Coming Soon: Examining the Rapture doctrine!

I plan on posting a write up exposing the rapture doctrine soon so check back frequently!

An open invitation to debate...

Brother Andrew Richardson and I are extending an open invitation to debate online. I've tried to get some people to come to this blog and debate so that all the readers can view both sides of the argument and decide who represents truth and who upholds the false doctrines. Sadly, I've yet to have anyone take me up on my offer. So here is my formal challenge: If you disagree with anything I post here on Contending for the Faith then e-mail me and let me know that you think I am teaching something wrong. I will then create a post pertaining to that subject and we can go back and forth on the comments. I'm also open to doing Youtube video debates or possibly meeting in person to do a debate if the conditions are reasonable.

Also, I'd like to add, that whomever I debate on this blog must have some Bible knowledge. I'm not going to let just anyone spout off crack pot doctrine on a whim. So use a little common sense when I make this proposal and know that I am challenging someone that has a Bible knowledge.

My Christian Library

Recently I was asked if I would post a list of all the books in my Christian library. I decided to go ahead and do so in hopes that it will help with your studies of God's Word. I've included the author's last name in case anyone is interested in purchasing one of these books for their own library. So here they are (in no particular order):

Commentary on Romans - Whiteside
The Eternal Kingdom - Mattox
The Apostolic Fathers - Lightfoot
History of the Church Through the Ages - Brumback
The Story of the Restoration - Humble
How To Study The New Testament Effectively - Woods
Old Testament Bible History - Edersheim
The Temple - Edersheim
Sketches of Jewish Social Life - Edersheim
Manners and Customs in the Bible - Matthews
Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah - Edersheim
The Two Babylons - Hislop
Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles - McGarvey
Foxe's Book of Martyrs - Foxe
G. K. Wallace's Lectures on Denominational Dogmas
A History of Reformatory Movements - Rowe
A General Introduction to the Bible - Nix, Geisler
The Treasury of David 3 vol.
The Fourfold Gospel - McGarvey
New Testament Greek - Hewett
Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation - Cook, Wise, Abegg
Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words
Analytical Greek New Testament - Baker
Commentary On The Minor Prophets - Hailey
Hermeneutics - Dungan
Commentary on the Minor Epistles - Caton
A Return to Distinctive Christianity - East Tennessee School of Preaching & Missions
The Gospel Plan of Salvation - Brents
The Case for Christianity - East Tennessee School of Preaching & Missions
Living Soberly, Righteously and Godly - East Tennessee School of Preaching & Missions
Worthy is the Lamb - Summers
Smith's Bible Dictionary
Lands of the Bible - McGarvey
Commentary on Hebrews - Milligan
Greek English Lexicon of New Testament and Early Christian Literature - Bauer
Commentary on Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, & Romans - McGarvey
Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament - Gesenius
What is the church of Christ? - Howard
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
Illustrated Survey of the Bible - Tidball
The People's New Testament - Johnson
Josephus: The Complete Works
Why I'm a Member of the church of Christ - Brownlow
Halley's Bible Handbook
Commentary on Ephesians, Phillipians, and Colossians - Lipscomb
Tongues and the Holy Spirit - Pack
Rediscovering Expository Preaching - MacArthur

Arguments against baptism: What about the thief on the cross?

So, what about the thief on the cross? He wasn't baptized. That means you don't have to be baptized. Right...?

How often, when discussing the importance of baptism with certain denominational members, does the thief on the cross get brought in to the conversation? How often, in an attempt to negate baptism, does someone say, "Well the thief on the cross wasn't baptized and he went to heaven!" I'm almost willing to bet that many (if not all) of you have at one point in time heard the thief on the cross mentioned in regard to the necessity of baptism. But, is it a valid point? Does it hold water? Is the thief on the cross a pattern for New Testament believers to follow for their salvation? Can a person be saved like the thief on the cross today? Lets find out...

First, how do we know the thief on the cross wasn't baptized prior to his crucifixion? Where is it written in stone that he was NOT baptized? No one knows for sure but there are scriptures that suggest that it is possible the thief on the cross had been baptized. Notice...

Mark 1:4,5 - John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

During the time of John the Baptist many people throughout the region were being baptized. How can a person know for sure that the thief on the cross was not one of those that were baptized? Notice this passage in the gospel of John:

John 4:1,2 - When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

So, if John the Baptist baptized many people throughout the region of Judea and Jerusalem and Jesus' disciples baptized even more than John, isn't it entirely possible that the thief could have been included in this multitude of individuals?

Another point that should be pointed out is that the thief on the cross lived under the Old Testament Law of Moses. Why is this important to note? Because baptism is not an ordinance under the Law of Moses but the Law of Christ.

Hebrews 9:15-17 - And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Colossians 2:13,14 - And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

How are the above scriptures relevant to the thief? Because they explain that when Jesus died, he put a new wheel in place. A New Testament. Up until this point the Law of Moses had not been removed. This is important because it shows that the thief on the cross was not subject to the same Testament that we are.

Another thing I'd like to mention is simply: How many people today are hanging on a cross next to Jesus as the thief was? For those that use the thief as a crutch to denounce baptism: When you were saved, were you hanging on the cross next to Jesus at the time? This brings me to one last point. That point being that while Jesus was still on the earth He could forgive anyone's sin as He seen fit.

Mark 2:10 - But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)

This is perhaps the most important scripture in debunking the thief on the cross negating baptism argument. Plainly, it means that while Jesus was on this earth, He could look at you, and say, "Your sins are forgiven," and they would be. Therefore, the thief on the cross would not have needed to be baptized because the Lord Jesus forgave him right there on the cross. Now Jesus has ascended to heaven and sits on the right hand of God and we have His Holy Word (The Bible) that tells us how we get forgiveness of sin.

The fact of the matter folks is that Satan, through man-made ideas and doctrines, has turned the thief on the cross from the "Who" can be saved to the "How" to be saved. The thief on the cross was not meant to show how one can be saved but who can be saved. If Jesus can forgive a thief, He can forgive you also. This means that the thief on the cross should not be the person we pattern our salvation after.

In Paul's first letter to Timothy we read:

1 Timothy 1:16 - Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

Paul says that he is the pattern to us which should believe. Keeping that in mind, refer to Paul's conversion.

Acts 22:16 - And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Paul, in recalling his conversion, mentions the fact that he was told to be baptized and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord. This is the pattern to be followed folks, not the thief on the cross.

Communion - One Cup or Many?

There are many "church of Christ" congregations throughout the world that commonly practice the use of multiple cups in their observance of the Lord's Supper. I have no qualms in saying that among the church of Christ they (multiple cuppers) are in the majority. For the sake of edification and unity, I'd like to present this writing by Brother Ralph Lewis from the Breezy Lane church of Christ as a plea to the digressed churches, concerning this matter, to repent of their man-made doctrines and follow after the Word of God.

There are three ways to establish authority, or that which is to be practiced in the Church of Christ. These are by command, by example, or by inference. Besides these three I know of no other. There is an old saying which at one time was commonly recited by members of the Lord’s church, “Speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent”. If you were to follow this rule, you would only practice those things which have been spoken in the Bible, and you would not practice those things which have not been authorized by the word of the same. The standard of authority consisting of commands, examples, or inference was at one time commonly adhered to by members of the Church. Our authority will be established by commandment, example of a practice, or where a practice is necessarily inferred. If we can demonstrate that our practice is based on one or more of these, we will have established our authority.

Let me begin by saying that the contents of the cup which Christ picked up and blessed (gave thanks for) having been representative of his blood, I believe is agreed to by all. There is no argument on my part about the contents of the cup having been representative of the blood that Christ was to shed on the cross. I and others that are like-minded believe that the fruit of the vine contained in the cup continues to be representative of the precious blood of Jesus Christ.

The question then as I understand it is whether or not there are a certain number of cups prescribed to be used in the performance of communion.

For the purpose of establishing our authority for that which we practice, I will present here the texts that pertain to this question. In order to be fair to you, dear readers, and our subject I have excluded those portions of scripture in which metonymy is likely to have been employed in the use of the word “cup” for that which the “cup” contains. I will set forth here only those scriptures in which honest persons agree that no metonymy has been applied to the use of the word “cup,” or other pronouns used to represent the word “cup.” The portions of scripture are as follows:

Matthew 26:27 - And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it

Mark 14:23 - And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it

Luke 22:20 - Likewise also the cup after supper…

1 Corinthians 11:25 - After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped…

1 Corinthians 10:16 - The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?...

As I indicated previously, I have only included here those portions of scripture that are fairly agreed to by honest persons as pertaining to the literal use of the word “cup” or pronouns representing the word “cup.” I have presented in bold letters those words which are indicative of a literal cup and the pronouns that are used to represent a literal cup. Although these scriptures should require no explanation, for I suppose that a child in the first grade could understand the meaning of the bulk of them, nevertheless, apparently there are some that are either so dull of hearing, or so disingenuous, as to require that these simple words be expounded upon.

Matthew 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it

1. he took the cup -

He took the cup, a literal cup. The word cup here is from the Greek word poterion, which Greek English lexicons without fail render a cup or drinking vessel.

2. Drink ye all of it –

Spoken in modern English it would read: Drink all of you of it, or All of you drink of it. According to Strong’s the definition of the Greek word ek translated “of” in this instance is as follows: A primary preposition denoting origin (the point which motion or action proceeds), from, out (of place, time or cause; literally or figuratively; direct or remote). It is easily understood from this definition that the meaning of “of” in this instance is; from or out (of) place or origin or the point which motion or action proceeds. The motion or action contained in this phrase is “Drink”. The point of origin or place from which the motion or action (“Drink”) proceeds is (“it”). It is deduced from this that the proper understanding of our phrase thus far would be; “Drink ye all of (from) (out of) it.” On this note, I will proceed to the meaning of “it.” It is a pronoun. A pronoun is a part of speech that substitutes for nouns or noun phrases and designates persons and things, previously specified, or understood from the context. If this is not enough to inform you of the proper application of the word it as used in this case, I will provide you with the definition of the word it from Dictionary.com; A pronoun (used to represent an inanimate thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context. What becomes obvious then is that it is a pronoun substituted for the noun or noun phrase previously specified and contained in the context. The noun or noun phrase used in this context (Matthew 26:27) is “the cup”. Furthermore the definition of it conclusively shows that it is a pronoun used in this case to represent an inanimate thing, previously mentioned, and present in the immediate context. The inanimate thing previously mentioned and present in the immediate context is in fact “the cup”. The correct understanding of our phrase is as follows; “Drink ye all of (from) (out of) it (the cup). In modern English it would read: Drink all of you of (from) (out of) it (the cup,) or All of you drink of (from) (out of) it (the cup). Here, then, is Matthew 26:27 in its entirety with emphasis added in order to illuminate the proper understanding of it:

Matthew 26:27 - And he took the cup (literal cup), and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of (from) (out of) it (the cup).

I have now shown beyond all doubt, that in this verse the Lord took a literal cup, for which he gave thanks, and gave to them enjoined by the commandment for them all to drink from, or out of the cup. In effect, I have provided you with the direct commandment of the Lord.

I will now move on to the next verse for consideration.

Mark 14:23 - And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.

In light of the fact that I have already expounded upon “the cup” and also the definitions of the words “of” and “it,” I will not belabor these points, but instead refer you to the treatment of these contained in my comments on the previous verse.

Here, Mark harmonizes with Matthew as concerning the institution of the Lord’s Supper, or what is referred to in common usage by the Church as communion. Matthew says that Christ took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, who were his disciples, and commanded them to drink of (from) (out of) it (the cup). Mark says that Christ took the cup, gave thanks, gave to them, and then in obedience to the command of Christ (as quoted by Matthew) they all drank of (from) (out of) it (the cup). Since I have already provided definitions and treatments of the words employed, I will simply present here Mark 14:23 with emphasis added to indicate the proper meaning of this verse.

Mark 14:23 - And he took the cup (literal cup), and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of (from) (out of) it (the cup).

I have provided you here an example of the direct commandment of Christ being acted upon. Next I would like to present excerpts from two different scriptures. They read as follows:

Luke 22:20 - Likewise also the cup after supper…

Also:

1 Corinthians 11:25 - After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped…

In the interest of providing context, notice the words of Luke, “after supper,” and also the words of Paul, “when he had supped,” meaning after supper. The clear implication is that the Lord’s Supper was instituted following the Jewish Passover meal. In both instances there is reference to the taking of the same literal cup as referred to by both Matthew and Mark. Here then are two more accounts of the taking of one literal cup by Christ in the institution of the Lord’s Supper. In both of these cases the institution of one literal cup is necessarily inferred.

To suggest that in these texts the word cup, or pronouns representing the same, have been used in anything but a literal sense would be beyond the pale of reason and a violation of every rule of hermeneutics. I have provided the Lord’s direct commandment. I have given example where the commandment was acted upon. I have provided instances where the institution of one cup is necessarily inferred.

I have established my AUTHORITY; now concerning the feeble multiple cup scheme.

The only leg of support for the multiple cup congregations’ wobbly, three-legged stool is the place in scripture (Luke 22.17) where it says: “…Take this, and divide it among yourselves:” In an effort to lend credence to their invalid practice of the use of multiple cups, they have put forward the tenuous position that the word “divide” contained in this text is in reference to the cup taken by the Lord in the institution of the Lord’s Supper or communion, when in fact this text refers to the dividing of a cup taken during the Passover meal. This is the only place in all of scripture in which they can grasp at any semblance of authority by suggesting that to divide the cup would somehow mean to separate the contents into individual containers. In order to knock that single leg of support from beneath their precarious perch, I will present here in its entirety Luke 22:17, along with the context in which it occurs.

Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

Luke 22:16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

Luke 22:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

Luke 22:18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

It is quite preposterous to twist and pervert the scriptures so as to suggest that multiple cups were used in the institution of the communion, based on a reading of Luke 22:17. Are the multiple cup advocates so heretical as to emphatically state that Luke directly contradicts the testimony of Matthew (Matthew 26:27 - And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it) and Mark (Mark 14:23 - And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it)? The only way to reconcile the clear witness of both Matthew and Mark with Luke is to acknowledge that the cup in Luke 22:17 was a cup taken during the Passover meal and that the cup in Luke 22:20 (“…the cup after supper…” was in fact the communal cup instituted by Christ. When these verses are rightly divided, Luke harmonizes with both Matthew and Mark, and none of our honorable authors are seen to be in error or worse still, liars. In Luke 22:20 it says “Likewise also the cup after supper…” or after the Passover supper, which places the cup of Luke 22:17 squarely in the middle of the Jewish Passover meal. The words of the apostle Paul provide further support when he says in 1 Corinthians 11:25 “After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped…” meaning the cup after supper or after the Jewish Passover meal, in perfect agreement with Luke. The Holy Spirit is very precise when conveying the words of the Lord to mankind. The Holy Spirit has very deliberately drawn a clear contrast between a Passover cup of vs. 17 (that which was abrogated) and the communal cup of vs. 20 (that which superseded it). The alternative to this correct interpretation is your nonsensical rendering, in which the communal cup for some incomprehensible reason is referred to both before and after the breaking of bread. Take note of the words of several distinguished commentators on this subject:

Albert Barnes - Luke 22:17

And he took the cup and gave thanks - This was not the “sacramental” cup, for that was taken “after” supper, Luk_22:20. This was one of the cups which were usually taken during the celebration of the Passover, and pertained to that observance. “After” he had kept this in the usual manner, he instituted the supper which bears his name, using the bread and wine which had been prepared for the Passover, and thus ingrafted the Lord’s Supper on the Passover, or superseded the Passover by another ordinance, which was intended to be perpetual.

Adam Clarke - Luke 22:17

He took the cup - This was not the sacramental cup, for that was taken after supper, Luk_22:20, but was the cup which was ordinarily taken before supper.

Divide it among yourselves - Pass the cup from one to another; thus the cup which Christ gave to the first person on his right hand continued to be handed from one to another, till it came to the last person on his left.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown - Luke 22:17

took the cup — the first of several partaken of in this service.

divide it among, etc. — that is, It is to be your last as well as Mine, “until the Kingdom of God come,” or as it is beautifully given in Mat_26:29, “until that day when I shall drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” It was the point of transition between two economies and their two great festivals, the one about to close for ever, the other immediately to open and run its majestic career until from earth it be transferred to heaven.

The correct understanding of these scriptures shows a clear contrast between the customs of the Passover, of which Christ himself was the fulfillment, and therefore to be done away, with that of the institution of the communion, which was to remain. Notice the contrast:

Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

Luke 22:16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

Contrasted with:

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

These scriptures show the contrast between that which was to be done away and that which is to remain. Furthermore:

Luke 22:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

Luke 22:18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

Contrasted with:

Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Once again, Luke is contrasting the cup on the Passover table with the cup of the communion. It is obvious then, that Luke is in fact contrasting the Jewish customs of the Passover with those emblems to be associated with communion. It would appear that authority for multiple cups is of the most dubious nature, and that contention that the cup is to be divided into individual containers based on a reading of Luke 22:17, is a lonely position indeed. I must say that this is not in keeping with the doctrine of the Church of Christ. No true member of the Church would ever propose such a doctrine based on this suspect interpretation. Their position is not even based upon scriptures that deal with the institution of the communion.

I will now address another of the points that many multiple cup congregations cling to. They say that since there was a cup of the Lord in various congregations, that these various cups amounted to multiple cups, and therefore your illogical conclusion is that multiple cups are permissible in a single congregation. Notice the words of Paul:

1 Corinthians 10:16 - The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?...

Do they not understand that the cup of blessing was present in each individual congregation, and that therefore we can rightly refer to the cup being used by each individual congregation as the cup of blessing or the cup of the Lord? According to their argument, multiple breads might just as well be used because various congregations have their own loaf (bread) and therefore since collectively there is more than one loaf, multiple loaves could be introduced into a single congregation. It is the same argument, both without merit.

As has been pointed out previously, they have no authority for their practice.

Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

A little history lesson is in order. There was no such thing as a multiple cup communion set prior to 1893. It was invented by John G. Thomas, and was introduced into use in Churches of Christ by G. C. Brewer at Chattanooga, Tn. in 1913. The Church of Christ is supposed to trace its practice back to the first century.

To suggest that blessing a metal contraption full of Dixie cups and then distributing them somehow mirrors that which was performed by Christ is nothing short of blasphemy.

Mark 7:9 … Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

I understand their problem, although I do not sympathize with it. They claim to be members of the Church of Christ. They make their boast of having the word of God. They tell the other denominations that they “…speak as the oracles of God.” They say that they proclaim the correct PLAN OF SALVATION. They don’t use instrumental music in the worship service. In fact their claim of being the Lord’s church hinges upon the fact that they proclaim the word faithfully and keep the ordinances as delivered. They absolutely cannot admit under any circumstances that they have in fact deviated from the commandment of the Lord without their whole house of cards falling down. They must maintain the facade of authority and adherence to word of the God, because without it they are nothing but another denomination. In fact the Lord would hold the other denominations in higher esteem because: 2Pe 2:21 says “For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.”

In conclusion, many have asked “what is the significance of the cup” as though there were none. There is a story in the Old Testament which it would behoove the multiple cup advocates to read. The story is found in Leviticus 9:1 through 10:6. It tells of Nadab and Abihu the sons of Aaron. These two were so impetuous as to offer a “strange fire” upon the altar. Lev 10:1 “ And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.” Lev 10:2 “And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.”

They made the fatal error of assuming that the fire was the important thing, no matter the manner in which it was offered. Supporters of multiple cups assume that the fruit of the vine is the important thing regardless of the method by which it is administered. The moral of this example is that the fire and the fruit of the vine must be presented in the manner prescribed by the Lord. Multiple cuppers, just as they, are not at liberty to go beyond the commandment of the Lord, to do either good or evil of your own mind, but what the Lord says, that shall ye do.

Welcome to 2010...

2010 is officially here! I hope and pray, dear readers, that you all have a blessed year in 2010. A post on the Lord's Supper is coming soon!

Is Christmas really a Christian holiday?

It is December 25th 2009 and millions of people around the world are celebrating Christmas. Many of those do so in the declaration: Today Jesus Christ was born! Every year so-called Christians wage a war against secularism in a fight to put "Christ back in to Christmas." In there never ending crusade to uphold what they believe is right and true have they ever taken the time to stop and think: Is Christmas really a Christian holiday?

What does Santa Claus, reindeer, elves, Christmas trees, and mistletoe have to do with Jesus Christ? How did it come to be that these items became associated with Jesus? Why is December 25th declared to be the day of Christ's birth? There are answers to these questions if one will simply look.

Before I reveal to you some information concerning the origins of Christmas I would first like to start by saying that no where in the Bible can the word Christmas be found. I'd also like to point out that the customs and festivities that are a part of the Christmas holiday are never commanded by Jesus Christ or any of the apostles to be observed. The Bible says in 2 Timothy 3:16,17

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Notice 2 Peter 1:3

According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

If the Bible is used as our only guide and if the Word of God has given us all that we need to be furnished for every good work; where does that leave Christmas? Get your Bibles, dear readers, and search them front to back for the authorization to celebrate Christmas. You will not find it in there. Nope, not once. Based on that fact and considering the two scriptures I cited above, we can only conclude that Christmas is not part of God's plan for man. Why? Because it is not in God's word that He gave us!

Let me switch gears for a moment and take the time to give a brief explanation of the background and origin of the holiday we call "Christmas."

Christmas was actually adopted by the Roman Catholic church from paganism. The customs and traditions of Christmas really existed long before the apostate church at Rome. However, during the time of the Roman Empire, in order to gain as many converts as possible from paganism, the Catholics took their observances (One of which was the Saturnalia which was later renamed Christmas) and added a "Christian" spin to them. Any Google-ing will provide you with a more in depth look at the history of Christmas and where it originated. The point I make by bringing this up is this: Why would Christians want to honor and worship God by using customs and traditions that He Himself forbid?

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry
1 Corinthians 10:14 KJV

Anyone that is familiar with the Bible is most assuredly familiar with the fact that God hates idolatry.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exodus 20:3 KJV

Even if one were to strip Christmas of all its religious meaning they would still be left with customs upheld by heathens to worship false gods. Is God pleased with such behavior? Surely not.

We know that Christmas is most definitely not a Christian holiday because it is not in the Bible and Jesus never told us to observe his birth. What did Jesus tell us to do? We do know that he commanded us to observe his death:

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1 Corinthians 11:23-26
KJV

Christians are never instructed to observe the birth of Christ however they will fight tooth and nail to do so every year.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Matthew 15:9 KJV

Do most put up the same fight in order to observe His death as He instructed?

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Acts 20:7

Probably not.