CHRISTMAS: A CATHOLIC TRADITION

By Solomon Belete

A Response To Greg Koulkl’s Christmas Promoting Article

I read an article by Greg Koukl promoting Christmas, posted on brother Tesfaye Robele's Facebook page. Tesfaye Robele's prologue to the paper and Greg Koukl's apologetics for this Catholic tradition prompted my reaction to write a response. Therefore, you'll find Robele's prologue, Koukl's article, and my answer in that order.

Tesfaye Robele's prologue to the article reads: 

"Jehovah's witnesses do claim that celebrating Christmas (and everything associated with it) is a pagan origin! It is a logical fallacy to judge the truth or falsehood of a proposition on the basis of its source of what motivates someone to believe it (its genesis). In other words, the legitimacy (reliability) of sources or motives does not make a proposition true or false. Thus it is a fallacy to assume or conclude that religious beliefs or practices are false just because they are acquired by psychological dynamics or taken from the wrong origin (e. g. Learned from parents) or because people believe them in order to satisfy felt needs or their religious practices. The apologist Greg Kolukl has published an interesting article in this regard. Please see read it. 

Greg Koukl's article promoting Christmas:

The question of whether Christmas is pagan enters into the idea of cultural practices. Some have made the assertion that Christmas has pagan origins. Christmas does not have pagan origins, but there are winter celebrations that are pagan. There was, for example, a saturnal celebration around the time of Christmas that pagans celebrated, which was actually a temptation for Christians to participate in that had pagan content to it. So the church changed the day that they celebrated the birth of Christ. They used to celebrate it in the Spring. But the church said, We can celebrate it any time we want. Let's celebrate it at the same time the pagans are celebrating their pagan festival. It'll act as a contrast to that pagan festival because our celebration is the birth of the God-man, Jesus Christ. It has Biblical content. Plus it will protect Christians from being wooed away by this other celebration to participate in what was a pagan celebration. 

It was really a wise thing that they did and the kind of thing that many missionaries do even nowadays. They take the momentum of a cultural practice--a cultural practice that may even have religious content to it, offensive religious content--and they redeem that for Christianity. They redefine what people have been doing. They reinvest it with new meaning. They capture the cultural form and they reinvest it with spiritual meaning. 

By the way, there is an example of this in the Bible. Circumcision was practiced by the Egyptians before it was practiced by the Jews. It was a cultural practice which had some religious significance. God captured the practice, gave it to Abraham, reinvested it with new meaning and it became a religious rite for Abraham to worship his creator.

We think of circumcision as this really holy thing in the Old Testament associated with the covenant, which it was. But it wasn't that way originally. By golly, it seems to me that if God can do such a thing--take a practice that had heathen content to it, save the practice, reinvest new information to it--then it certainly is okay for the church to do it.

We've done that many times. We've done that in other cultures and it served to offer a springboard for us into cultures using cultural forms and reinvesting them with new meaning. If you read Don Richardson's books Eternity in Their Hearts or Peace Child, this is what he talks about. They captured cultural forms that had one meaning and reinvested it with a new meaning, and this became a springboard to reach into these cultures with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And we've done the same thing with Christmas.

Now there is nothing at all wrong with that. We're not celebrating a pagan holiday because the pagan holiday was the saturnal and we're not worshipping the god of Saturn, or whatever the content was. We are not doing that. If you listen to the words of the song "Oh Christmas Tree, Oh Christmas Tree," the original was written with the Christmas tree being a type of Jesus Christ. You look at the words and the gospel is in the words of the Christmas tree. So this is not a Christmas trees that we're putting in our house as an idol to some tree god, or something like that. No, this is a tree that we are using as a cultural expression that can be invested with religious meaning for the Christian. 

The same thing with the giving of gifts. That may have had a pagan meaning for others who practiced the other holiday. But for us giving of gifts is appropriate because it reflects the gift that God gave us in the person of Jesus. 

My point is that we have liberty in reinvesting cultural forms with spiritual meaning. We have done that with Christmas. I don't think there is anything wrong with that at all. I think it's good and healthy for us to do so.

I think it can be legalistic to say one should not celebrate Christmas. There are different ways the term legalism can be used. One way it's used is to mean that we take laws that aren't God's laws, but are in fact man's laws, and we make them equal with God's laws. For example, we take a man's law that says we shouldn't smoke. Now the Bible doesn't say we shouldn't smoke, it doesn't say you shouldn't drink, it doesn't say you shouldn't go to movies. We take our rules that we apply in our church or denomination and apply it to all Christians. That's a type of legalism. In other words, we make things wrong that the Bible doesn't make wrong. 

It appears that is what is going on with Christmas. If you celebrate the birth of Christ, then you're doing something wrong. My point is, this view is legalistic in that it makes things that aren't Scripturally wrong and it makes them wrong. It makes something a rule to apply to men when God didn't give them that rule. 

I think the practice of Christmas is fully legitimate even though there may have some pagan elements that were originally associated with a celebration at this time. That doesn't make our celebration of Christmas the same as that old celebration. In fact, it's quite different. We are celebrating the birth of Jesus. 

Now, we aren't obliged to do so. There is nothing in the Scripture that says that we ought to, but it strikes me that it is entirely appropriate. It is appropriate, but not obligatory. If you look back in the Old Testament, one of the things that God did is He arranged for the Jews to celebrate festivals that He established to remind themselves of the significance of that event by participating in these annual festivals year to year. 

Even Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights, wasn't given by God in the Scriptures. It's something that they do to recollect a deliverance, a special deliverance, that God gave them during what we call the inter-testamental period, those 400 years between Malachi and Jesus. Theirs is a festival that is commonplace now but which doesn't have its source in a direct command in Scripture; but it does function like many of those other things that are in Scripture. It reminds people year to year of God's faithfulness and His goodness. 

What we do on Christmas is focus on the birth of Jesus Christ. I don't understand how anyone can look at the Christmas carols that we sing during this time and say that this is pagan.

Even if the word Christmas came from the Catholic Christ Mass, it doesn't mean that now. This is a fallacy--going back to the original etymology of the word, and holding that if you say this word you are affirming that meaning instead of the meaning that you hold the word to have at the present moment. Words don't work that way. What the word Christmas means is the day that Christians celebrate the birth of Christ. That is what it means. There is not a bit of paganism in that, and for anyone to say that 500 years ago it meant this is inconsequential. It doesn't mean that anymore. When we say the word Christmas, we are not blaspheming. It just doesn't mean that. It just seems to be much ado about nothing.

Should a Christian celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ? That's really what we are talking about. Some say no. Why? Because when you celebrate the birth of the Messiah, you are doing something pagan. How does that make any sense? Should someone have a Christmas tree or stockings? That's a separate question. But should someone celebrate the birth of Christ? How could anybody object to that. I don't agree with the assessment of the stockings or Christmas tree either. Frankly, there are probably all kinds of things I could find in their daily life--their little habits and things that they do--that if you went back to their beginnings their foundation has all kinds of questionable ideology, but they don't have that significance for people now.

Actually, the language thing is a real important parallel because our words change meaning as time goes on. They are tokens for a particular meaning. At one point in history a word meant a particular thing, at a later point that word means something different so you can't say that when you use the term later on you're referring to the earlier meaning. That doesn't make sense.

By the same token, Christmas trees and gifts and stockings, and that kind of thing, are tokens also. Now tokens are only things that represent something else, like a bus token. A bus token represents a ticket to ride on the bus. It doesn't have meaning or value in itself; it's simply a token of something else. Technically, this other thing is called a type. Now it may have been that a Christmas tree was a token in the past of a pagan type. It betokened worshipping nature, for example. The Christmas tree for a Christian no longer betokens worshipping nature. It betokens worshipping Jesus. 

A Christmas tree doesn't mean anything to me. It means Christmas trees are part of Christmas. The significant point here is that my tree has no pagan content. That's the critical issue. There is a difference between the true meaning of Christmas and the spirit of Christmas. They are entirely different things. One of them is theological, the second one is emotional. 

The true meaning of Christmas has to do with Jesus Christ. It isn't about love, it isn't about giving, it isn't about peace on earth, it is about Jesus Christ. The other things may be related, but it isn't about those things. 

The spirit of Christmas, in my view, has to do with the feeling you have. The feeling is a result of your past experiences with Christmas. For me, the spirit of Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus. But this is why I can say, I have a Christmas tree not because the Christmas tree reminds me of Jesus, though I could imagine for some people it does, and if you were taught early on that the Christmas tree is representative of theological truth, then that becomes a theological meaning for you. But for me a tree and ornaments are just my cultural expression that has to do with the emotional impact with Christmas, and I think that's fine. 

MY RESPONSE TO GREG KOULKL’S CHRISTMAS-PROMOTING ARTICLE:

CHRISTIANS: LET'S UPHOLD THE SCRIPTURE OVER HUMAN WISDOM AND TRADITION

Brother Tesfaye mentioned the so-called "Jehovah's witnesses" take on Christmas. We all know where "Jehovah's witnesses" came from. Simply put, they're adherents of an unbiblical system of thought and belief designed by Charles Taze Russell and J. F. Rutherford. As the late Walter Martin put it in his essential book: 'The Kingdom Of Cults' pages 57 & 58: "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it is impossible to understand God's plan of salvation independent of this Russellite theology." Contrary to Scripture, they deny the deity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, among other things. That makes them a cult. To this end, I'm aware of brother Tesfaye Robele's labor in exposing the watchtower organization's real face.

My point is this: When it comes to doctrinal matters regarding Christian practice and living, I don't give a "you know what" to what "Jehovah's witnesses" say. Whether Christians should celebrate Christmas is a discussion within the family of believers.

Could December 25 or January 7 be the birthday of Jesus? What about the commercialized aspect of Christmas? These were some of the issues debated among Christians for many years. As a Bible-believing body, we ought to answer this fundamental question: "is it Biblical to celebrate Christmas?"

To examine any spiritual activity in terms of whether or not it is Biblical is a noble Christian practice. In this noble probe, as a Christian sheds light on the source and origin of a spiritual-religious tradition apart from the Biblical norm, we shouldn't be quick to label it a "logical fallacy.” Therefore, I respectfully disagree with brother Tesfaye’s assertion of equating such an effort with a logical fallacy. I can not imagine why examining the involvement of questionable parties and practices in the origin and invention of the Christmas holiday and ascribing that examination and concluding what Christmas is is considered a fallacy. The seasonal similarities of Christmas with that of saturnalia, the similarities in how the ancient winter festivals of Europe and Christmas were celebrated, and most of all, the motive and the unscriptural act of the Roman Catholic Church, which is the responsible party in ushering in this new holiday. All of these beg for an investigation. Therefore, I urge you to soberly read my rebuttal to Greg's argument for Christmas and try not to brush it as a logical fallacy broadly.

God has seriously warned His followers not to worship Him, so to say, in borrowed styles of pagan customs. See how He warned His people, the Israelites in the Old Testament and Christians in the New:

"When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations whom you go in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, take care that you be not ensnared to follow them after they have been destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods?—that I also may do the same.’ You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it." (‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭12‬:‭29-32‬ ESV)

"Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.” (‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭6‬:‭14-18‬ ESV)

From his blog, I gathered Greg Koukl, the author of the article in the discussion, is a fellow Christian brother. It is not clear (at least to me), however, why he is alluding to the Roman Catholic Church without mentioning her by name and defending her dubious act of christening the pagan holidays of Rome and, in addition to that, the invention of a new holiday: Christmas. What brother Kokul referred to as "the church" in his article is none other than the Roman Catholic Church. He also tried to explain away every potential issue regarding the celebration of the Christmas holiday to uphold the tradition of Christmas. Let's check his argument points:

1. WHY IS GREG DEFENDING THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, A HERETIC ORGANIZATION?

Well-meaning Christians around the world celebrate Christmas. Until recent years I was one of them. Like everything else in life, however, when I grew in wisdom and understanding exhibited behavioral changes. One of them is no longer associating the beautiful Biblical story of my Lord and savior’s birth with a human tradition that began with the Roman Catholic Church (herewith referred to as RCC). 

I am not a catholic, and therefore I choose not to celebrate Christmas, a dubiously invented holiday of the RCC. I think the nativity story of Bethlehem and its overarching theme of Jesus' first advent in the gospels is the most beautiful narrative ever written. The RCC, however, in its competition to gain more dominion over the pagan idol worshipers of the old, mashed up the pagan way of worshipping practices together with the Biblical account of Jesus' birth and subtly invented a brand new holiday and called it: "Christ's-Mass." Now the question for the Bible-believing Christian is: whether it is biblical to follow the leadership of this heretical organization or not. I chose the latter.

Many people, some of whom are family and friends, happened to be Catholics. I hope and pray that they understand the depth of deception they're in and come out of it. Nothing I say hereafter is intended to offend anyone; I'm only stating the facts.

From its inception in the 3rd century throughout its history, the RCC has demonstrated an astounding arrogance in positioning her authority on a par with the Bible and God Himself. "Christ's-mass" is not the only invention of the RCC. Allow me to mention some of the unbiblical heresies of this organization:

- Prayers for the dead,

- Venerations of angels and dead saints,

- The worship of Mary and the use of the term "Mary, mother of God."

- The establishment of the doctrine of purgatory,

- The use of Latin as the only language of prayer and worship in churches,

- The establishment of the office of the papacy,

- The kissing of the pop's feet,

- The authorization of cross worship, images, and relics,

- the establishment of a mass ritual,

- the use of "holy water,"

- the practice of canonizing dead saints,

- The use of rosary beads,

- The celibacy of the priesthood,

- The inquisition of heretics,

- The sale of indulgences,

- The dogma of transubstantiation,

- confession of sin to the priest,

- The adoration of the wafer,

- Forbidding the Bible to the laity,

- The invention of scapular fetishism,

- The doctrine of seven sacraments,

- The addition of apocryphal books to the Bible.

This same heretical organization responsible for the invention and practice of all of these and many other blasphemous acts is also responsible for creating and practicing the Christmas holiday. 

Well, if you're a Christian who happened to value being rooted in this dubious human tradition, think again. Jesus spoke in the gospel of Mark, quoting Isaiah saying:

"in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!" (‭Mark‬ ‭7‬:‭7-9‬ ESV)

What is Christmas?

As it shouldn’t be with any discerning disciple of Christ, we ought not merely walk away with a simplistic explanation thrown by Greg Koukl regarding the name of this holiday. If words mean anything, Christmas, suffice to say, the Catholic Church's mark is written all over it. It takes a simple observation to notice the association of a "mass" with Christmas.

What is "mass?"

It is regarded by many as the cornerstone of the catholic church's belief. There is no better way to explain what a "Mass" is than quoting a Catholic priest named John O'Brien In his book "The Faith of Millions." In this book, on pages 255-256, O'Brien described the mass as follows,

"When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command."

You see, the Christmas you didn't care to give much thought about its origin is intrinsically associated with the RCC blasphemous tradition of a mass. The RCC still practices a "Christ-mass" ritual, and how this organization performs the ritual is very telling.

Despite the clear fact laid out in the Bible about Jesus' sacrifice on the cross being a once and for all act (see Scriptures like Rom. 6:8-10, Hebrew 7:27; 9:11-28, etc.,) the Catholic Church believes otherwise and sought a need for a sacrificial system of worship and established just that, "A MASS." What an abomination! So, as a Bible-believing Christian, why adopt a strange invention of the RCC, "A CHRIST-MASS?" 

The RCC believes that the traditions of the church are as equally authoritative as the Scriptures. The question for you, my friend is this, if you're a Bible-believing follower of the Lord Jesus, then why are you following the unbiblical tradition of the RCC? Let me reiterate what I said earlier; I don't know about you, but I am not a catholic, and therefore I choose not to celebrate Christmas, a dubiously invented holiday of the RCC.

2. THE CIRCUMCISION ARGUMENT:

Greg mentioned the circumcision practiced by the ancient Egyptians before God made a covenant with Abraham and the actual covenant of circumcision recorded in Genesis 17. Then he tried to point a parallel between that and the origin of Christmas with the Roman celebration of Saturnalia. 

Greg wrote: "By golly, it seems to me that if God can do such a thing--take a practice that had heathen content to it ( HE IS REFERRING TO THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS PRACTICE OF CIRCUMCISION) save the practice, reinvest new information to it--then it certainly is okay for the church to do it. What is it that Greg said was "CERTAINLY OKAY FOR THE CHURCH TO DO?" He is referring to what the Catholic Church has done in the fourth century. That is, to take a practice that had heathen content to it (THE ROMAN'S WINTER FESTIVAL OF SATURNALIA,) save the practice, reinvest new information into it (IN OTHER WORDS, MASH UP THE HEATON RITUALS AND PRACTICES OF SATURNALIA WITH THE GOSPEL'S ACCOUNT OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS AND BRING ABOUT A NEWLY INVENTED HOLIDAY CALLED CHRISTMAS.) That is what he meant by "it certainly is okay for the church to do.”

This claim is a clever means to justify the Roman Catholic Church's act of inventing Christmas. What he said does seem like a sound argument on the surface; however, the problem with this argument is that it is just an assumption on Greg's part. We don't know whether God intended to: "TAKE THAT HAD HEATHEN CONTENT TO IT, SAVE THE PRACTICE, RE-INVEST NEW INFORMATION TO IT...AND REINVEST" the Egyptians' practice of circumcision. There is no mention of such a practice by God in the Bible, of our God adopting a pagan ritual and re-instituting it. God hates such activity. (See the scripture I mentioned earlier: Deuteronomy‬ ‭12‬:‭29-32‬ ESV)

All we know is that our God established circumcision as a perpetual reminder of the covenant that existed between Him and Abraham and his children. Abraham and his descendants exercised the mandate given to them by God and circumcised themselves. And according to the New Testament, all of us in Christ "...also are circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ" (‭Colossians‬ ‭2‬:‭11‬ ESV)

Whereas Christmas is a holiday invented by the Roman Catholic Church without a Scriptural mandate, there is no parallel between the biblical practice of circumcision and the heretical practice of Christmas. Therefore, Greg's extra-biblical reference to circumcision by ancient Egyptians to explain away the RCC's deeds is unacceptable.

3. THE ARGUMENT ALLUDED TO THE SIMILAR METHODS PRACTICED BY MISSIONARIES AROUND THE WORLD:

Greg wrote: "We've done that many times. We've done that in other cultures, and it served to offer a springboard for us into cultures using cultural forms and reinvesting them with new meaning."

Using pagan rituals and practices as a launching pad to communicate the gospel is another excuse Greg gave to indulge in pagan cultures. I disagree with that idea as well. The Christian missionaries' engagement in using idol worshipers' culture as a springboard to fulfill their mission needs to be scrutinized.

When Christians go about their business of mission, they should bear in mind the commandment given by The Lord Jesus, which states: 

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (‭Matthew‬ ‭28‬:‭19-20‬ ESV)

As you can see, ushering in a new holiday in the name of Christ is not in the commandment given by The Lord. Human practice and method, as mentioned by Greg, should not be the norm for a Christian's faith or practice but the word of God. Again, the principle the Lord set for us is straightforward and discerned by asking, "...What saith the scripture?" (‭Romans‬ ‭4‬:‭3‬ KJV)

We can learn a thing or two from the great missionary in that regard. Paul, the apostle, the great evangelist, used something he found amongst idol worshipers camp and used one of their worship items to open up a conversation about the Lord Jesus's gospel. (He captured the moment by making use of the name the Athenians assigned to their idol's altar as a springboard, if you will,) on the hills of Ariosphagos, Athens, Greek, Acts 17. But you don't see him adopting any of the Athenian's instruments of worship and constituting something new for the Church to do. 

Read what Paul said to the Athenians: "For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you." And he proceeded to proclaim the good news. He also made sure to tell them that the God of the Bible can not be served like their idols in one of their magnificent temples. He said: "The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything."

Paul in 1 Corinthians chapters 1 and 2 also reminded us that as we communicate God’s wisdom, who is Christ, not to rely on the wisdom and devices of the world which God made foolish. What pleased God was speaking God’s wisdom through the folly of preaching to save those who believe. He wrote:

“And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”— these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.” 1 Corinthians‬ ‭2:1-10‬ ‭ESV‬‬

“Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”” 1 Corinthians‬ ‭1:20-31‬ ‭ESV‬‬

4. GREG’S JUSTIFICATION OF THE RCC FOR  INVENTING THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY (IN HIS OWN WORDS) IS TO: "PROTECT CHRISTIANS FROM BEING WOOED AWAY BY THIS OTHER CELEBRATION TO PARTICIPATE IN WHAT WAS A PAGAN CELEBRATION."

You're right if you guessed that I disagree with Greg on this point as well. What a joke! As you can see, the RCC is championed by Greg for the concern she displayed toward the spiritual well-being of believers. The sad irony is that this same church is responsible for banning the laity from possessing and reading the word of God.

Christians should not practice discipleship by tricking their mission subjects and making them believe in dubious inventions and traditions. The right way of sanctifying believers to The Lord is by teaching them His word. Jesus himself prayed, "Father...Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth." (‭John‬ ‭17‬:‭17‬ ESV)

I know that brother Greg and most of you profess the sufficiency of Scripture. So, why not stand for it instead of giving in to the unscriptural human means to promote the Christian faith? Is that not a contradiction in standing? You confess that the word of God is sufficient for the work of God, and yet you upheld human methodology and tactics to advance your belief further. I believe the word of God that says:

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (‭2 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭16-17‬ ESV)

"The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes;" (‭Psalm‬ ‭19‬:‭7-9 ESV)

Therefore, the argument for Christmas by brother Greg presented in his article is not Biblical. Whether now or early in the 4th century, if one cares to "PROTECT CHRISTIANS FROM BEING WOOED AWAY BY THIS OTHER CELEBRATION TO PARTICIPATE IN WHAT WAS A PAGAN CELEBRATION," should have thought them biblical doctrine and faithfully continue to do so. 

Finally, I'd like to point out that there isn’t any constituted holiday by the Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament. There are, however, only two commemorative and symbolic ordinances given by the Lord to his church. Namely: the Lord's Table and water baptism. The Bible is clear about what we should commemorate, Jesus' death and resurrection, not His birth, Matthew 26 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-28.

Praise The Lord!