What the Christian believes.

[tvan]

Originally posted by Blondie

I am a Christian.

I am proud of being a Christian.

My beliefs get me through each day.

I believe Jesus is the son of God.

This is who I am, who I want to be, and who I will always be.

Blondie

Amen to that Brother.

I have recently accepted Jesus as my Savior. I spent 11 years in the Navy and can't even begin to tell you some of the stupid things I did. I'm not a Holy Roller or anything. I am far from perfect and never will be. But I am here to say that God forgave me for the crap I did and the slate was wiped clean. It's like a thousand pounds off my shoulders.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by tvan

Amen to that Brother.

I have recently accepted Jesus as my Savior. I spent 11 years in the Navy and can't even begin to tell you some of the stupid things I did. I'm not a Holy Roller or anything. I am far from perfect and never will be. But I am here to say that God forgave me for the crap I did and the slate was wiped clean. It's like a thousand pounds off my shoulders.

My, my, a blessing to hear such words! Thanks for sharing. Where do you live and where do you attend church? I live in upstate, NY and attend Old Paths Bible Baptist Church. My wife and I sell old and rare Christian books for a living. Check us out: www.christianasbookshelf.com and www.abigailmiller.com. Keep in touch.

Lord bless.

[skinsfan51]

I've always wanted to ask the Roman Catholic believer, what about the millions of changed lives of those that have been "born again" without any aide or input from the Roman Catholic Church? Are they Christians if they nothing to do with the Church? How could their lives be changed for good if they have never followed, in your opinion, God's true Church? What about the revivals over the years (i.e. The Great Awakening with Wesley, Whitefield, et al)? Were they of God? What about the horrible things the Church has done? What about the millions of "heretics" they put to death, like Huss and Rogers and Tyndale? Their crimes? Translating the Bible. What about the inquisitions? Where are the revivals in Roman Catholic history that come from the Spirit only and not by force? There are a LOT of unanswered questions from an institution that claims to be the one true Church on this earth. It certainly seems a far cry from what the early Body of Christ looked like in the days of Peter and Paul.

[The Sisko]

Tyndale was put to death by the Catholic church ? I never knew much about him other than his translation of the Bible. I'll have to do some research on that one.

Interesting. You learn something new every day.

[Stu]

Originally posted by Yusuf06 No offense Stu, but I don't think it's quite as cut and dried as you would seem to believe. There was a great deal of spirited and well thought out debate on both sides of the Arian controversy. The Nicene creed was for the most part the end of all that however, I don't know that the "right" side won out. Much of the Nicene creed was decided based on politics and what was best for the Roman Empire...with the results etched in stone by the power and brutality of the empire.

No offense taken and fair enough point. I will never say their isn't a bit of faith in my viewpoint.

[Stu]

Originally posted by skinsfan51

I've always wanted to ask the Roman Catholic believer, what about the millions of changed lives of those that have been "born again" without any aide or input from the Roman Catholic Church? Are they Christians if they nothing to do with the Church? How could their lives be changed for good if they have never followed, in your opinion, God's true Church? What about the revivals over the years (i.e. The Great Awakening with Wesley, Whitefield, et al)? Were they of God? What about the horrible things the Church has done? What about the millions of "heretics" they put to death, like Huss and Rogers and Tyndale? Their crimes? Translating the Bible. What about the inquisitions? Where are the revivals in Roman Catholic history that come from the Spirit only and not by force? There are a LOT of unanswered questions from an institution that claims to be the one true Church on this earth. It certainly seems a far cry from what the early Body of Christ looked like in the days of Peter and Paul.

I don't discount the other good things that other Christians have done in bringing people to Jesus. They should be applauded. I will also freely admit that the Catholic Church can learn from some of the things they do. I have never said that the Catholic Church is perfect either. There are plenty of things that she has done wrong. There are also plenty of misconceptions regarding such things as well. I am happy to discuss all of your "unanswered questions" but in the interest of actually having a discussion I think we should refrain from the "shotgun approach" of directing such questions as it doesn't further the discussion. Pick one question and we can have a give and take. We can beat that one to death and then move on.

I previously submitted to you a question "By whose authority" do you interpret the Bible? When in conflict with another mainstream Christian how do you determine who is correct? Both parties can cite scripture back and forth bolstering their point of view so using the Bible to determine the answer does not work. My approach is to go back to the early Church's Fathers, who learned from the Apostles or the Apostles followers. This seems wise to me as they were closer to the "problem" so to speak, were well versed in scripture and some of them actually had a hand in determining the Canon itself. I have also found in my study that their beliefs are the same as the Catholic Church's today. Yusuf06 made a great point that there were other conflicting viewpoints at that time and how do we know that the "right" one won out". I admit this is an area of faith on my part as I think the Holy Spirit was with the true Church. While I understand his point, he and I probably can't go anywhere else with that issue. We just disagree.

In closing, I will in charity make the point that using the term Roman Catholic Church/RCC/Romanism etc is a misnomer and USUALLY used by those carrying an agenda (I know, I used to do it myself when I was protestant). The Roman Rite is but one rite within the Catholic Church. While the Roman Rite is the biggest there are many others. Besides for all you know, you are may be talking to a Byzantine Catholic. Something to think about as I think you would want to be correct in your terminology.

Peace.

[Canyonero!]

Ok, this is kind of unrelated to most of this discussion, but I've always been curious to know how people think about heaven and who gets in. I was raised Jewish but am now an atheist. I respect people who are religious, as silly as it seems to me from time to time. And for people to have faith in something they cannot see is remarkable to me (in a good way).

Anyway, my question is this: do all of you really believe that the only people that get into heaven are those that live a "Christian" life and accept Jesus Christ as their savior? Being an atheist, I don't really believe in an afterlife at all, so I'm not asking for me. It just seems strange to me that if there is a heaven, people would be excluded simply for not believing in someone. What if they live in an area where they would never even know about Jesus, yet lived a very "Christian" life?

Don't mean to start anything here. I know people often get quite animated when dealing with religion. I'm just curious about the heaven issue.

[twa]

Originally posted by Canyonero!

Ok, this is kind of unrelated to most of this discussion, but I've always been curious to know how people think about heaven and who gets in. I was raised Jewish but am now an atheist. I respect people who are religious, as silly as it seems to me from time to time. And for people to have faith in something they cannot see is remarkable to me (in a good way).

Anyway, my question is this: do all of you really believe that the only people that get into heaven are those that live a "Christian" life and accept Jesus Christ as their savior? Being an atheist, I don't really believe in an afterlife at all, so I'm not asking for me. It just seems strange to me that if there is a heaven, people would be excluded simply for not believing in someone. What if they live in an area where they would never even know about Jesus, yet lived a very "Christian" life?

Don't mean to start anything here. I know people often get quite animated when dealing with religion. I'm just curious about the heaven issue.

IMO The way to heaven is to realize you are a sinner[i believe we all all sinners from birth ,that sin nature passed down from Adam] and then accept Jesus as your savior[He was the son of God who by living a perfect life and was then crucified and rose from the grave to provide the perfect sacrifice for our sins]We are THEN to follow his example by being baptized [baptism is not reguired to be saved from sin ,but is a public showing of our salvation and a means to join a local group of believers gathering to worship God and strengthen one another thru teaching and fellowship].....Simply put Salvation is realizing we are a sinner and accepting christ as Lord......As far as Someone who had never heard of Jesus I believe that it is possible for someone to realize that there is a God and turn to him for salvation.Good works are a result not a requirement of salvation.NO ONE can live a sinless life [except Jesus]

[Stu]

Originally posted by tvan

Amen to that Brother.

I have recently accepted Jesus as my Savior. I spent 11 years in the Navy and can't even begin to tell you some of the stupid things I did. I'm not a Holy Roller or anything. I am far from perfect and never will be. But I am here to say that God forgave me for the crap I did and the slate was wiped clean. It's like a thousand pounds off my shoulders.

Sailor and "stupid things" can sometimes go hand in hand. (I'm speaking from experience as well.)

Wellcome aboard.

Stu

[twa]

In reguards to STU'S comment on resolving questions................. I feel that by using the Bible we can resolve any matter of consequence,If after studying Jesus and the apostles teachings[which would include going back to the original manuscripts to verify translation] there is still questions.IMO the question is moot. The idea that one church or group other than Jesus and the original apostles can espouse new doctrine is in error.

[dol90]

thanks for a good read of some high level spriritual debate. just had a chance to read it so that is why i am posting on page 6.

As someone who had faith as a youth, lost it, and then regained it stronger than ever two years ago at the age of 38 , I am thankful for the mercy of the Lord.

I am interested in opinions on this verse, one of my favorites...

ephesians 2:8 (king james)

for by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

in a previous post someone said they believe God will be fair as far as heaven and hell. I for one pray that God is not fair. If he is I will be burning in Hell with all those people that root for the cowboys:) just kidding. God's love is so great that even every cowboy fan is loved.

peace be with you

david

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by dol90

I am interested in opinions on this verse, one of my favorites...

ephesians 2:8 (king james)

for by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

peace be with you

david

Hi David,

Ephesians 2:8 is a key verse that gives us insight into what is required for the salvation of a human soul. By picking apart the verse we note the following:

1. Any person who is saved is saved by GRACE alone, through FAITH alone. No one is worthy of God's salvation and His grace is all sufficient.

2. We also learn that faith is a GIFT from God. So even our ability to exercise faith comes from God as a gift.

It's important to include verse 9 with this verse to complete the thought.

"Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:9)

Salvation is NEVER of works. Why? Because natural pride in our human nature will cause us to boast as if we somehow deserved God's grace, and that is simply not the case. No one deserves God's grace or the gift of faith. They are given out of love for those who will simply reach out and take them.

Any denomination or religion that teaches that a person must do some work in order to be saved is not of God. Don't doubt it. <b>If we could earn it, why did Christ have to die?</b>

The thoughts on this verese are not just randomly pulled from a hat. They line up with other Scripture to form a beautiful truth from God's word.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by tvan

Amen to that Brother.

I have recently accepted Jesus as my Savior. I spent 11 years in the Navy and can't even begin to tell you some of the stupid things I did. I'm not a Holy Roller or anything. I am far from perfect and never will be. But I am here to say that God forgave me for the crap I did and the slate was wiped clean. It's like a thousand pounds off my shoulders.

How do you know god forgave you? Is that something you tell yourself to feel better. Just wondering

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Stu

I previously submitted to you a question "By whose authority" do you interpret the Bible? When in conflict with another mainstream Christian how do you determine who is correct? Both parties can cite scripture back and forth bolstering their point of view so using the Bible to determine the answer does not work.

I believe every Christian has the right to interpret the Bible as he reads it. (Thankfully, I can say that without fear in our day. If I said that openly 500 years ago my life would be in danger from the "Holy" Church. It's not my intention to slap you in the face with that, but the Church you cling to did some wicked things and abused their authority a zillion times over the "golden years," as you would say. We call them the "dark ages." How could they have been the "One True Church" during all those years of abuse?) That doesn't mean that he's going to start a church somewhere and thousands will follow, but Paul did say (in the context of interpretation), "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Note the word "man." (i.e. the individual.) Paul allowed room for individuals to interpret Scripture themselves. Do those differences in that time make it a fact that the Bible doesn't work?

I submit that the RCC (I use that abbreviated to save time, that's all) does the same thing and has done the same thing many times over the years. One pope will speak "ex cathedra" and make a law, and then 300 years later another pope will abolish that law in the same manner? How is that reconciled when you believe that when he speaks "ex cathedra" he's perfect? How can one perfect statement cancel out another supposed perfect statement?

Just because different people, and thus different denominations, agree or disagree doesn't make individual interpretation of the Bible unbiblical or wrong. It just means that we are all human and really need to search the Scriptures very, very carefully to make sure that our own opinions are not influencing our interpretation.

My approach is to go back to the early Church's Fathers, who learned from the Apostles or the Apostles followers. This seems wise to me as they were closer to the "problem" so to speak, were well versed in scripture and some of them actually had a hand in determining the Canon itself.

What is important to remember is that the early church fathers didn't <i>determine</i> the canon. It was already established and believed for many, many years (especially the OT). All they did was <i>acknowledge</i> the Books that were already accepted. It's important to understand that lest we give too much authority to the Fathers. They were not Apostles, not were they inspired in their writings, and we should never take what they say over plain Scripture.

In closing, I will in charity make the point that using the term Roman Catholic Church/RCC/Romanism etc is a misnomer and USUALLY used by those carrying an agenda (I know, I used to do it myself when I was protestant).

Like I said, I mean no offense when using the term "RCC." It's just saves time in typing. If you are Byzantine just say so and I'll start saying "BCC," but something makes me think you're a RC, yes?

[twa]

Originally posted by Liberty

How do you know god forgave you? Is that something you tell yourself to feel better. Just wondering

I can only answer that by my own experience,I called on god to save me on the side of a road[after being convicted of my sin nature]The moment I called on god for forgivness I had a peace of mind that has lasted almost 40 years now.I am still a sinner ,yet I have Holy Spirit to help point the way during times of trouble and just to make the daily decision to serve God easier.....Hope that helps.

[mardi gras skin]

Originally posted by Yusuf06

There is an excellent, excellent book that deals with the Arian controversy by Richard E. Rubenstein called When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome. Whether you buy the arguments he makes or not it is a very very well written and documented book. I'd highly recommend it.

Occasionally, critics of orthodox doctrines have questioned whether belief in Jesus' diety and humanity existed before the fourth century councils and creeds. But Ignatius, at around 105, wrote to the Trallians affirming Jesus' true humanity and to the Ephesians affirming his true divinity. "God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life." He doesn't provide a full blown dogma of Christ's person, but he does clearly affirm both his divinity and his humanity. Its hard to take speculation about a 4th century formulation of Jesus' diety seriously in light of early second century writings.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by twa

I can only answer that by my own experience,I called on god to save me on the side of a road[after being convicted of my sin nature]The moment I called on god for forgivness I had a peace of mind that has lasted almost 40 years now.I am still a sinner ,yet I have Holy Spirit to help point the way during times of trouble and just to make the daily decision to serve God easier.....Hope that helps.

Thank you for the reply

[The Sisko]

Interesting point Mardi Gras Skin. However, in Ignatius' letter to the Trallians which you cite, Ignatius says "...They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power." The rest of the text of the letter can be found here

Ignatius says this to keep the followers on what he believes is the right path. However, it is clear that even at that early date there were many who had not bought into the divinity of Jesus and other church doctrines that we readily accept today as being set in stone.

[Guest peele]

Originally posted by twa

I have enjoyed these posts and hope to get some opinions about"one baptism for the forgiveneses of sin" I believe and my church teaches that baptism is not a requirement for the forgiveness of sin,It is instead a public testimoney or acknowledgement of your being forgiven. IE a pictorial ordinance showing the death burial and resurection of Jesus ,Showing the washing away of sins and the start of a new life. I would like to hear your beliefs in reguard to this.

Thank You twa!!! I was thinking the same exact thing. I read that and it all sounded OK till I got to the baptism thing. I also believe that it is a public testimony of you being forgiven.

[mardi gras skin]

Originally posted by Yusuf06 Ignatius says this to keep the followers on what he believes is the right path. However, it is clear that even at that early date there were many who had not bought into the divinity of Jesus and other church doctrines that we readily accept today as being set in stone.

Of course. From the perspective of a Christian, Gnosticism was a first century heresy. Ignatius and future apologists appealed to the apostolic tradition in opposition to the secret teachings of the mystery religion. I don't think anyone here disputes that. The New Testament documents make it clear that there were many who didn't buy in to the divinity of Jesus.

But it's beyond reasonable debate that Jesus was worshipped as God from the beginning. Surely before the end of Rome. In the end, it is the appeal to apostolic tradition and scripture that won out.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by mardi gras skin

But it's beyond reasonable debate that Jesus was worshipped as God from the beginning. Surely before the end of Rome. In the end, it is the appeal to apostolic tradition and scripture that won out.

I agree. One doesn't need the writings of Paul to prove that Jesus was claiming divinity. The Gospels furnish plenty of evidence in Jesus' own words and in the actions of His enemies that demonstrate that. Paul's Books just confirm what Jesus began.

"I and my Father are one."

"If ye have seen me you have seen the Father."

"I am."

[Guest peele]

Originally posted by Canyonero!

And for people to have faith in something they cannot see is remarkable to me (in a good way).

Anyway, my question is this: do all of you really believe that the only people that get into heaven are those that live a "Christian" life and accept Jesus Christ as their savior?

What if they live in an area where they would never even know about Jesus, yet lived a very "Christian" life?

As far as people having faith in something you cannot see...I say this you cannot see the wind but you see the effects of the wind, also you can't see your brain but you know you have one...Just a thought.

As far as accepting Jesus being the only way the Bible says in John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, (GOD) except through me.

Everyone will hear the Word of Jesus Christ. That is why we have missionaries.

The Bible says in Romans 10:16-18

Romans 10

16But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?"[1] 17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. 18But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:

"Their voice has gone out into all the earth,

their words to the ends of the world."[2]

Footnotes

10:16 Isaiah 53:1

10:18 Psalm 19:4

[Stu]

Originally posted by skinsfan51

I believe every Christian has the right to interpret the Bible as he reads it. (Thankfully, I can say that without fear in our day. If I said that openly 500 years ago my life would be in danger from the "Holy" Church. It's not my intention to slap you in the face with that, but the Church you cling to did some wicked things and abused their authority a zillion times over the "golden years," as you would say. We call them the "dark ages." How could they have been the "One True Church" during all those years of abuse?) That doesn't mean that he's going to start a church somewhere and thousands will follow, but Paul did say (in the context of interpretation), "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Note the word "man." (i.e. the individual.) Paul allowed room for individuals to interpret Scripture themselves. Do those differences in that time make it a fact that the Bible doesn't work?

People have always done bad things in the name of the Church. I won't make excuses for that just like I don't make excuses for "Christians" who use violence to protest abortion. The dark ages weren't the dark ages because of the Church. That was a period filled with wars and mistreatment aside from any religios context. It just so happens that a religious context can be covenient cover for ulterior motives and why the state was often the executioner in the name of heresy. A true study of the Inquistion and other "religious" deaths would show that to be true. But overall, the Catholic Church has been a positive for the world and continues to be through evagelization, charitable work (arguably the largest in the world), and holding the line on morality which many other Christian faiths are not doing (Prostenants used to be in agreement with the Church on divorce and contraception, what happened?). If you want to discuss a particular "wicked" thing then we can do that one at a time without the blanket condemnation. We will also have to take into account the historical timeframe as well. Given that I will be happy to call a spade a spade. Can we also discuss the killings done by protestants as well or the anti-semitism of Martin Luther or other such evil doings? In the end I'm not sure what this accomplishes in these discussions. I've already acknowledged transgressions by the Church. So what? I still believe her to be the tool of God albeit imperfect much like King David or Solomon. My mother was once told by an overweight doctor that she needed to lose weight. He might of been a little hypocritical at the time but he was still correct.

Originally posted by skinsfan51

I submit that the RCC (I use that abbreviated to save time, that's all) does the same thing and has done the same thing many times over the years. One pope will speak "ex cathedra" and make a law, and then 300 years later another pope will abolish that law in the same manner? How is that reconciled when you believe that when he speaks "ex cathedra" he's perfect? How can one perfect statement cancel out another supposed perfect statement?

Name one contradiction and we will discuss.

Originally posted by skinsfan51

Just because different people, and thus different denominations, agree or disagree doesn't make individual interpretation of the Bible unbiblical or wrong. It just means that we are all human and really need to search the Scriptures very, very carefully to make sure that our own opinions are not influencing our interpretation.

What steps have you taken to ensure that your own opinions aren't influencing your own interpretation? Why is your interpretation greater than another christian church that might say definitively homosexuality is not a sin? It's very nice to say that we can all agree on the "essentials" but when it comes down to it that is impossible when scripture is left to our own interpretation. You can quote verses to prove your point and I can quote some to prove my point. It comes down to interpretation. This thread proves that. You say without question that your view is the one view. For example:

Originally posted by skinsfan51

Any denomination or religion that teaches that a person must do some work in order to be saved is not of God. Don't doubt it.

Is that an "infallible" statement on your part? Our views aren't that different. I just put my faith in an institution I believe was ordained by God and now headed by the Pope. Not trying to slap you in the face, but you sound like you think you are a "pope" with such language. This is the essential point I am trying to make on authority. I don't expect you to change your mind but rather just acknowledge that you understand my train of thought.

Originally posted by skinsfan51

What is important to remember is that the early church fathers didn't <i>determine</i> the canon. It was already established and believed for many, many years (especially the OT). All they did was <i>acknowledge</i> the Books that were already accepted. It's important to understand that lest we give too much authority to the Fathers. They were not Apostles, not were they inspired in their writings, and we should never take what they say over plain Scripture.

If the Bible was already assembled, why don't you use the Gospel of Thomas or the Letter of Clement I or the Didache. Yes the councils acknowledged some accepted books at the time but they dispensed with some as well and canonized the Bible you use today sans the Books Martin Luther purged. I don't give the word of the Church Fathers more credence than scripture, my point is that they were in a better position to interpret it than you and their interpretations are inline with Catholic Dogma of today. Once again, I'm not trying to change your mind. My point is just to get you to understand my way of thinking. From there we can move on.

Originally posted by skinsfan51

Like I said, I mean no offense when using the term "RCC." It's just saves time in typing. If you are Byzantine just say so and I'll start saying "BCC," but something makes me think you're a RC, yes?

I believe you don't mean offense as it is used by most people and even some Catholics. Rather I am trying to correct you because it is wrong. Just like I would tell you your fly was down if I saw you in the hallway. Consider this a virtual, "your fly is down". Even I was incorrect in saying "Byzantine Catholic" and will end with saying that I am a Catholic.

Peace.

[dol90]

skinsfan51

thanks for your reply. I couldn't have said it better. I almost posted verse 9 initially to emphasize the point that salvation can not be earned. I did not because of the quality of the posters on this thread and expected that it would be brought up in a response. thanks for not disappointing.

david