from humanity. Tempted or not, we still have the final choice in the matter. If all sin were satan's fault then he would be the only occupant of hell.

Some are a little too quick to blame satan for their own bad decisions.

[onesawthelight]

But lets not remove all responsibility for sin from humanity. Tempted or not, we still have the final choice in the matter. If all sin were satan's fault then he would be the only occupant of hell.

Some are a little too quick to blame satan for their own bad decisions.

I fully well agree with this statement. I don't think Middletree is saying this though as he did point out that ultimately it is our choice to sin in a previous post. This is about cause of sin, not blame. Cause of my sin aside...I do take blame for sinning...I made the choice. I agree people are sometimes to quick to place blame on Satan, like he is hiding behind the bushes just waiting for us to screw up.

[middletree]

But lets not remove all responsibility for sin from humanity.

I said nothing about blame nor removing responsibility.

[cheewiee]

I fully well agree with this statement. I don't think Middletree is saying this though as he did point out that ultimately it is our choice to sin in a previous post. This is about cause of sin, not blame. Cause of my sin aside...I do take blame for sinning...I made the choice. I agree people are sometimes to quick to place blame on Satan, like he is hiding behind the bushes just waiting for us to screw up.

Satan isn't hiding behind the bushes just waiting for you to trip... he is doing everything he can to make you trip...

[middletree]

We I think would sin without Satan.

And I'm saying we won't know until Satan is done away with. Because none of us has ever been without Satan's influence. Just pick up a daily newspaper, and most stories will be more evidence of his work in the world.

[Musicdude]

I said nothing about blame nor removing responsibility.

Not directly, but it's a rational conclusion from what you did say.

[middletree]

Not directly, but it's a rational conclusion from what you did say.

Not at all. I'm saying that most of us don't realize how we are influenced on a daily, heck, a minute-by-minute basis.

[Musicdude]

And I'm saying we won't know until Satan is done away with. Because none of us has ever been without Satan's influence. Just pick up a daily newspaper, and most stories will be more evidence of his work in the world.

If you are talking only about humans, that is true. But if you are talking about free-will beings in general that is also technically true, but misleading.

Who influenced satan to sin originally? He is not some supreme being who controls the world's fleshly desires. He is just an angel. Not to downplay what angels are, certainly they have more power than us in some ways. But he is not even in the same ballpark as God. And his powers are very much limited.

I don't think he is even capable of influencing all sin on earth, assuming that was even his plan in the first place.

I don't know if angels outnumber humans or vice-versa, but even if they do, he only has a third of the angels in his ranks. Satan is not omnipresent, and so for him to influence every human all the time, he would have to have a demon assigned to every person on the earth, and I wonder if there even that many demons in existence. They don't reproduce like we do, so there are only as many as God originally created, divided by 3.

[onesawthelight]

Satan isn't hiding behind the bushes just waiting for you to trip... he is doing everything he can to make you trip...

True enough...I just don't see him as being behind everything.

[middletree]

If you are talking only about humans, that is true. But if you are talking about free-will beings in general that is also technically true, but misleading.

Calling me a liar?

Who influenced satan to sin originally?

Don't know, and can't say that I care. It's irrelevant. I'm talking about humans. That was very clear from my first post on this sub-topic.

I don't think he is even capable of influencing all sin on earth, assuming that was even his plan in the first place.

Not only is he capable, but I have given ample Scriptural support.

he would have to have a demon assigned to every person on the earth,

Not an accurate statement. Refer to my Saving Private Ryan example. How many Germans does it take to fire automatic weapons at you till you feel bullets are coming from all directions?

Besides, there are most likely hundreds of thousands or millions of them. I'm not gonna take time to support that, as it's generally agreed upon. Feel free to look it up.

Seriously, you guys are all giving opinions, and so-called rational conclusions (which I find annoying, BTW), and I am giving Scripture. Which one do you think I'm gonna find to be convincing?




They don't reproduce like we do

What, they do it differently? Different position, perhaps? ;)

[middletree]

True enough...I just don't see him as being behind everything.

If humans were behind much of our sin, why would Paul tell us in Eph 6 that our enemy is not human (flesh and blood)?

[onesawthelight]

And I'm saying we won't know until Satan is done away with. Because none of us has ever been without Satan's influence. Just pick up a daily newspaper, and most stories will be more evidence of his work in the world.

Agreed...Satan has influenced us all. I'm still saying he is not the cause of all sin. As I said before...who tempted Satan into sin?

[onesawthelight]

If humans were behind much of our sin, why would Paul tell us in Eph 6 that our enemy is not human (flesh and blood)?

I never said humans were behind our sin...I said we can chose to sin without help from Satan or his ilk. Obviously Satan is the driving force behind all things evil...which is why Paul writes about him. I never disputed that.

[Musicdude]

Calling me a liar?
Um...defensive much? No I wasn't calling you a liar. I didn't say it was "intentionally misleading."

Don't know, and can't say that I care. It's irrelevant. I'm talking about humans. That was very clear from my first post on this sub-topic.
Sin is sin, regardless of who commits it. I would think the same rules apply for all sinners.

Not only is he capable, but I have given ample Scriptural support. Ok.



Not an accurate statement. Refer to my Saving Private Ryan example. How many Germans does it take to fire automatic weapons at you till you feel bullets are coming from all directions?
I don't know, but it isn't scriptural anyway.

Besides, there are most likely hundreds of thousands or millions of them. I'm not gonna take time to support that, as it's generally agreed upon. Feel free to look it up.
There are more than millions of people alive on this planet right now.

Seriously, you guys are all giving opinions, and so-called rational conclusions (which I find annoying, BTW), and I am giving Scripture. Which one do you think I'm gonna find to be convincing?
You are giving your opinions too. Just because I don't always quote a scripture reference doesn't mean that my opinions aren't based in scripture just as much as yours are.

I didn't pull the 1/3 of the angels number out of my butt, that came from scripture. I didn't just imagine that no one tempted satan, but he chose to sin for himself, that is scriptural too. I didn't conjure up the idea that satan's powers are limited and God's aren't. That is scriptural as well.

The only real opinion I gave that wasn't supported by scripture is the assumption that man would've eventually sinned even without satan's influence.

What, they do it differently? Different position, perhaps? ;)
They don't reproduce at all.

[Evanescence]

What about pagan christians?

[middletree]

What about pagan christians?

I have no inclination to find out how they reproduce.

[Evanescence]

There's a small group of Pagan Christians...

Not sure what they're all about....

[Musicdude]

There's a small group of Pagan Christians...

Not sure what they're all about....

That's an oxymoron.

[Evanescence]

Like Christian Swingers? They exist too...

Just a label and do whatever....

[Musicdude]

Like Christian Swingers? They exist too...

Just a label and do whatever....

Well, it's worse than Christian Swingers, IMO, because Christians can actually swing if they so choose. But a Christian can't be a Pagan, even if he wants to. He must be either or, but they are mutually exclusive by definition.

Of course the definition of Paganism depends on who you ask, but as I understand it, what I believe the widely accepted definition is "non-Christian."

So saying I am a Christian Pagan is like saying I'm a Christian Non-Christian. So one cancels the other out and you are nothing at all. lol

[Evanescence]

Like a Conservative Liberal...:cool:

[Jesuslove]

There's a small group of Pagan Christians...

Not sure what they're all about....

I think they celebrate Christian traditions on Pagan holidays.

Wait a minute... Christians do that too....

[Valpo]

Well, it's worse than Christian Swingers, IMO, because Christians can actually swing if they so choose.


I love sarcasm! Thanks, bro.

[Musicdude]

I think they celebrate Christian traditions on Pagan holidays.

Wait a minute... Christians do that too....

Not all Christians, see Middletree for details. ;)

[Musicdude]

I love sarcasm! Thanks, bro.

I don't get it?

[Valpo]

I don't get it?

Just that you were obviously being sarcastic that Christians could be swingers, as in wife swappers. Because obviously Christians cannot, that goes against God's created order. That whole one man/one woman thing. I found it funny? Were you being serious?

[Musicdude]

Just that you were obviously being sarcastic that Christians could be swingers, as in wife swappers. Because obviously Christians cannot, that goes against God's created order. That whole one man/one woman thing. I found it funny? Were you being serious?

No, I was being serious. They of course shouldn't be swingers, but it is possible to be saved and still sin in that way, especially if they were saved and later became swingers in a period of carnality.

It's unlikely, and clearly wrong, but I think it's possible.

[Valpo]

No, I was being serious. They of course shouldn't be swingers, but it is possible to be saved and still sin in that way, especially if they were saved and later became swingers in a period of carnality.

It's unlikely, and clearly wrong, but I think it's possible.

ehhh, anything is possible with God. I think the situation depends on its context. If someone asks you, you being a Christian, if Christians can "swing" you should ask them, "why do you ask?" If they're looking for permission to swing to tell them, "absolutely not." If they're ridden with guilt over a past of swinging and need to hear the Gospel, I think you can then tell them they are forgiven.

Swinging though man that's a new one. The above question, "Why do you ask?" works well as a response in a lot of situations. Abortion is definitely another one.

[middletree]

No, I was being serious. They of course shouldn't be swingers, but it is possible to be saved and still sin in that way, especially if they were saved and later became swingers in a period of carnality.

It's unlikely, and clearly wrong, but I think it's possible.

Exactly. It's possible to be a Christian and engage in pretty much any kind of sin. Your status as a Christian is not dependent on whether you fall or not.


Goes back to that list of definitions from scripture about what it takes to be saved.

[Jesuslove]

Exactly. It's possible to be a Christian and engage in pretty much any kind of sin. Your status as a Christian is not dependent on whether you fall or not.


Goes back to that list of definitions from scripture about what it takes to be saved.

I love your new Sarah avatar. It will remind me constantly WHY I didn't vote for her!

[Valpo]

Exactly. It's possible to be a Christian and engage in pretty much any kind of sin. Your status as a Christian is not dependent on whether you fall or not.


Goes back to that list of definitions from scripture about what it takes to be saved.

Your status before God matters not on how you perform works of the Law, but your status in the world surely does. Christians should not do a lot of things. Unfortunately we do. And we rest in the forgiveness of Christ because of that. But it is in no way profitable to tell a Christian they can live licentiously because "it doesn't matter." It does matter, we're called to live above that.

I would also argue your performing anti Christian acts can and will lead to a loss of faith/salvation. You wind up doing this to yourself. It's all about applying it where it is needed. If someone is asking you if they can be a Christian and swing you ask them why they ask. If they say bc they think swinging looks like fun, you tell them NO. If they say it's because they know someone or have themselves (swung?) in the past and now the conscience is guilt ridden over it, you can surely pronounce forgiveness to them. Jesus forgives ALL sin, without exception. Jesus also told those he forgave to "go and sin no more." With a lot of these situations it helps to know the context/background.

[middletree]

But it is in no way profitable to tell a Christian they can live licentiously because "it doesn't matter."

You are very gifted at putting words in my mouth. Please stop. I've had enough. I never said it doesn't matter. Our sin absolutely matters. That wasn't the question. The question was whether commission of one particular sin can make a person a non-Christian. I say no.

Now, you make the case that repeated rebellion can have an effect on one's salvation, and that's another can of worms. But that wasn't the question.

A sure sign that someone has nothing intelligent to say in a debate is when they change the question, or put words in someone else's mouth. You have done both with your latest post.

[middletree]

I love your new Sarah avatar. It will remind me constantly WHY I didn't vote for her!

Gee, I thought it was because of the positions she takes on various issues.

Oh well, your criteria is a valid one, I guess. We all know that no Democrat could ever wink like that.

[Valpo]

You are very gifted at putting words in my mouth. Please stop. I've had enough. I never said it doesn't matter. Our sin absolutely matters. That wasn't the question. The question was whether commission of one particular sin can make a person a non-Christian. I say no.

Now, you make the case that repeated rebellion can have an effect on one's salvation, and that's another can of worms. But that wasn't the question.

A sure sign that someone has nothing intelligent to say in a debate is when they change the question, or put words in someone else's mouth. You have done both with your latest post.

I'll chalk it up to an online discussion. I was responding to your post and speaking in generalities. I am not putting words in anyone's mouth. But when you (now I'm speaking directly at you) put things up for the world to read that say a Christian "can" participate in unchristian behavior you open yourself up for criticism/correction. Sorry if you don't like that.

You and Musicdude are both saying Christians can practice some form of polygamy and still be Christian. I am saying if someone asks the question, "Can a Christian be a swinger?" you (you or in general) ask them "why?" If they say "Because I am interested in swinging" you say to them, "No, a Christian cannot practice 'swinging.'" If they are guilt ridden by their sin of swinging then you have all the right in the world to tell them that sin has been covered by the blood of Jesus. But in no way can we give off the impression that Christians can live licentiously.

[Jesuslove]

We all know that no Democrat could ever wink like that.

Thankfully, you are right.

[middletree]

But when you (now I'm speaking directly at you) put things up for the world to read that say a Christian "can" participate in unchristian behavior you open yourself up for criticism/correction. Sorry if you don't like that.
.

I don't like being "corrected" by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. Might want to keep your corrections to yourself if you're not actually, you know, correct.

[Valpo]

So what is that I don't know what I'm talking about then? Instead of telling me I don't know what I'm talking about why don't you show me where I am wrong? Because it is not correct to tell someone who wants to live/is living licentiously that "it's okay" or any variation of that. And yes that is what you say when you state "Exactly. It's possible to be a Christian and engage in pretty much any kind of sin. Your status as a Christian is not dependent on whether you fall or not." A Christian should not engage in pretty much any kind of sin. Repentance and forgiveness is needed in those instances. It's all about knowing when to apply a word of Law to someone and when to apply the Gospel.

Someone who is engaging in sinful activity and either is unrepentant or doesn't realize what they do and claims to be a Christian is not to be told "your status as a Christian does not depend on this" because it can and in many cases does effect their "status." St. Paul warns against this. They need to be told they shouldn't do that and a Christian, an imitator of Christ set a part by God, just doesn't behave that way.

Someone who engaged in sinful activity and is troubled by that particular sin do not need to hear any further that a Christian shouldn't behave that way because they know that. What they need to hear is the Gospel telling them that even that sin is forgiven.

[middletree]

When I say you don't know what you are talking about, I mean you didn't understand what I meant. And I can't help you if you misinterpret my meaning. That's on you.

I said it's possible for someone to engage in sin and still be a Christian. It is. That's all I said. You then went and extrapolated into various what if scenarios, but you didn't get what I was saying. In that, you didn't know what you were talking about.

[Valpo]

I went on about one scenario (possibly two?) that completely applied. Obviously Christians engage in sin. But Music Dude set up the whole thing by saying people can openly practice swinging and be a Christian/Christians can openly practice swinging. You seemed to hop on board with that. I used the scenarios to show when it would be "ok" to say one can be a Christian and engage in swinging and when it would not be ok to say one can be a Christian and engage in swinging.

I understood what you were saying.

[sandie]

Gotta love this thread. It's changed from opinions about Halloween to polygamy and wife swapping. :P

[Musicdude]

I'll chalk it up to an online discussion. I was responding to your post and speaking in generalities. I am not putting words in anyone's mouth. But when you (now I'm speaking directly at you) put things up for the world to read that say a Christian "can" participate in unchristian behavior you open yourself up for criticism/correction. Sorry if you don't like that.

You and Musicdude are both saying Christians can practice some form of polygamy and still be Christian. I am saying if someone asks the question, "Can a Christian be a swinger?" you (you or in general) ask them "why?" If they say "Because I am interested in swinging" you say to them, "No, a Christian cannot practice 'swinging.'" If they are guilt ridden by their sin of swinging then you have all the right in the world to tell them that sin has been covered by the blood of Jesus. But in no way can we give off the impression that Christians can live licentiously.

God's grace is not a secret. If a sinner tells me they want to be saved, and asks me how. I don't tell them stop sinning. I tell them put their faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins and eternal life.

Honesty about what the bible says is the best policy. Your stance on this issue kind of leaves out the conviction of the Holy Spirit. If someone is sinning like that and they become saved, they will be convicted of their sins. We don't have to convict them.

You seem to be worried that if they find out the truth about OSAS they will just take their eternal life and keep on swinging the rest of their lives. If they truly believed and it wasn't just a show, then God will start working on their hearts. And they will not give up swinging because you make them feel like they have to or they won't be saved, but they will do it because they want to.

[Musicdude]

I went on about one scenario (possibly two?) that completely applied. Obviously Christians engage in sin. But Music Dude set up the whole thing by saying people can openly practice swinging and be a Christian/Christians can openly practice swinging. You seemed to hop on board with that. I used the scenarios to show when it would be "ok" to say one can be a Christian and engage in swinging and when it would not be ok to say one can be a Christian and engage in swinging.

I understood what you were saying.

If I know an unbeliever who is a swinger, I would be much more concerned about their salvation than their personal sins. Ever heard "You catch-em, and God will clean-em?"
I don't know any swingers. But I have family that is homosexual and unsaved. And when I talk to them about Jesus, I never bring up homosexuality because that is not the issue. They aren't going to hell because they are homosexuals. They are going to hell because they don't believe in Jesus Christ.

It's not our jobs to convict people of their sins. And you know what, swinging isn't any worse a sin than lying, but it's just more obvious. And if I lead a person to Christ, and maybe they do repent of the sins that they are aware of, but they have something in their life that they don't realize is sinful, and so they don't repent of that one, are they still saved if they put their faith in Christ? Yes.

Will the Holy Spirit show them as they grow in Christ the areas of their lives where they need to die to their flesh? Yes.

Should I somehow withhold the gospel becuase a person is a swinger? Gay? Adulterer? Incestuous? Liar? Thief? Prostitute? Covetous?

I'm glad God didn't do that to me, because I had a major problem with pornography (which falls into the same sin category as swinging and every other sexual sin). I honestly didn't think it was sinful for a long time. And when I found out that it was, I still didn't repent for years to come.

Knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt (as I did during that time) that I could never lose my security in Jesus Christ, because I was sealed by the Holy Spirit and an adopted child of God, and heir with Christ, was crucial to coming closer to God in a personal relationship.

How close of a relationship are you going to have if you know in the back of your mind that if you ever mess up too bad he will kick you to the curb? And you don't really know where that line is, but you know if you cross it, the love and grace will be over. That's not a relationship I want to have with God or with my earthly father. That's exactly what you are implying.

And coincidentally, having that eternal security in Christ didn't stop me from eventually repenting of my sin of lust. So it's not dangerous to tell an unbeliever that they need to worry more about what they think of the Christ, than trying to quit sinning in the stength of the flesh (which is impossible anyway.)

I am not going to mislead someone about God's grace, just because I am worried that if they understand it they will abuse it. I trust the Holy Spirit more than that.

[middletree]

Gotta love this thread. It's changed from opinions about Halloween to polygamy and wife swapping. :P

Sadly, there are no pictures.

[Musicdude]

Sadly, there are no pictures.

She looks like she has something in her eye.
Here ya go. :)

[Valpo]

I was referring to the idea that someone who is a Christian, as in the now and present tense, who practices swinging should be told to stop. Period. I am not talking about unbelievers, but over time people who go from unbelievers to believers also should stop sinful lifestyle or at least be repentant of it.

If someone is lying overtly and constantly and purposely they too need to be told to stop. It's not about being perfect but when one is a Christian it is perfectly okay to call them to task to be a Christian. We are creatures created anew bought by the precious blood of Jesus. It is very okay to expect/require Christians to behave differently. Or to at least have them work at it.

What they "do" has no bearing on their standing with God, however. They can do all the glorious works in the world and those works still be filthy rags before God. But once someone is a Christian it is their duty as being changed by the Gospel to go out and do what a Christian does. Our purpose on earth is to serve our neighbor. Living licentiously does not do that all too well. Especially if we want our neighbor to come to faith. How do we show them we are set a part? By living just like pagans do? Or by joyfully going about our work and witnessing to what we know?

I am really having trouble why you all can't follow the scenarios, I made it clear it depends contextually and does not mean you have to be perfect to be a Christian.

And OSAS is hardly truth. St. Paul makes that very clear. Galatians is written to a people who followed the true Gospel and began following "another gospel." If OSAS were true, Paul would not have been so adamant about following the true Gospel. You can lose your salvation by living licentiously in sin and craving that sin until it brings you down to a place where you disregard God and lose faith. That does happen. People do reject the grace of God. The nation of Israel did it, and people still do it today.

There are models all over scripture for people to engage others and tell them their behavior is unacceptable (Israelites and Christians are told this). This does not equal "having it all together" before being able to be a Christian. It means once you are a Christian you start living like one because you are created anew. I know I'm still yet a wretched sinner and I daily remember my baptism and go about my life. I fail all the time. But because I fail that does not mean we say it's ok..." The only way you can say it's ok is in the context of that sin troubling my soul has been covered by the blood of Christ. If I don't know I'm sinning/don't care that activity has the potential to bring me down hard.

And how does evangelism start with the Gospel? People do not know they need a savior. This is where the Law comes in as being very useful. People recognize death exists and they recognize that humanity seems to have been wired to understand certain behaviors as wrong or unlawful (murder, theft, adultery, coveting, bearing false witness, sound familiar?) and when they realize they are sinners in need of a savior, then the Gospel can be applied to welcome them into the Kingdom of God. And if they are not baptized, then they go be baptized because as St. Peter says in Acts 2, "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Again, not about having everything or even anything really all that correct to be a Christian. It is about knowing how to contextually apply what needs to be said to someone at any given time. Because it does in fact matter. God does not "kick people to the curb" people certainly have the potential to do it to themselves however. At the end of the day, recognizing my failures, I rest in the grace of God for sure. But someone who doesn't know they are sinning/doesn't care that sin can and will damage their lives and the lives of maybe their wife, children, or neighbor and that needs to be accounted for.

[Evanescence]

I agree with Valpo... :cool:

[middletree]

I agree with Valpo... :cool:

About what?

I don't care to get into the OSAS thing. That conversation is a bigger beating than a Celine Dion song. But the first part was him taking something I said, and then changing it, and arguing with me about something I didn't say. I have less respect for Valpo now than I ever have, because he seems to be more interested in winning a debate than anything else.

[Valpo]

I agree with Valpo... :cool:

Yikes, maybe I should revisit my argument! ;)

[Valpo]

About what?

I don't care to get into the OSAS thing. That conversation is a bigger beating than a Celine Dion song. But the first part was him taking something I said, and then changing it, and arguing with me about something I didn't say. I have less respect for Valpo now than I ever have, because he seems to be more interested in winning a debate than anything else.

I didn't bring up OSAS, I was addressing the claim that it is "the truth." I'm sorry you lost more respect for me than you ever have. Maybe, just maybe, you should learn how to engage in conversation. Your flippant dismissal of the law and of people who disagree with you is tiring. I knew exactly what you were saying and was showing you how in specific contexts that would be okay to say but how in other contexts it would not be okay to say. So in other words, I know what you said but I disagreed with it at some level. You took it another way.

It's obvious you're not interested in dialogue, just flippantly dismissing people and ideas. This is an online forum, there will be disagreement and there will be discussion.

Music Dude and I disagree all the time, I never lose any respect for him though.

[Musicdude]

I was referring to the idea that someone who is a Christian, as in the now and present tense, who practices swinging should be told to stop. Period. I am not talking about unbelievers, but over time people who go from unbelievers to believers also should stop sinful lifestyle or at least be repentant of it.

If someone is lying overtly and constantly and purposely they too need to be told to stop. It's not about being perfect but when one is a Christian it is perfectly okay to call them to task to be a Christian. We are creatures created anew bought by the precious blood of Jesus. It is very okay to expect/require Christians to behave differently. Or to at least have them work at it.

What they "do" has no bearing on their standing with God, however. They can do all the glorious works in the world and those works still be filthy rags before God. But once someone is a Christian it is their duty as being changed by the Gospel to go out and do what a Christian does. Our purpose on earth is to serve our neighbor. Living licentiously does not do that all too well. Especially if we want our neighbor to come to faith. How do we show them we are set a part? By living just like pagans do? Or by joyfully going about our work and witnessing to what we know?

I am really having trouble why you all can't follow the scenarios, I made it clear it depends contextually and does not mean you have to be perfect to be a Christian.

I'm with you up to this point. And after reading this I'm not sure what it is we disagree about.

And OSAS is hardly truth. St. Paul makes that very clear. Galatians is written to a people who followed the true Gospel and began following "another gospel." If OSAS were true, Paul would not have been so adamant about following the true Gospel. You can lose your salvation by living licentiously in sin and craving that sin until it brings you down to a place where you disregard God and lose faith. That does happen. People do reject the grace of God. The nation of Israel did it, and people still do it today.

There are models all over scripture for people to engage others and tell them their behavior is unacceptable (Israelites and Christians are told this). This does not equal "having it all together" before being able to be a Christian. It means once you are a Christian you start living like one because you are created anew. I know I'm still yet a wretched sinner and I daily remember my baptism and go about my life. I fail all the time. But because I fail that does not mean we say it's ok..." The only way you can say it's ok is in the context of that sin troubling my soul has been covered by the blood of Christ. If I don't know I'm sinning/don't care that activity has the potential to bring me down hard.

And how does evangelism start with the Gospel? People do not know they need a savior. This is where the Law comes in as being very useful. People recognize death exists and they recognize that humanity seems to have been wired to understand certain behaviors as wrong or unlawful (murder, theft, adultery, coveting, bearing false witness, sound familiar?) and when they realize they are sinners in need of a savior, then the Gospel can be applied to welcome them into the Kingdom of God. And if they are not baptized, then they go be baptized because as St. Peter says in Acts 2, "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Again, not about having everything or even anything really all that correct to be a Christian. It is about knowing how to contextually apply what needs to be said to someone at any given time. Because it does in fact matter. God does not "kick people to the curb" people certainly have the potential to do it to themselves however. At the end of the day, recognizing my failures, I rest in the grace of God for sure. But someone who doesn't know they are sinning/doesn't care that sin can and will damage their lives and the lives of maybe their wife, children, or neighbor and that needs to be accounted for.

I'm not going to get into this either, because we've done it before and it didn't really accomplish anything. Better men of God than myself have argued more eloquently than I for the validity of the OSAS doctrine, and though I've made efforts in the past to convince you and others, it seems you've made up your mind, and that's fine. To me if it's true that my own efforts cannot earn salvation no matter how seemingly good they are, then it would follow that my evil deeds, not matter how evil could not seperate me from God either. And there are plenty of other ways to prove OSAS, but to me that's the main one. You are a big advocate of giving all the credit to God for salvation (and so am I), and saying that not even our faith is our own, but a gift from God, and we can't choose God on our own, because that would be a work, and we are not saved by works. Correct? Then from that perspective it makes absolutely no sense to me how a man, once alive could choose death. If we don't have the power to grant ourselves eternal life, then how can we have the power to remove it?

I said I wasn't going to get into it, but obviously I did a little. I'll drop it now.


FWIW, the law is an integral part of my evangelism technique. So we are agreed there.

[Musicdude]

I didn't bring up OSAS, I was addressing the claim that it is "the truth." I'm sorry you lost more respect for me than you ever have. Maybe, just maybe, you should learn how to engage in conversation. Your flippant dismissal of the law and of people who disagree with you is tiring. I knew exactly what you were saying and was showing you how in specific contexts that would be okay to say but how in other contexts it would not be okay to say. So in other words, I know what you said but I disagreed with it at some level. You took it another way.

I think in a discussion among believers, none of which are swingers (I am assuming) it's ok to say.

It's obvious you're not interested in dialogue, just flippantly dismissing people and ideas. This is an online forum, there will be disagreement and there will be discussion.
He has major "putting words into my mouth" issues. I think it might stem back to his childhood or something. lol Just kidding.

Music Dude and I disagree all the time, I never lose any respect for him though.
Thanks. Back at ya.

[Musicdude]

So nobody thought my Visine thingy was even remotely amusing? Man. Tough crowd. :D

[Valpo]

[QUOTE]

I'm not going to get into this either, because we've done it before and it didn't really accomplish anything. Better men of God than myself have argued more eloquently than I for the validity of the OSAS doctrine, and though I've made efforts in the past to convince you and others, it seems you've made up your mind, and that's fine. To me if it's true that my own efforts cannot earn salvation no matter how seemingly good they are, then it would follow that my evil deeds, not matter how evil could not seperate me from God either. And there are plenty of other ways to prove OSAS, but to me that's the main one. You are a big advocate of giving all the credit to God for salvation (and so am I), and saying that not even our faith is our own, but a gift from God, and we can't choose God on our own, because that would be a work, and we are not saved by works. Correct? Then from that perspective it makes absolutely no sense to me how a man, once alive could choose death. If we don't have the power to grant ourselves eternal life, then how can we have the power to remove it?

In an effort to help understand where I am coming from, because I know it can be confusing, I will answer this and then abide by the request to not talk about it. Though if you wish to respond to me I have no problem with that, I'll let your response rest as the final word on the issue.

I am quite the advocate that in our salvation it is 100% God. When I argue against people with that it is in the context of someone else claiming that obedience or "works" of some sort are needed in order for our salvation. God saves 110%, I believe scripture testifies to this all over the place.

I also believe scripture testifies that those who are lost are 100% responsible for their being lost. This is because God does not will any be lost, but that all come to believe in the Gospel. This does not mean that even coming to faith is an action of our own even in the smallest percentage. God saves us wholly beyond 100%, if we fall from faith or reject the Gospel it is 100% our responsibility since God does not will any be lost. This is a tension. I believe theology needs to be held in tension.

At the same time however, and we agree on this much as you stated above, when the creature is created anew the creature responds by doing works. God gets all the credit, but we still carry out works. Someone living in intentional and open sin does not get thrown out the door, but there needs to be accountability if that person is claiming to be a Christian. Aside the homosexuality, abortion, or swinging (can't believe swinging started this all), all sin needs to be accounted for and repented of because a Christian is called to a higher standard of living. That is why it is very appropriate to apply the Ten Commandments to a Christian because they are not laws given for people to help start up a nation, but they are given to the very people of God, of which we are a part.

An unbeliever can hear the Law and do it because it makes sense. In another instance one can hear the Law and be convicted by it and repent to turn to the Gospel. I would contend unbelievers do this in becoming believers and believers even do this because we do not have it all straight. And still yet another person can hear the Law as a believer and just joyously go about doing it because it's the right thing to do. Christians are called to that higher standard of living. It does not mean people have to have all their ducks in a row to "get in" but it does mean once you are in we expect you to act like one washed clean by the waters of holy baptism in which we are joined together with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God does this all to us, we respond.

The reason I do not believe OSAS is because St. Paul adamantly warns against falling from faith, and we see examples in both the Old and New Testaments of people falling from faith to their destruction. I don't choose to know how this can be, I just know that it is. I would say however that it would be very hard for one to lose their salvation. Because God has that claim on us, but if we reject it, we reject it. This is not God booting people out, this is us telling God we do not need him. I'm not talking about the Christian who sins and recognizes it and will continue to sin because they still have their flesh. I am saying it is wrong to tell someone they can engage in a certain behavior that can lead down the path of losing faith. When sin enters in it can do some horrific damage. Satan prowls around like a lion.

The Gospel, the promise, in all this is God claims us as his own. So at the end of the day when we feel beaten down by the Law or by our own failures and short comings we can rest at the foot of the cross and remember our standing with God as a child of God because of his Son Jesus Christ. The Christian clings to this promise as their source of life daily.

Paradox? Sure. I call it tension though. Theology has a lot of tension in it. It's about not falling off the horse either side and holding to that tension. Nobody said it was easy.




FWIW, the law is an integral part of my evangelism technique. So we are agreed there.

Fair enough, when you said "Gospel" you were encompassing the whole package. I now follow what you were saying even if I disagree with including the Law as part of the Gospel package. I would just distinguish them because the Gospel is the free gift, the Law is what we have to do (or can't do). But I follow you.

[Musicdude]

[QUOTE=Musicdude;1906672]

In an effort to help understand where I am coming from, because I know it can be confusing, I will answer this and then abide by the request to not talk about it. Though if you wish to respond to me I have no problem with that, I'll let your response rest as the final word on the issue.

I am quite the advocate that in our salvation it is 100% God. When I argue against people with that it is in the context of someone else claiming that obedience or "works" of some sort are needed in order for our salvation. God saves 110%, I believe scripture testifies to this all over the place.

I also believe scripture testifies that those who are lost are 100% responsible for their being lost. This is because God does not will any be lost, but that all come to believe in the Gospel. This does not mean that even coming to faith is an action of our own even in the smallest percentage. God saves us wholly beyond 100%, if we fall from faith or reject the Gospel it is 100% our responsibility since God does not will any be lost. This is a tension. I believe theology needs to be held in tension.

At the same time however, and we agree on this much as you stated above, when the creature is created anew the creature responds by doing works. God gets all the credit, but we still carry out works. Someone living in intentional and open sin does not get thrown out the door, but there needs to be accountability if that person is claiming to be a Christian. Aside the homosexuality, abortion, or swinging (can't believe swinging started this all), all sin needs to be accounted for and repented of because a Christian is called to a higher standard of living. That is why it is very appropriate to apply the Ten Commandments to a Christian because they are not laws given for people to help start up a nation, but they are given to the very people of God, of which we are a part.

An unbeliever can hear the Law and do it because it makes sense. In another instance one can hear the Law and be convicted by it and repent to turn to the Gospel. I would contend unbelievers do this in becoming believers and believers even do this because we do not have it all straight. And still yet another person can hear the Law as a believer and just joyously go about doing it because it's the right thing to do. Christians are called to that higher standard of living. It does not mean people have to have all their ducks in a row to "get in" but it does mean once you are in we expect you to act like one washed clean by the waters of holy baptism in which we are joined together with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God does this all to us, we respond.

The reason I do not believe OSAS is because St. Paul adamantly warns against falling from faith, and we see examples in both the Old and New Testaments of people falling from faith to their destruction. I don't choose to know how this can be, I just know that it is. I would say however that it would be very hard for one to lose their salvation. Because God has that claim on us, but if we reject it, we reject it. This is not God booting people out, this is us telling God we do not need him. I'm not talking about the Christian who sins and recognizes it and will continue to sin because they still have their flesh. I am saying it is wrong to tell someone they can engage in a certain behavior that can lead down the path of losing faith. When sin enters in it can do some horrific damage. Satan prowls around like a lion.

The Gospel, the promise, in all this is God claims us as his own. So at the end of the day when we feel beaten down by the Law or by our own failures and short comings we can rest at the foot of the cross and remember our standing with God as a child of God because of his Son Jesus Christ. The Christian clings to this promise as their source of life daily.

Paradox? Sure. I call it tension though. Theology has a lot of tension in it. It's about not falling off the horse either side and holding to that tension. Nobody said it was easy.






Fair enough, when you said "Gospel" you were encompassing the whole package. I now follow what you were saying even if I disagree with including the Law as part of the Gospel package. I would just distinguish them because the Gospel is the free gift, the Law is what we have to do (or can't do). But I follow you.

I have nothing to add to this.

I agree with most of what you said. And what I disagree with and why have already been established. I respect your beliefs, and I certainly see no reason for division just because they slightly differ from mine.

I also would note that I can see why you have come to the conclusion that it's possible to lose salvation, or more precisely to reject it after recieving it. There is biblical support for that concept. But I personally think there is more biblical support for the OSAS concept. I won't call anyone a heretic who doesn't agree with me on this.

[middletree]

I didn't bring up OSAS, I was addressing the claim that it is "the truth." I'm sorry you lost more respect for me than you ever have. Maybe, just maybe, you should learn how to engage in conversation. Your flippant dismissal of the law and of people who disagree with you is tiring. I knew exactly what you were saying and was showing you how in specific contexts that would be okay to say but how in other contexts it would not be okay to say. So in other words, I know what you said but I disagreed with it at some level. You took it another way.

It's obvious you're not interested in dialogue, just flippantly dismissing people and ideas. This is an online forum, there will be disagreement and there will be discussion.

Music Dude and I disagree all the time, I never lose any respect for him though.

1. I never said I lose respect for people because they disagree. Typical Valpo word-twisting. I specifically said that I would love for those who disagree to debate by presenting salient points. I lost respect for you because of the way you argued, not because you disagreed.

2. I was not flippant in any way. I was ready and willing to present scriptures and back up my position in other valid ways. It's hard to do, though, when the person on the other end is changing my words.

3. I do not dismiss the Law. I said it doesn't apply to me. You need to stop with the false accusations now. Period.

[sandie]

Sadly, there are no pictures.

Praise God for small mercies. :P

[Valpo]

1. I never said I lose respect for people because they disagree. Typical Valpo word-twisting. I specifically said that I would love for those who disagree to debate by presenting salient points. I lost respect for you because of the way you argued, not because you disagreed.

2. I was not flippant in any way. I was ready and willing to present scriptures and back up my position in other valid ways. It's hard to do, though, when the person on the other end is changing my words.

3. I do not dismiss the Law. I said it doesn't apply to me. You need to stop with the false accusations now. Period.

Music Dude and I seem to be able to hear each other and have a conversation. You do dismiss the law ("it doesn't apply to me"). Again, I fully understood your position and disagreed with it on some level. And then scripturally showed why and contextually showed why. Why others can see that and you can't is beyond me.

[middletree]

Music Dude and I seem to be able to hear each other and have a conversation. You do dismiss the law ("it doesn't apply to me"). Again, I fully understood your position and disagreed with it on some level. And then scripturally showed why and contextually showed why. Why others can see that and you can't is beyond me.

Saying it doesn't apply to me is not dismissing it. Are you dense?

[middletree]

I fully understood your position and disagreed with it on some level.
And I never said I care if you agree or not. But you threw out a false accusation that I called your bluff because you disagreed with me, which is untrue. For the tenth time, I'll say it once more: I don't freaking care if you disagree with me or not. I never had a problem with disagreement, only with word-twisting.

Sheesh!

[middletree]

Seriously, I see more mature debating methods at home, where I have 3 kids ages 8 and under! The amount of whining is about the same, though.

[Musicdude]

There's a sweet, sweet Spirit in this place....
And I know that it's the presence of the Lord. :o (Closest thing to a singing smilie I could find.)

[Salome]

There's a sweet, sweet Spirit in this place....
And I know that it's the presence of the Lord. :o (Closest thing to a singing smilie I could find.)

HAHAHAHA!!! :D

I so appreciate comic relief. Thanks for the laugh!

[Valpo]

Seriously, I see more mature debating methods at home, where I have 3 kids ages 8 and under! The amount of whining is about the same, though.

The whining your kids do must be rubbing off on you.