St. Paul's Sufferings for the Gospel sake.

St Paul was regularly attacked because of the faith, and eventually paid the highest price

St. Paul, who had one of the most famous conversions in the history of Christianity when God literally knocked him off his high horse as he traveled to Damascus to persecute Christians, had to suffer his own litany of abuses once he became one of those whom he had persecuted. Three days after Paul's conversion experience, in fact, Jesus appeared to the disciple Ananias, saying: “ …  this man is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites, and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name.”

The first persecution followed Paul’s preaching in Damascus, where he went with a completely renewed purpose after his conversion experience: to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Jewish synagogues. Having been trained as a bright young Jew by some of the top scholars of Jerusalem, Paul had a deep knowledge of Sacred Scripture and great rhetorical skills, which he lost no time in putting to use for Christ. So great a response was he drawing from the Jews there that the governor of Damascus promptly set out to kill Paul, setting guards around the city to capture him. But, as Paul himself related to the Corinthians, “I was lowered in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his hands.”

Paul’s home base eventually became the Christian community in Antioch, Syria, from which he embarked on many successful missionary trips to Asia Minor and Greece (Book of Acts) before tensions with some of the Jewish-Christian communities in Jerusalem led to a two-year house arrest, first in Cæsarea and then in Rome. Throughout these mission trips, Paul suffered multiple beatings from opposing groups. In Lystra, he was stoned by a group of Jews so badly that they left him for dead. St. Paul mysteriously alludes to “the marks of Jesus” on his body in Galatians 6:17. Some Scripture scholars believe he refers here to the scars left by this beating. Others suggest that he refers to the stigmata, the supernaturally bestowed marks of Christ’s crucifixion which some of the saints suffered.

After an intense missionary career spanning twenty years or more (45-66/67 A.D.), St. Paul (on the same day as St. Peter) paid the ultimate price for his Christian faith: martyrdom. He was beheaded outside the walls of Rome on June 29, 67 A.D., and remains one of the Church’s brightest witnesses of radical, self-giving discipleship.

Why Christians should not observe Christmas

Modern denominations, that claim to be Christian, observe various holy days in celebration of religious events. These holidays include Christmas, Easter, Lent, and many others. While you may read in the Bible about the events these days are supposed to memorialize, you do not find that the gospel tells us to celebrate these holydays in memory of these events. They have been developed by men over the centuries since the New Testament was written.

The purpose of this study is to examine these holy days and see what the Bible says about them.

Many people observe these days simply from habit. They may be awed or excited by the ritual surrounding Christmas, Easter, or Lent. Their churches celebrate the days, so the members participate without questioning whether or not they truly ought to be part of Christianity. It may never occur to these folks to question where these holidays came from or whether they are really right.
2 Corinthians 13:5 - Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves.
1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 - Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.
The question to be considered is whether these observances are pleasing to God. Note that we are studying the observance of the days as religious holy days. It is not our purpose to consider whether Christians may participate in various traditional or secular aspects of those days.

To please God, religious observances must be authorized in His word.

John 4:23,24 - Worship must be in spirit and in truth.
Matthew 15:9 - And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
The question we must consider is whether God has authorized these religious observances or whether they are human in origin.
To answer these questions, we must examine the various holy days to consider their origin and nature. We will do this by considering the claims made for these days by the groups that observe them (with a few general facts from competent encyclopedias). We will consider their own explanation of the days, what they mean, and where they came from. Then we will compare this to the Bible to find out if the Bible authorized them.

We will consider the three most commonly known and most widely practiced holy days or seasons (though there are many more that could be considered): Easter, Christmas, and Lent.

---

I. Nature and Origin of the Days

---

A. Lent

The meaning of the day

Catholic Dictionary: "Lent. A fast of forty days preceding Easter, kept, after the example of Moses, Elias, and above all, of Christ Himself, in order to prepare the faithful for the Easter feast ... It was a season of mourning, and hence the Church has always strongly discountenanced festivities of all kinds during Lent. Lastly, the body is mortified, in order that the soul may be invigorated ..." - p. 512, 514.
Ash Wednesday is the day when the Catholic church sprinkles ashes on the foreheads of members as a sign of penitence, especially for those who seek to be restored to communion on Easter.
A Catechism for Adults (Catholic): "The church's law of abstinence says that on certain days you may not eat meat ... What are the days of obligatory abstinence? Ash Wednesday and all the Fridays of Lent ... On these days, no meat may be taken at the full meal" - p. 132.
Baker's Dictionary of Theology (Protestant): "Lent. The forty days of fasting immediately preceding Easter, beginning on Ash Wednesday ..." - p. 320

Origin and authority for the day

"There is no mention in Scripture of the observance of Lent, or, indeed, of any determined time for fasting among Christians" - Catholic Dictionary, p. 512. They do claim, however, that there is historical evidence of a fast of some type before Easter dating back to or nearly to the first century.
"Not until much later (ca. seventh century) did the forty days' period become universally recognized in honor of our Lord's fast in the wilderness (Matt. 4:2). ... The name is derived from the old English lenckten, meaning the 'spring.'" - Baker's Dictionary, p. 321.

Summary

Hence, according to the statements of those who participate in lent, it is a period of forty days prior to Easter. People are to humble themselves by denying various pleasures and repenting. Its origin is not known exactly, but as practiced today goes back to the seventh century.
The Catholic church admits the practice of abstaining from meat at lent is a law made by the church and not found in the Scriptures (see quotes from Catechism and Dictionary above).
In contrast, by observing the Bible we can learn: The Bible mentions Jesus' forty-day fast (Matt. 4:2), but never uses the word "lent," never tells us to fast in memory of Jesus' fast, and never gives any set time for fasting at all. It rebukes those who would require abstaining from meats (1 Tim. 4:1-4).
We conclude that religious observance of lent is without God's approval or authority (2 John 9). The practice is human in origin, and therefore vain worship (Matt. 15:9).

B. Easter

Easter is the "feast of our Lord's resurrection" - Catholic Dictionary, p. 283.
"The annual festival of our Lord's resurrection ... It is at once the oldest and greatest festival of the Christian church, having been observed from very early times" - Baker's Dictionary of Theology, p. 175.

The Origin of the Holy Day

"The celebration of a special Paschal or Easter feast among Christians goes back to the remotest antiquity, though it is impossible to determine the date of its introduction" - Catholic Dictionary, p. 284.
"The Jewish Christians in the early church continued to celebrate the Passover, regarding Christ as the true paschal lamb, and this naturally passed over into a commemoration of the death and resurrection of Our Lord, or an Easter feast" - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 889.
"The Jewish Christians linked it with the Passover, and so observed it on the 14th day of Nisan, regardless of the day of the week. But Gentile believers celebrated the Resurrection on the Lord's day, Sunday. This difference was settled by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD" (which set the date for the annual observance of Easter) - Zondervan's Pictorial Bible Dictionary, p. 230f.

The Term "Easter"

"The word Easter is derived from that of the Saxon goddess Eastre, the same deity whom the Germans proper called Ostara, and honoured ... as the divinity of the dawn" - Catholic Dictionary, p. 283.
"The Eng. word comes from the AS Eastre or Estera, a Teutonic goddess to whom sacrifice was offered in April, so the name was transferred to the paschal feast" - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 889.
"According to Bede, the name Easter is derived from Eostre, an Anglo-Saxon goddess whose festival was held in the spring." - Baker's Dictionary of Theology, p. 175.
"The English word 'Easter,' however, corresponding to the German Oster, reveals Christianity's indebtedness to the Teutonic tribes of central Europe. Christianity, when it reached the Teutons, incorporated in its celebration of the great Christian feast day many of the heathen rites and customs which accompanied their observance of the spring festival" - Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 859.

Bible authority for the annual holy day?

"...it is impossible to determine the date of its introduction" - Catholic Dictionary, p. 284. This would, of course, be possible if the practice had been revealed in the Bible.
"There is no trace of Easter celebration in the NT, though some would see an intimation of it in 1 Cor. 5:7" - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 889.
"There is no celebration of the Resurrection in the NT" - Zondervan's Pictorial Bible Dictionary, p. 230f.

What about the word "Easter" in KJV Acts 12:4?

(1) All modern translations say "Passover" (cf. ASV, NASB, etc.)
(2) The original Greek word is pasca, which is always without exception elsewhere translated "Passover," even in the KJV.
(3) Even Catholic translations, such as the Confraternity version, use "Passover" here.
(3) V3 refers to activities of Jews during "the Days of Unleavened Bread." This was undeniably a Jewish feast associated with the Passover. Hence, the context proves the reference is to the Passover.
(4) Nothing in any way connects Christians with the day as though it was a Christian holy day.
(5) Even people today who celebrate Easter religiously will admit that this reference in the KJV does not refer to a Christian holy day but to the Jewish Passover:
"The word [Easter] does not properly occur in Scripture, although AV has it in Acts 12:4 where it stands for Passover, as it is rightly rendered in RV" - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 889.
"...rendered Easter in Acts 12:4 KJV, but correctly translated Passover in ASV" - Zondervan's Pictorial Bible Dictionary, p. 230f.

Summary

Based on statements from those who observe Easter, it is an annual holy day in memory of Jesus' resurrection. It is the result of Jewish and pagan influences combined into the present form by the Roman Catholic church. It is named after a pagan goddess, and many concepts associated with it are pagan in origin. As an annual religious holy day, Easter cannot be found in the Bible.
We conclude again that the religious observance of Easter is human in origin, begun in pagan and apostate religion. See Matt. 15:9; etc.

Does a Christian need to observe sabath laws.....

The word “sabbath” comes from a Hebrew word meaning “to rest; to cease.” It first appears in the Bible in commands given to the nation of ancient Israel. (Exodus 16:23) For example, the fourth of the Ten Commandments says: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it sacred. You are to labor and do all your work for six days, but the seventh day is a sabbath to Jehovah your God. You must not do any work.” (Exodus 20:8-10) 

The Sabbath day ran from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. During that time, the Israelites could not leave their locality, light a fire, gather wood, or carry a load. (Exodus 16:29; 35:3; Numbers 15:32-36; Jeremiah 17:21) Violating the Sabbath was a capital offense.—Exodus 31:15.

Some other days in the Jewish calendar, as well as the 7th and 50th years, were also called sabbaths. In Sabbath years, the land was to lie uncultivated and Israelites could not be pressed to repay debts.—Leviticus 16:29-31; 23:6, 7, 32; 25:4, 11-14; Deuteronomy 15:1-3.

Jesus’ sacrifice made the Sabbath law obsolete

Why doesn’t the Sabbath law apply to Christians?

The Sabbath law applied only to the people subject to the rest of the Law given through Moses. (Deuteronomy 5:2, 3; Ezekiel 20:10-12) God never required other people to observe a sabbath rest. In addition, even the Jews were “released from the Law” of Moses, including the Ten Commandments, by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (Romans 7:6, 7; 10:4; Galatians 3:24, 25; Ephesians 2:15) Rather than adhere to the Law of Moses, Christians follow the superior law of love.—Romans 13:9, 10; Hebrews 8:13.

Misconceptions about the Sabbath

Misconception: God instituted the Sabbath when he rested on the seventh day.

The Bible says: “God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” (Genesis 2:3, King James Version) This verse contains, not a law to man, but a statement of what God did on the seventh creative day. The Bible does not mention anyone observing a sabbath rest before the days of Moses.

Misconception: The Israelites were under the Sabbath law before they received the Law of Moses.

 Moses told the Israelites: “Jehovah our God made a covenant with us in Horeb,” the area around Mount Sinai. This covenant included the Sabbath law. (Deuteronomy 5:2, 12) The Israelites’ experience with the Sabbath shows that it was new for them. If the Israelites had been under some Sabbath law earlier, while they were in Egypt, how would the Sabbath have reminded them of their deliverance from Egypt as God said it would? (Deuteronomy 5:15) Why did they have to be told not to pick up manna on the seventh day? (Exodus 16:25-30) And why did they not know how to handle the case of the first recorded Sabbath breaker?—Numbers 15:32-36.

Do you not need to ask for forgiveness from God after sinning as a Christian

“what happens if I sin, and then I die before I have an opportunity to confess that sin to God as a Christian?”
 
“what happens if I commit a sin, but then forget about it and never remember to confess it to God?”

Both of these questions rest on a faulty assumption. Salvation is not a matter of believers trying to confess and repent from every sin they commit before they die. Salvation is not based on whether a Christian has confessed and repented of every sin. Yes, we should confess our sins to God as soon as we are aware that we have sinned. However, we do not always need to be asking God for forgiveness.
 
When we place our faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, all of our sins are forgiven. That includes past, present, and future, big or small. Believers do not have to keep asking for forgiveness or repenting in order to have their sins forgiven.

Jesus died to pay the penalty for all of our sins, and when they are forgiven, they are all forgiven (Colossians 1:14; Acts 10:43). What we are to do is confess our sins: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). What this verse tells us to do is “confess” our sins to God. The word “confess” means “to agree with.”

When we confess our sins to God, we are agreeing with God that we were wrong, that we have sinned. God forgives us, through confession, on an ongoing basis because of the fact that He is “faithful and just.” How is God “faithful and just”? He is faithful by forgiving sins, which He has promised to do for all those who receive Christ as Savior. He is just by applying Christ’s payment for our sins, recognizing that the sins have indeed been atoned for. At the same time, 1 John 1:9 does indicate that somehow forgiveness is dependent on our confessing our sins to God. How does this work if all of our sins are forgiven the moment we receive Christ as Savior? It seems that what the apostle John is describing here is the fact that we have forgiveness since we have a faithful God to forgive us all our sins. All of our sins are forgiven the moment we receive Christ as Savior. This forgiveness guarantees our salvation and promise of an eternal home in heaven. When we stand before God after death, God will not deny us entrance into heaven because of our sins. That is positional forgiveness.

 The concept of forgiveness is based on the fact that when we sin, we offend God and grieve His Spirit (Ephesians 4:30). While God has ultimately forgiven us of the sins we commit, they still result in a blocking or hindrance in our relationship with God. A young boy who sins against his father is not cast out of the family. A godly father will forgive his children unconditionally. At the same time, a good relationship between father and son cannot be achieved until the relationship is restored. This can only occur when a child accepts his mistakes to his father and apologizes. That is why we should not commit sins to God—not to maintain our salvation, but to bring ourselves back into close fellowship with the God who loves us and has already forgiven us.

Fofc.org Sourced.... the importance of soul winning over doctrinal versatality

Soul Winning and Sound Doctrine Earlier I posted an excerpt from The Soul Winner, written in the late 1800s, in which Charles Spurgeon warned against the danger of prizing doctrinal precision without striving to win souls.

 Yet Spurgeon also emphasized that if we are to win souls, then we must hold sound doctrine and preach the true gospel.

 Here's a snippet: "If they will be faithful reporters of Christ's message, He will make them 'fishers of men.'

But you know the boastful method, nowadays, is this: 'I am not going to preach this old, old gospel, this musty Puritan doctrine.

I will sit down in my study, and burn the midnight oil, and invent a new theory; then I will come out with my brand-new thought, and blaze away with it.'

 Many are not following Christ, but following themselves, and of them the Lord may well say, 'Thou shalt see whose word shall stand, Mine or theirs.' ... Certain things not taught in the Bible our enlightened age has discovered.

Evolution may be clean contrary to the teaching of Genesis, but that does not matter. We are not going to be believers of Scripture, but original thinkers. This is the vain-glorious ambition of the period. Mark you, in proportion as the modern theology is preached, the vice of this generation increases.

 To a great degree, I attribute the looseness of the age to the laxity of the doctrine preached by its teachers. From the pulpit they have taught that sin is a trifle. From the pulpit these traitors to God and to His Christ have taught the people that there is no hell to be feared... They have given the people the name of the gospel, but the gospel itself has evaporated in their hands."

Christ the solid foundation

Those who wrote the original (90 essays, printed in 12 volumes) articles about the unchanging foundation stones of Christian belief cited the Word of God and contrasted the contrary teachings of liberals in a way that made it clear to me. I was committed to what the Bible teaches because I was truly regenerate. Others were opposing or denying teaching of the Bible. Both cannot be right. God speaks truth, or God is a liar. God says Scripture is His infallible message to mankind. Some were calling God a liar. Jesus said He was from God, come into this world to save the lost. Liberals were saying Jesus was a mere man, born like any other man, and limited the same as all other men. He was just a better teacher and unfortunately died early.

Jesus taught He would lay down His life to redeem mankind. Liberals taught a variety of supposed ways to get to heaven. God says there is only the one way. Jesus proclaimed that all men must be born again to be right with God. Liberals promoted good works, clean living, being kind to the poor, etc., things Jesus had indicated should be characteristic of one born again, but of no value to get to heaven. Jesus declared He would come again to take His Own unto Himself. Liberals were teaching that the rapture and millennial reign of Jesus were extremist interpretations.

The typical American view of all this was quite different. People would judge, “He believes 99 per cent the same as historic Christians; for a mere one point of difference you would call him an apostate, a denier of the faith?” Of a person’s teaching, we can judge; of his relation to the Lord, only God can judge. But one who denies the existence of God, the genuineness of His Word, the eternality of His Son – that is, the fundamental teachings of Christianity — is not to be considered a Christian.

Men would point to the character and ministry of a teacher and not be bothered that he denied or opposed the teaching of Scripture. Many were deceived through those days. Similar deception is still possible in our day.