No Case for Christmas
Beware of the Perverse Reasoner and the Amazing
Rationale of a Mind Dead Set on Pleasure
Nick Campbell is the Founder/Director of Christ is the Cure. He hosts a podcast on SoundCloud, where he addresses a variety of topics related to life as a Christian, presenting himself as one with a strong theological foundation.
Our interest was piqued when we listened to his recent episode, “Ep. 175 – A Biblical Case for Christmas”. This article takes a look at his recent Christmas podcasts (#148, #149, and #175), and addresses his error.
The only reason I can think of why Nick warrants any attention to his discussion of Christmas is that he approaches it from an unusual, though nonsensical, position, which offers us another opportunity to denounce by Truth, an ungodly discussion in the Name of the things of God. Otherwise, his opinion isn’t worth anything. However, perhaps the reader will find that our response to Nick holds partial value if only to make them consider their current position.
“Strong Historical Case”
Despite what a wide breadth of historians say (secular or otherwise), Nick Campbell believes to the contrary, that there is historical evidence that demonstrates the roots of Christmas are not pagan in origin:
“So here I try to look at all the data together, contrary to what we often see, which is usually arguments focused on individual points of interest, and I want to connect it all.” (#148 – 8:10)
His focus on Christmas is not whether it was originally pagan or was made to replace a pagan holiday. All that matters to him is the holiday’s original intended focus.
“Is Christmas pagan? Now what many are actually asking, whenever they ask this question, is are the roots of Christmas pagan? And if we answer this question, we are left with the answer no, because of the specifical qualification of Christmas’s definition and original focus, despite any relations that may have occurred between pagan holidays, or even assimilation of objects or traditions.” (#175 – 10:41)
“So this is something we need to stress even if Christmas turns out to replace or Christianize a pagan holiday. Its purpose, function, and role are categorically not pagan and categorically Christian. Regardless of how we feel about Christianization. We cannot stress this enough. By definition, by its purpose and function – it is not pagan. Even if it was to replace something else that was. ” (#148 – 11:00)
This is already a slippery slope! If the holiday was originally pagan and it was “Christianized”, then the actions of early adherents were in direct rebellion to God’s commandments to destroy, not save or adopt:
“Tear down their altars, smash their sacred pillars, burn up their Asherah poles, cut down the idols of their gods, and wipe out their names from every place. You shall not worship the LORD your God in this way…” (Deuteronomy 12:30-31 BSB)
“You shall not walk in the customs of the nation, which I am casting out before you: for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.” (Leviticus 20:22 WEB)
Not only does Nick Campbell want us to take the risk of doing that which the Lord patently abhors, he is arrogant enough to say we shouldn’t feel condemnation if we later discover that we had disobeyed God? Despite this risk, Nick is going to continue, dragging us with him down the serpent’s den as he pursues his search for both a “historical” holiday with clean intent and no pagan heritage.
Nick lays out what he calls “theological presuppositions” as a backdrop to his “rock-solid” evidence. Each of these assumptions are based upon his idea that historical evidence invariably comes from secularists, who have a desire to crush Christianity at every opportunity (#148 – 12:59). So he believes evidence from them should always be held in high skepticism.
And yet, Nick doesn’t apply the same reasoning to celebration of Christmas itself. If the celebration is truly Christian, why is it that all the “secularists” in the world absolutely love it? Was the Lord wrong when He said “…what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God” (Luke 16:15 NKJV)?
Despite the contradiction, Nick wants us to keep in mind his idea that the world hates Christianity as he presents us with the historical “evidence” he has found. We will break down each point and show why each is not worth considering.
Tertullian
Nick Campbell states that Tertullian (155 – 220 AD) spoke against several pagan festivals, including Saturnalia, and that believers should not be decorating their house like a Roman brothel. It is important to note that it is not clear whether Tertullian was saying to stop entirely or to decorate differently than the pagans.
Here is an immediate red flag. Both Tertullian and Justin Martyr considered Sunday the day of the Resurrection and were advocating that believers should celebrate on that day. Tertullian also believed that the Lord’s Advent (Second Coming) was far off in the future, not something to be had presently. Neither one of them was a man of God, being devoid of His Spirit. See Three Days and Three Nights & The Second Coming.
Clement of Alexandria
Postulated possible birth dates for Jesus Christ. He wanted to know because of the celebration of the Passion. One for November 18th when using the Roman Calendar, and one for January 6th when using the Egyptian one. Nick Campbell believes that because some traditions have held 12 days of festivities (Christmastide), starting on December 25th and ending on January 6th (Epiphany), there must have been a connection to Clement’s January 6th birthday calculation. The sum of this is just speculation based on loose association. That doesn’t make it strong evidence.
Hippolytus of Rome
“For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, eight days before the calends of January [December 25th], the 4th day of the week [Wednesday], while Augustus was in his forty-second year, [2 or 3BC] but from Adam five thousand and five hundred years.” (Commentary on Daniel – 4:23:3)
As his key witness, Nick Campbell quotes Hippolytus (202-211 AD), even though the text is seen largely as unreliable. Nick claims that it has been “dealt with” here. But the earliest manuscripts containing pieces of it are from the 12-13th century. Even if the Greek text existed in the 10th century, there is no way to know for certain that it had been recorded accurately. At that time, Christmas was already long declared to occur on the 25th. A well-meaning copyist could have easily “corrected” the record then. See The Book of Matthew Corrupted.
Even if we could assume Hippolytus’s writing to be authentic, Hippolytus condemned Modalism as heresy. He believed God to be three separate Persons, not One Person manifesting Himself in more than one role. In doing so, Hippolytus was denying the Son, not recognizing that He was the Father in the flesh. If he had truly known the Lord Jesus Christ, he would have never spoken that way. Read The Asininity of the Trinity & Jesus Christ, Almighty God.
Most importantly, Nick believes that Hippolytus couldn’t have placed the date of Christmas on a pagan god’s birthday because “Christians came up with the birth of Jesus by math!” (#148 – 40:26).
This was nothing more than a man coming up with a theory based on myth! At the time, people were already celebrating Easter, believing that Christ had died on March 25th. There was an old Jewish superstition that a prophet would die on the same day as his conception. It was also believed that Christ was conceived the same day the Earth was created, on March 25th. Hippolytus accepted these silly reasonings and added nine months since Christ’s assumed conception, for a birth date of December 25th.
Nicomedia
The “20,000 Martyrs of Nicomedia” allegedly took place while they were in celebration of the nativity in 302 A.D., where the church was set ablaze and almost every adherent died. Sounds more like a case of God’s Wrath, seeing that He only allowed a handful to be saved, and even those were hunted down and executed. This is assuming the account can even be believed as reported, as is often the case with Catholic tradition. For instance, we know the number 20,000 was likely apocryphal.
Donatists
There is a claim that sometime before 312 A.D., it is the Donatists who had accepted and celebrated a December 25th birthdate. But it wasn’t known until around 400 A.D. when Augustine confirms that a group of Donatists did so. Nick Campbell thinks it is highly unlikely a sect that was extremely legalistic would ever knowingly adopt a pagan practice. Yet the highly self-righteous Donatists were later condemned as heretics! Why does Nick think these people serve as good witnesses to make an argument for clean worship? Also, his source is from an author who is himself, a false teacher.
Nick appears to be more of a “divestigator” than investigator or researcher. He isn’t too fussy about his sources or the quality of their offerings – not a wise thing when dealing with the things of God.
Sol Invictus & the Chronography
Nick Campbell is adamant that Christmas could not have shared roots with Sol Invictus because of two crucial “hinge dates”, 274 and 354 AD.
In 274 the Roman emperor Aurelian elevated and decreed the celebration of a cult sun god, Sol Invictus (Unconquerable Sun), and his birthday. He built a new temple in the center of Rome and dedicated it in his honor. It isn’t clear whether it was dedicated on December 25th, but it would follow, given that it was typical for Romans to dedicate items of worship on the special days of their gods.
Because there is no clear record of Aurelian setting the 25th as the day for Sol Invictus, Nick states it must not have happened. He has a theory that the Romans must have co-opted the 25th day to steal it away from those celebrating the nativity according to the “testimony” of Hippolytus, Clement, and Tertullian. But as outlined previously, the evidence of such a likely or widespread celebration is scant, having been based upon assumption, myth, heretical leaders, “tradition”, and questionable records.
Eighty years later, the Chronography of 354 AD was made for a Roman aristocrat by a calligrapher, both reported to be “Christian”. On the calendar itself, it is marked on December 25th, “N·INVICTI·CM·XXX”, which means “Birthday • Unconquered • Games Ordered • 30”. There is no other celebration listed on that day. Elsewhere there is a note stating “Jesus Christ was born 8 days before January” in 1 AD.
One, Nick is hyper-focused on the exclusion of “Sol” from “Unconquered” stating that the holiday “could or could not be for Sol Invictus” (#148 – 36:55), alluding that it is for another holiday like a feast of nativity celebrating Christ. However, “Sol Invictus” was a particularly unique sun god and “Invictus” was a common enough epithet at the time. In the same way, one today may refer to the “Steelers”, everyone understands you are talking about the Pittsburg Steelers football team.
Two, he is missing an obvious contradiction. If a “Christian” calligrapher constructed this for a “Christian” aristocrat, then why is something like a “Feast of the Nativity” not also listed on the calendar itself on December 25th with or without “Invictus”? If it was such a special holy day and as widely recognized as Nick would like to believe, then surely these “Christians” would have included it on their own calendar!
Despite the contradiction, Nick Campbell is so sure of himself and proudly moves on “… and we have a date that is earlier than the initiation date of Sol Invictus. Bunked. Debunked!” (#148 – 38:43)
Apostolic Constitutions
Nick Campbell quotes the Apostolic Constitutions (375 to 380 AD), “Brethren, observe the festival days; and first of all the birthday which you are to celebrate on the twenty-fifth of the ninth month; after which let the Epiphany be to you the most honoured” (Book V, Section 3)
The writers and/or combiner of these documents is unknown. Even at the earliest date, they would have been written 100 years after the proclamation of Sol Invictus in 274 AD and 20 years after Chronography of 354 AD. Which doesn’t make it proof of a celebration occurring before Nick’s “hinge dates”.
John Chrysostom of Antioch
Nick Campbell states that in 386 AD., John Chrysostom “notes that the celebration celebrating the birth of Christ is an ancient tradition” (#148 – 24:10)
Nick calls it an “ancient tradition!”. However, in his own homily, John Chrysostom notes that it has barely been 10 years now, that the celebration has existed, brought in from the West. (Note that Rome is west of Antioch). He states “I well know that many are still debating with each other about it, some arguing against, some for. Everywhere there is a lot of conversation about this day, some saying accusingly that the day is a new innovation which has only recently been introduced…”. He also tells everyone who celebrates: “Expect a repayment worthy of such zeal from Christ who is born today in the flesh. He will reward you for this enthusiasm.”
Who is John to declare that God is now obligated to reward people because of something men do? Wasn’t this the lesson Job had to learn? Loose speaking like this by John Chrysostom also helped promote antisemitism through his sermons which the Nazis used in their persecution of Jews!
Spurgeon and Calvin
“So how should we conclude this? And I thought maybe by discussing the sentiments of some of those who came before us” (#175 – 40:43)
“But regardless, Spurgeon also loved Christmas … Spurgeon has further noted as participating in the festivities of Christmas, even dressing as Santa Claus, who delivers gifts to orphans.” (#175 – 41:14)
So we are supposed to take this as “evidence” of a biblically clean holiday. Spurgeon, hailed as the “prince of preachers” was a corrupt man, a blathering religious fool. He mocked the things of God and praised Calvin, a rabid murderer of Christians such as Servetus. But take Nick’s word for it, Spurgeon dressing up as Santa Claus makes all the difference and makes it okay to celebrate Christmas.
“Calvin, in particular, is often painted as one who was just detesting Christmas. But he actually, quote, sought to reclaim Christmas as a celebration of Christian activity …” (#175 – 42:38)
“Some of Calvin’s most moving words from the pulpit flowed from his preaching on Christmas.” (#175 – 43:30)
Was he going to do it in the same way he reclaimed his status among men after murdering those who disagreed with him? Calvin and his evil religious fanatics murdered Michael Servetus, deliberately roasting him over a slow-burning fire for disagreeing with him. And when Michael was dead, Calvin in his book spat on Servetus, calling him a “detestable infidel”, “obscene dog”, “vomit” and “rabid magician.”
“Honor, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.” – Letter to the Marquis Paet
And now Nick wants us to believe a murderer is a good witness for celebrating Christmas. Wow!
Read The Fruit of Cain Multiplied: The Murderer John Calvin
“And despite the previous discussions on topic, I’m not entirely convinced of December 25 as being a realistic or true date of the Nativity, but rather a traditional placeholder.” (#175 – 41:38)
Then what was the entire point of trying so hard to defend December 25th? The paper-thin wall between Nick and total blasphemy entirely depends on Nick getting the day right!
Closing History
Nick Campbell’s strongest “evidence” is entirely dependent on there being a widespread, ancient celebration of the nativity “testified” early on by Hippolytus and his number crunching, prior to 274 AD and before 354 AD. He has only scraps of “evidence”, nothing concrete or trustworthy to support this mystery holiday. All his points are actually arguing against him. And get this, at the end of his presentation, he admits it was only HIS opinion!
Lord Jesus, why do we even bother to address this confounded fellow!? Surely, there are more valuable things to do! Will anyone be edified by this, and how?
“When Christmas was being formed as a feast to celebrate, was it pagan? The answer is no. In my opinion, no. The day was discussed prior, the feast was had prior, um, there’s more evidence of secularists stomping on it just like they do today.” (#148 – 49:50)
“Or you will see the blanket statement. The Roman Church created Christmas because they wanted to Christianize everything. And what you find is that all of these claims are ahistorical. Our generation is so ignorant on history, and you know, I am not an expert in church history by any stretch of the imagination.” (#149 – 18:20)
Nick is only giving us his own opinions, which is speaking according to the flesh. His theory is that Christmas can’t be pagan if the celebrations that historians believe Christmas took over (Saturnalia, Sol Invictus, etc.) were occurring at the same time. Even if there was iron-clad evidence to demonstrate a separate ‘Feast of Nativity’ as Nick claims, it doesn’t mean adherents were right under God to start it and celebrate the incarnation of Christ, which we address in the next section.
While history may be unclear as to what transpired, it is certainly evident that in later centuries, the embodiment of pagan worship certainly did work its way into the church, in tradition, sacrament, ritual, decoration, doctrine, and practice. Reading Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons will help you see some of the connections. The false church, (little “c”), the Whore of Babylon is filled to the brim with every wicked thing and a tongue of blasphemy. Nick Campbell holds this truth in utter disdain:
“So the implications again of saying this is pagan is – the ramifications are huge compared to what people realize … I don’t understand – you don’t understand those ramifications that the early church right at the offset was adopting paganism. I mean come on! Like, I don’t understand why you’d be okay with that?” (#149 – 38:16)
Yet this was precisely what Paul warned would happen after he died. For three years he warned the true Church night and day with tears to stay vigilant knowing what was coming:
Acts 20:29-31 KJV
(29) For I know this: that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
(30) Also from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them.
(31) Therefore watch and remember that for the space of three years I ceased not to warn everyone night and day with tears.”
In the Book of Revelation, John wrote to churches under his care where six out of seven had already fallen in deception, only a few years after the Lord’s Crucifixion and Resurrection. Can you imagine how much worse it could get given 2000 years? We don’t have to, because we can see the fruits of such falsehood here, today, in the false church.
Nick doesn’t understand, because HE is part of the Harlot system. He partakes in their fleshly ways and continues the same sin of his “church fathers” centuries earlier:
“We celebrate the actual Unconquerable [Son/Sun?]’s entrance into the world. We celebrate the True Light’s entrance into this dark world. So a part of me thinks, Providence, really. Just as God showed up the Egyptians with the Plagues at the Exodus, part of me wonders if this is the same.” (#148 – 1:00:30)
“Solid Biblical Case”
After outlining his “historical” case in Episode #148, Campbell was taken to task by a few people in the comment section. He addressed them in the next episode (#149), which Nick admits he didn’t have much preparation time and was less polished. We appreciate it because it offered us a peek into the true Nick Campbell, where one can observe in full Nick’s arrogance, brazen reasoning, blatant dismissal, and carnal reasoning.
Nick admitted in this episode that he used to think Christmas was pagan and told his wife for a while, he wasn’t comfortable celebrating it. After discovering his historical and biblical “evidence”, he started to change his mind. This begs us to ask, what is it that compelled Nick Campbell to start spending countless hours searching for reasons to celebrate Christmas in the first place? Didn’t deceived Eve also persuade her husband Adam to “celebrate Christmas?”
Shortly before Christmas, he then released Episode #175, where he now outlines what he believes is a “strong biblical case” (#175 – 10:00) for Christmas. He starts off falsely claiming that his previous episodes “dealt with the history of Christmas, which is a post-New Testament tradition.” (#175 – 3:15), and that the purpose of this podcast is to “demonstrate biblical support for celebrating the incarnation of God without having the explicit command to do so.” (#175 – 3:20).
“I simply ask you that if you’re listening to this, you should begin with a clean slate regarding your presuppositions on the pagan origins or just presuppose that I was correct in my assessment that Christmas isn’t pagan…” (#175 – 4:10)
“Don’t bother with Truth or confirmation. Take my word for it! Who needs two or three witnesses to establish anything?” suggests Nick. In other famous words, “Yea, has God said…?” Once again, Nick Campbell encourages us to ignore for a moment the idea that Christmas may be pagan in origin while he proceeds to regale us with his “Biblical” proof. Let’s take the time to knock down each of his “theological” pillars one by one.
Jesus was condemning legalism
“What becomes quite extraordinary is that these individuals who are loosely quoting Mark 7:8 to condemn the practice of Christmas are using a verse that was directed towards the legalism of the Pharisees, who added rules and regulations to Scripture.” (#175 – 7:40)
Nick Campbell quotes Jesus’s condemnation of the Pharisee’s selfishness as if their error provides justification to continue the pagan traditions set forth by man, such as Christmas. Remarkably, it proves the very opposite. Jesus is warning people such as Nick against substitution.
Mark 7:7-13 BSB
(7) They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’
(8) You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.”
(9) He went on to say, “You neatly set aside the command of God to maintain your own tradition.
(10) For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’
(11) But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever you would have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God),
(12) he is no longer permitted to do anything for his father or mother.
(13) Thus you nullify the word of God by the tradition you have handed down. And you do so in many such matters.”
The Pharisees had passed down a tradition born of their own selfishness. If they claimed a practice or object as Corban, then it was consecrated to God as a deeply sacred gift to Him, which could never be taken back. A priest could deny even his own needy mother and father of food if those goods were already dedicated as Corban, thereby breaking God’s own commandments.
“Those who truly celebrate the incarnation of the Lord are not doing what the anti-Christmas crowd suggests.” (#175 – 16:20)
“This issue is not that tradition is bad, but that if tradition is a means of avoiding scripture, there is a problem.” (#175 – 15:37)
Nick Campbell is guilty of the very issue that he identified! He is consecrating a pagan tradition as Corban to God, claiming it celebrates His incarnation in the flesh. In doing so, he breaks God’s commandments to not learn the ways of pagan nations or substitute their traditions as a way of honoring Him. His perversion of thought takes the breath away!
Deuteronomy 12:29-31 BSB
(29) When the LORD your God cuts off before you the nations you are entering to dispossess, and you drive them out and live in their land,
(30) be careful not to be ensnared by their ways after they have been destroyed before you. Do not inquire about their gods, asking, “How do these nations serve their gods? I will do likewise.”
(31) You must not worship the LORD your God in this way, because they practice for their gods every abomination which the LORD hates.
It is a matter of personal conviction
“…this discussion really will boil down to conscience and liberty. And so I do recommend everyone studying Romans 14 in detail.” (#148 – 5:00)
“But by what biblical prohibition can you tell others to not esteem a day or season on to the glory of God? You can’t. In fact, Paul says quite the opposite.” (#148 – 8:52)
“Romans 14, five to seven. And right here I just want to emphasize Paul’s phrase, ‘let each one be fully convinced in his own mind’. So with that said, we can all move on from here.” (#148 – 9:27)
Case-closed then? Not quite!
Nick Campbell quotes Romans 14 to support his opinion that “conscience and liberty” are enough to justify doing things the Lord declared to be abominable. He abuses it ad nauseam in so many of his podcasts. So, let’s do as he suggests and break down Romans 14 in detail so we can understand exactly what the Apostle Paul was talking about and why Campbell is so wrong to use it as his universal objection.
Romans 14:2-7 ESV
(2) One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.
(3) Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.
(4) Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
(5) One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
(6) The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.
(7) For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself.
Paul was referring only to clean things. Eating or not eating vegetables and clean meats was not in the realm of sin but in personal preference, custom, and conscience. Not so with idolatry and principles contrary to Truth and Biblical Testimony. BIG difference.
Nick is talking iniquity (lawlessness), urging everyone to be a law unto themselves.
Keep in mind the time that Paul was writing this. It was a time of major transition. You had both Jew and Gentile believers coming into the fold. For the believers coming from heathen nations, the idea of consuming meat was a previously unclean act for some. This is why there was no requirement placed on them if they were comfortable with just vegetables. They were also not forced into Jewish ceremonies or circumcision.
“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” (Acts 15:28-29 ESV)
Likewise, the Jews were not prohibited from visiting the Temple or participating in the ceremonies that they had grown up with. This is why Paul brought up the observation of special days, such as the Feast of Tabernacles. Paul still purified himself and others for a brief period at the Temple (Acts 21:26). Yet, at the same time, Paul also publicly rebuked Peter for trying to force Jewish customs on the new Gentile believers (Galatians 2:11).
The reason Paul stressed that believers at the time “should be convinced in their own minds” is that doing otherwise for them would be a sin. You would be violating what you know or believe to be right. That was the sole reason for Paul even emphasizing conscience because the matter of eating meat or not wasn’t a defined case of moral law.
“But the one who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that is not from faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23 BSB)
Paul wrote this guidance for the Jews and Gentiles when it was a weaning period for the young Church. The priesthood was coming to an end, and it was time to move away from the shadows of things to come, into the Reality of living by the Holy Spirit.
For example, older Jewish believers who grew up with the Temple sacrifices, and ceremonial practices, would initially have some difficulty parting with them. Paul advised them that whether they chose to continue these things was left to faith and conscience as they grew more mature in Christ. Eventually that generation of believers concluded, following the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D.
Paul’s words were temporary guidance to help the infant Church stabilize, and provide some clarity on what to do when no moral law exists. It was not a carte blanche invitation to follow a corrupted conscience, commit blasphemy, and uphold every unclean thing that the Lord abhors.
Keep in mind that when Paul was writing his letters, the pagan precursors to Christmas were being celebrated by the nations he was sent to. Paul certainly would not have condoned the new believers retaining any form of practice to the gods he was actively preaching against.
Of course, Nick Campbell is not the only presumptuous person to twist and abuse Paul’s letters for their own gain, fulfilling Peter’s words (2 Peter 3:16).
Nick does admit that people shouldn’t celebrate Christmas if they aren’t fully convinced in their own minds and that it would be a sin for them to do so. However, he is blind to how he continues to abuse the verse to serve as one-size-fits-all justification for blasphemy. Despite this, Campbell still marches forward with Romans 14:5. He quotes it at least three other times in Episode #175 to support his other faulty “Biblical” arguments as we will see later.
Christmas is not adding to the law
“So the political rhetoric goes like this: ‘God never speaks of making Christmas a part of Christianity, nor does he say to celebrate the son’s birth. It is a celebration that is created by men, and thus we are disobeying God by adding to the commandment of God and partaking in the traditions of men’. Heard it a thousand times.” (#175 – 6:50)
So, the obvious exclusion of a commandment from God is now a license to contemplate doing things which He has not spoken? How arrogant is that? Remarkably, the people that he is complaining about are perfectly correct. So instead, Nick Campbell dismisses them by choosing to reframe the issue to evade criticism:
“The tradition of Christmas isn’t comparable as we do not include Christmas in our interpretation of the law, and we do not add it upon the law as a requirement” (#175 – 14:30)
“First, the Christmas crowd does not add Christmas to the law or its interpretation of the law.” (#175 – 16:28)
“I won’t hear the phrase you’re adding to the commandment of God, because most will happily say that there’s nothing obligatory, effectual, or salvific about celebrating Christmas.” (#175 – 7:00)
That is quite a clever workaround, isn’t it? In essence, he is saying: “Well, we aren’t making Christmas obligatory one way or another, so I guess you can’t say we are adding to the law.”
However, he certainly is subtracting from the law of God in that he dismisses God’s previous commandments to not practice the customs of pagan nations or adopt them to worship God, as demonstrated before.
“Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.” (Deuteronomy 12:32 NASB)
He abuses Romans 14 here again.
“So with this all said, I and many others would happily say that Christmas is a tradition. We agree, but it is one that is non-binding on individuals. And we join Paul, as he says, let each be fully convinced in his own mind.” (#175 – 21:12)
“…the Christmas crowd doesn’t undermine the law of God because there isn’t a prohibition against esteeming a particular day, quite contrary to Romans 14 or making a celebration from the work of God.” (#175 – 16:35)
His justification is so preposterous that Nick Campbell must support it with outrageous statements like this:
“I have yet to see Christmas added to the list of Christian ordinances for those who support Christmas. In fact, quite the contrary, those who are anti-Christmas tend to give the celebration more weight than those who celebrate it. In regards to the status of those who partake in Christmas.” (#175 – 7:30)
Most denominations officially add it. Catholics for one, are required to participate in it, going to the Mass and receiving the Eucharist. Even if it isn’t “officially” listed as an ordinance for other denominations, they most certainly treat it as one.
Nick Campbell is playing dumb here to avoid confrontation. He used to be an atheist himself, so he understands there is invariably immense social scorn from “Christians” towards those who do not participate in Christmas.
“So who is the legalist one who adds the command of God and holds it over another’s head?” (#175 – 7:50)
Who is the one who subtracts from it, Nick?
God did not command all celebrations
“I would postulate that this happens more often with those who are anti-Christmas. Their argument is simple when you boil it down. If it isn’t explicitly in Scripture, you shall not partake.” (#175 – 8:00)
Not only is Christmas not explicit in Scripture, but it is also condemned by Scripture. Why doesn’t Nick see that? Those who limit their argument against Christmas to it not being mentioned fall far short of withstanding heresy and idolatry.
Is the problem one of choice? Wife rather than God? Wasn’t that Adam’s fall? Nick’s wife plays a repeat of Eve and Nick repeats Adam’s sin. Where did that scenario lead? Look at us!
“The point is that celebrations are a normal part of human experience. And as Christians, we have God to direct our thanksgiving because of our biblical worldview. Now, if I am honest with the simple reality in mind, it should be a given that celebrating the incarnation of Christ would be acceptable. But of course, I want to demonstrate it.” (#175 – 18:25)
Nick Campbell tries to refute those who object to practices solely because they are not explicitly mentioned in the Scriptures. He is only partially right to do so. However, Nick believes if he can demonstrate a Biblical example of celebration that was not explicitly directed by God, then that would provide justification for celebrating Christmas as the incarnation of Christ, even though God has not commanded we do so. However, all the examples he gives are spurious:
Jesus celebrated Hanukkah
“Jesus likely celebrated a holiday feast that’s not found in the Bible!” (#148 – 17:12)
“…this text is not merely about celebrating a miraculous work of God, which Jews and perhaps Jesus Himself did happily with the feast of dedication mentioned in John 10:22-23. And that was a celebration focused around an event that occurred during the intertestamental period during the 400 years of silence, and we know it as Hanukkah.” (#175 – 11:13)
“Romans 14 is another issue to be brought up in this particular discussion.” (#175 – 20:55)
Romans 14 again! The truth is that Hanukkah is a rebellious tradition celebrating Israel’s temporary relief from God’s Wrath. Nick Campbell is making a lofty assumption, like so many others, that Jesus Christ attended in full support of the festivities.
Read What about Hanukkah (Chanukah)?
“So within the text of John 10:23-24, there is no rebuke for the holiday while Jesus attends. And he is also attending in the Temple. As a Jew, attending during the Feast of Dedication and walking in the courts, there is little to no reason to think that Jesus would not participate.” (#148 – 18:14)
There was no rebuke because Jesus Christ wasn’t there to celebrate a rebellious man-made holiday. He was there opportunely to address lawless people celebrating their rebellious response to His Wrath. The reason why Hanukkah “still goes on to this day”, is because the Jews continue to reject His Word today as they did then.
Didn’t the Jews even change the candelabra from the Heavenly-dictated 7 lights directed by Moses to the man-devised 9 candles at the time of the Maccabean revolt that ultimately failed?
Is Nick suggesting that believers should attend Christmas events to address people just as the Lord did at Hanukkah? I don’t think so. He comes to love pleasures more than God and to do so in the Name of God to salve his conscience, follow his wife, and save face.
The Synagogues
“The truth is that these community centers were never commanded by God and yet were a significant place for worship and religious life.” (#175 – 11:13)
Is there not a huge difference between building a community center on the one hand and partaking of pagan customs according to pagan gods, on the other? The former is not forbidden though benign while the latter is idolatry. Isn’t the twist Campbell devises similar to the con job the serpent used with Eve?
Yes, Nick, weave your web, wedge your way, woo the wife, and win the world to worrisome woe with worldly-wise words, just for fun.
Ancient Jerusalem
“..in the Bible, we have a couple of examples of such celebrations: One being the joy of the completed temple, featured in Ezra 3:10-13”
It was the Temple’s foundations that were completed in Ezra 3:10-13 (the final completion of the Temple was much later, noted in Ezra 6:14-15).
“And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, the priests in their vestments came forward with trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of Asaph, with cymbals, to praise the LORD, according to the directions of David king of Israel.” (Ezra 3:10 ESV)
Even then, what a wicked comparison to make in justifying evil! The work of restoring the Temple was still according to the commandment given to the Jews by God!
Nick, face it. Your reasonings are of a “perverse generation.”
God directed everything! He first gave the prophecy to Jeremiah. He stirred the heart of King Cyrus to declare that the Lord had appointed him to build Him a Temple at Jerusalem and to return all stolen items. He moved the hearts of the priests, Levites, their neighbors, the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the builders, and everyone in Jerusalem. When they finished building the Temple, they dedicated it according to the Law and celebrated Passover, a solemn feast approved and commanded by God at the time. All these good and holy things were appointed and specified from above.
“…and another one in Nehemiah 12:27-43. Nehemiah 12:27-43 is particularly interesting, and I recommend you read a little bit into the background because it’s excellent.”
Same with the wall of Jerusalem. It was prophesied. Nehemiah has prayed earlier for the Lord to put it in his heart to rebuild the wall. The Lord’s hand was there from the beginning until the end, and it was God who gave them their joy.
“And that day they offered great sacrifices and rejoiced. For God had made them rejoice with great joy. And the wives and the sons rejoiced, so that the joy of Jerusalem was heard even afar off.” (Nehemiah 12:43 MKJV)
The Birth of Christ
This is Nick Campbell’s last example of “Biblical” proof. He tries to argue that a recurring celebration of the incarnation of “God the Son” is allowed, without any direction from God, and takes half the podcast to do so. He outlines the fulfillment of prophetic events from the Scriptures. Essentially, Nick’s argument boils down to “because they did it, we should be able to do it too.”
Mary and Joseph clearly had a reason to be excited. So did Elizabeth, John (while yet in the womb), the shepherds, the angels of the Armies of Heaven, Simeon, Anna, and the wise men. However, all these occurrences were driven by ancient prophecies by Daniel or Jeremiah. Or they were prophesied more recently by Zechariah or the angel Gabriel.
In every case, there was the very visible Hand of God orchestrating every detail, sending prophets, peoples, angels, and princes. There was a good reason for those involved to have joy when they realized God’s Words had been fulfilled before their very eyes. And they had this wondrous privilege, being the messengers of His revelation.
However miraculous the moment, it did quickly subside. There wasn’t a recurring celebration in the following years from Mary and Joseph or the angels for the birth of Jesus. Which begs the question, why didn’t they? It would seem they had more reason to celebrate, than any person alive today, yet there is not a single record of a customary, annual festivity. More to the point, God Himself has been dead silent on the issue as well. He didn’t appoint one of His apostles to make any mention of the importance of His birthday in the Scriptures.
Yet people like Nick Campbell will spend their entire lives searching for answers in the dust and cobwebs, for fragments of parchment in distant lands to search for an answer for the question he already knows the answer to. Silence from God isn’t good enough for him. Nick searches high and low because HE wants Christmas, just as those in the world want it!
It is not in God’s Nature to send mixed signals to His children. Rather, through His apostles, He has said this about His time in the flesh:
“So from now on we regard no one according to the flesh. Although we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.” (2 Corinthians 5:16 BSB)
The apostles knew the Lord in His flesh as the Son, and now they knew Him as the Holy Spirit when He returned to them at Pentecost, just as He promised:
John 14:15-19 ESV
(15) If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
(16) And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
(17) even the Spirit of Truth, Whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. You know Him, for He dwells with you [Jesus is living with the disciples] and will be in you.
(18) I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
(19) Yet a little while and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live.
They didn’t need to celebrate the fleshy birth of the Savior, their God. They had the Lord, Jesus Christ living in them! What greater joy could possibly be had?! How much more real could it get?
When Saul of Tarsus was hunting believers, He was persecuting God Himself, because the Lord Jesus Christ was there, living in the flesh of His children.
“And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’ So I answered, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, Whom you are persecuting.’” (Acts 22:7-8 MKJV)
As such, Paul later helped lay down a way to test those who truly knew the Lord:
2 Corinthians 13:4-6 BSB
(4) For He was indeed crucified in weakness, yet He lives by God’s power. And though we are weak in Him, yet by God’s power we will live with Him to serve you.
(5) Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Can’t you see for yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you — unless you actually fail the test?
(6) And I hope you will realize that we have not failed the test.
“By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.” (1 John 4:2-3 BSB)
Some of the most wretched people in history have said that Jesus Christ came in a physical body. John certainly wasn’t saying they were of God. So whose flesh was he talking about? The flesh of the believer. John tested many claiming to be apostles and found them to be phonies. (1 John 4:1, Revelation 2:2). Fellow believers like Paul could not fail the test, because he confessed that Jesus Christ came in his own flesh:
“I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, Who loved me and gave Himself for me” (Galatians 2:20 ESV).
So why does a believer need to be reminded of His Promise, when that Promise is living IN HIM? Do we need to be reminded we have a head? But Nick Campbell says he needs yearly reminders!
Truly, it is Jesus Christ Who witnesses of Himself in and through His vessel, rather than the believer:
“Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy” (Revelation 19:10 NKJV)
“Now, surely the coming of the high priest, Prophet, and King – God the Son Incarnate anticipated for centuries … Now I would postulate that we all know that this is worthy of celebration, and we celebrate it constantly when we recall the gospel in our lives. Because without the incarnation of Christ, there would be no gospel for us. So with such an obvious statement, the debate actually becomes, can we have an annual celebration where we can refocus ourselves and reflect upon this work. Surely we can, according to the functions of festivals in the Old Testament, right? That was their function to have these reminders yearly.” (#148 – 20:21)
There is a massive difference between a God-ordained festival and adopting pagan traditions to worship God. One is obedience and the other is blasphemy! One is Lawful piety and the other, rebellion, which is as witchcraft (1 Samuel 15:22,23, KJV).
Nick Campbell is looking for reminders of something he doesn’t have and doesn’t understand. He has never known the Lord Jesus Christ personally, living as part of His Body. As such, Nick can only presume to imagine what the reality of the Godhead is, which is why he believes in the carnal reasonings of The Trinity, revealing his fatal error.
He believes that God is three separate “persons”, and that “God the Son” took on flesh, rather than the truth – which is that God the “Father” (single Person), took on flesh in His role as the Son. The Lord Jesus Christ, Father God, is One Lord, one Person.
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is ONE LORD” (Deuteronomy 6:4 KJV)
“I looked, but there was no one to help; I was appalled, but there was no one to uphold; so My Own Arm brought Me salvation, and My Wrath upheld Me.” (Isaiah 63:5 ESV)
“I have not learned wisdom, and I have no knowledge of the Holy One. Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in His hands? Who has bound up the waters in His cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His Name, and what is the Name of His Son—surely you know!” (Proverbs 30:3-4 BSB)
“Jesus said to him, Have I been with you such a long time and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father. And how do you say, Show us the Father?” (John 14:9 MKJV)
“For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6 MKJV)
Nick doesn’t have the first clue as to the Nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, our God. He is denying Jesus Christ was the Father come in the flesh, our Savior. He is calling Jesus Christ a liar when He says “I and the Father are One and the Same.” As such, he denies both the Son and Father (1 John 2:22-23)
Conclusion
Nick Campbell, who admits he is no expert, poorly attempts to make “historical” and “Biblical” arguments for celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ with a holiday the world now knows as “Christmas”. The evidence he brings is entirely based on myth, massive assumption, “tradition”, the testimony of liars, carelessness, and his own arrogance. In short, he greatly errs.
Nick ignores the Lord’s strict commandments not to partake in any custom or tradition of pagan nations and does so anyway. To make matters worse, he merchandises his asinine theories to his ignorant listeners.
So what should a believer do on December 25th or any of the other days the world highly esteems (Luke 16:15)? Don’t worry about it. You simply treat it like any other ordinary day and go out by faith as the Lord Jesus Christ has instructed. If His Spirit rests in you, He will certainly make known His will. His sheep do hear His Voice.
There are dozens of other points that could have been made but were not. We strongly encourage the reader to soak in the other content the Lord has provided at ThePathofTruth to identify other falsehoods in Nick Campbell’s ways.
Birthday Celebrations
Jesus Christ Is God [section]
Diabolical Doctrine: Believers No Longer Hear God’s Voice
Religious Images, Icons, and Likenesses
Diabolical Doctrine: Christmas Is a Biblical Christian Celebration
That Devilish Spirit of Christmas
Diabolical Doctrine: The Keeping of Easter
Three Days and Three Nights
Diabolical Doctrine: All Flesh Is Clean for Eating
There is no “case” for Christmas.
Braden Preston, on behalf of Victor Hafichuk
We shared this paper directly with Nick at his “Christ Is the Cure” Facebook page. He had posted a short video trailer depicting those who question the nature of nominal Christendom’s Easter celebration as silly fools afraid of colored eggs. This was the link that has since been removed:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=271270888352827
Our message to him:
Hi Nick, we listened to, and answered your case for Christmas. You can read it here:
https://www.thepathoftruth.com/false-teachers/nick-campbell.htm
And regarding Easter, you can read the truth from God (not opinion) here:
https://www.thepathoftruth.com/teachings/three-days-and-three-nights.htm
https://www.thepathoftruth.com/teachings/how-long-was-jesus-in-the-tomb.htm
Nick responded on March 7, 2022 12:55 PM:
Ronnie Tanner hey! I’ll check it out. Not sure I appreciate the label false teachers over matters of conscience, but nonetheless- I appreciate the feedback!
Ronnie said:
Nick, questioning being labeled as a false teacher based on “matters of conscience” only demonstrates what we’ve said. You’re trivializing and ignoring the commands of God, and instead turning them into “matters of conscience” where one can pick and choose what they do. It’s the equivalent of making adultery a “matter of conscience.” God is clear about heathen festivals and worshiping Him as heathens worship their gods. It’s all there in the papers I’ve shared with you.
And even if it was only a matter of conscience, unrelated to God’s moral commands, doesn’t a man’s conscience before God determine whether or not he sins? Isn’t that what Paul said in Romans 14, the text you erroneously cited for your argument? There is simply no fear of God with you. It’s all a cerebral exercise in doctrine and doing as you please. Your video trailer makes an open mockery of those who might, in their conscience before God, abstain from these traditions. You say “History!” as if that has anything to do with God’s commands or a man’s conscience. You’re wrong on all points, history included. Can you imagine Paul the apostle treating new believers like you are, even in matters of eating or drinking? And you presume to teach and instruct others! Need we say anything more? We do. Read the link and tell us how much you “appreciate” the feedback.
[END COMMENTS]
Nick deleted the video he had posted along with all the above comments. He then posted a link to this paper but later deleted it and replaced it with this post:
https://www.facebook.com/christthecure/posts/5693583753990660
***Update: I removed the original post with the article. The more I learned about the group, the less attention I wanted them to get.***
I was considering responding more fully to the aforementioned article that I was featured in as a false teacher, but after combing through it I realized quickly there wasn’t a point. I’m not particularly sure I want to give them attention (so I’m not even going to post the article again). So, here’s a brief tid-bit of the thoughts I typed up:
I was recently featured on a website as a false teacher. My company on this list of false teachers was interesting to say the least. Some of the false teachers were legitimate false teachers, but some of them were not.
Many on the list are merely those who are orthodox, that is, they hold to the biblical and historical articulation of the Christian faith. The reason is simple, the website is run by modalists, an interesting breed no less where the head of the website sees himself as a prophet by the looks of it. Of course, we know that Modalism is a heresy universally condemned in historic Christendom for its incoherence. I plan on talking about modalism in the future quite a bit, and so we won’t here, but a simple reading through the New Testament shows how modalism makes God’s revelation of Himself arbitrary, doubtful, and incoherent.
What was the topic of discussion in relation to me? My episodes on Christmas, to which there is only one up publicly ever since the relaunch a few weeks back (so they had this piece prepped for a while before publishing).
I must say, I’m quite disappointed that my charge as a false teacher comes, firstly from a matter of religious liberty, and conscience, rather than my adherence to what the Bible reveals about the Godhead.
Condemn me as a stout trinitarian, please, not for disagreeing with you on Christmas.
What you’ll find in this article is what amounts to a smear piece. It is a lengthy one, that has a lot of words, but doesn’t really say much. The article would have been better if it properly represented my arguments and lacked the polemical emotionalism that it was laced in. It also made some strange mistakes in basic details like calling Hippolytus of Rome, Hippolytus of Athens (who was a figure in Greek Mythology). It didn’t refute my points really, but actually strengthened them or merely dismissed them because they didn’t like the people involved in my assessment, i.e. Tertullian. The strongest argument dealt with the document linked to Hippolytus, yet, they lost the point when being inconsistent later. Essentially, they questioned the validity of Hippolytus of Rome’s document because it was a late copy, yet they take a copy of the Chronograph as evidence for their claim while simultaneously making mistakes on their claim while plagiarizing another website.
And of course the article makes me sound like a madman:
“Yet people like Nick Campbell will spend their entire lives searching for answers in the dust and cobwebs, for fragments of parchment in distant lands to search for an answer for the question he already knows the answer to. Silence from God isn’t good enough for him. Nick searches high and low because HE wants Christmas, just as those in the world want it!”
[I’m not sure why this rhetoric is so popular. Is it supposed to make me sound like a fanatic? I spend a few months studying a subject and all of a sudden my entire life is dedicated to it?]
To be frank, however, if I’m speaking to a Modalist, my last concern is what they think about Christmas. Actually, when speaking to a Modalist, most anything else is of least concern.
One observation I did want to point out is a consistent inconsistency that I had to chuckle at, if I’m honest.
When you read through the article you’ll see no mention of any sources except for one, Alexander Hislop’s “Two Bablyons.” Search his name on their website, and he’s recommended a number of times as having penned a great work. I’ve discussed him a number of times now and so I’m just going to leave that there. Moving on, he is the presupposition driving the article despite his historical work being rejected by many, and once you recognize that, it’s clear.
In the article, you’ll see the Modalist reject Tertullian’s credibility because he believed Sunday was the day of the resurrection and held that it was the lord’s day for worship. Not only that, but he also that the Lord’s second coming was far off, not something to be had presently, and thus he isn’t credible according to them.
Additionally, Hippolytus is rejected as credible because he opposed… Modalism. Of course, Tertullian was also a major proponent against Modalism (I’m not sure why they didn’t mention that), but I digress because of course all of the church condemned Modalism, and rightly so!
Further, I’m critiqued for using the history of the Donatists in my evaluation, and the authors state, because they were heretics, “why does Nick think these people serve as good witnesses to make an argument for clean worship.” Aside for misunderstanding or twisting my argument, this will be fatal argument for the authors.
Around the end of the article, Spurgeon is called a corrupt man who praised Calvin and Calvin is called a rabid murderer. In their article against Calvin (cited in my debut on their website) they praise Servetus for speaking against infant baptism as a doctrine of the devil, the invention of the popery, and a total subversion of Christianity. One of the contributors notes, “Infant baptism is one of many diabolical inventions of men christened by the devil who comes as an angel of light and so on.” They also praise Servetus in his denial of trinitarianism.
Yet, their single source against me, Alexander Hislop, was ironically…. a Presbyterian, Calvinistic, infant baptizing, trinitarian (who oddly argued that every religion had a type or shadow of the trinity including Hinduism), who held to a Sunday resurrection, and the second advent being distant. Not only so, but he wrote in defense for most all of these things!
A rudimentary level of research on Hislop would show the authors that their own source, according to their own standards, is unreliable in their argumentation. Of course, his history in the “Two Babylons” is famously noted, even by wikipedia, as having no claim of being accurate by historians.
So, if we treat sources the way our Modalists do, then we must discredit their entire presupposition that Christmas predates the NT via Bablyon, and thus the article, since they provided one single source who is against much of what they hold to. According to themselves, he is a product of the devil and we should avoid him, and we would be crazy to trust him, and by extension them.
More difficult, however, is that I cannot quote any evidences for this because those who I can think of are heretics and unreliable according to the modalists (even if they disagree with me on Christmas). Basically, the Modalists are right, because they said so, and they are the standard.
The internet is a strange place. Apologies for typos, it’s late or I’m tired. I’m not sure.
Comments that followed:
Kevin Bogus
I read your book about the holidays and felt it was an honest review. How they came up with the claims is crazy. Some twisting and stretching to be sure. Indeed, the interest is an interesting place.
Christ is the Cure
Kevin Bogus I’m glad to hear that – I really tried to make the book clear this is my assessment ??♂️ while the article made me sound like I was claiming to be the definitive scholar on the subject
Kevin Bogus
Christ is the Cure honestly and truly I thought your book was well written topic on the subject. I thought you tried to look at it from all the different angles and while you gave your own thoughts, I felt like you left it open for people too make their own conclusion and choices, and never once did I feel as if you presented that we had to quit fellowshipping together because we came to a different conclusions.
Christ is the Cure
Kevin Bogus well that’s encouraging because that’s all I really wanted to accomplish
Christian Walton
You know, I haven’t read the article on you: but I think I know the guy you’re talking about.
If it is the guy you’re talking about, I’ve read him before and that man is a blasphemous lunatic who desperately needs Christ.
Christ is the Cure
Christian Walton there’s certainly some weird ideas over there to say the least
Christian Walton
Christ is the Cure I found the article and confirmed my suspicion: I was right.
That dude’s hatred of sound theology comes from the pits of hell. We gotta pray for him.
Marcie Morris
I have literally spent the second half of my day reading their site, their articles and their reasons for calling people false teachers. Nick is in good company on this site. In addition to him, other “false teachers” include Paul Washer, John MacArthur, Alistair Begg, Tim Challies, John Calvin, Walter Martin, John Piper and many others.
It’s worth noting that they have countless comments on their articles of people calling them out in their false teachings. Numerous people noting the same takeaway that I did after reading their stuff – no one is correct but them. If anyone believes something they don’t believe, it means they’re of the devil and have never experienced Christ. Which is a regurgitated claim in almost every article I read-that none of these people “know the Lord Jesus personally”, a claim he also made of Nick.
I’ve read both versions of Nicks Holidays and the Feasts book which came from the episodes quoted in this article (and I’ve also listened to the episodes numerous times) and I can say with 100% certainty that they have twisted everything Nick said. There’s so much straw I can’t see straight.
Their Modalism is what condemns them. Of the Trinity they said:
“Trinity worshipers demand that Christians bow to this abomination made in the likeness of their own confusion. In this section we expose the idolaters and their idol in order to liberate those held hostage to damnable lies.” Their list of false teachers isn’t surprising given this is what they believe.
Lindsey Dixon
Marcie Morris I didn’t spend long, but there were also actual false teachers notably absent.
Top fan
Rachael Chen
dont worry, those who actually read the Bible, have the Holy Spirit and take an honest look at your work will be able to discern that you’re not a false teacher
JP Manzi
He literally is not worth your time to reply. His views are odd to put it mildly
Christ is the Cure
JP Manzi yeah, I’m discovering that – there’s some lofty claims on their website
Maddie Rose
We live in a day where people have to be discerning about people who claim to be discerning. It should be a red flag when a website or organization, or person is solely engaged in calling out false teachers. Discernment is part of ministry but these people are like tabloids, getting attention and garnering a following for lies and slander.
Edmar Conroy
This is not stereotypical but there is no proper argumentation with these people. Just zero reason.
Christ is the Cure
Edmar Conroy I’ve come to that conclusion myself too after looking through the various pages on the website!
Edmar Conroy
Christ is the Cure What they do is misrepresent you then argue their “points” against that misrepresentation of you that they created. It is sad, really.
Jessie Ghansah
Keep your peace, brother. Continue to do your work faithfully, address what you must and leave the rest to God. Stay blessed and Christ continually be exalted through the work of your hands.