What is an authentic Christian?

[CG Didymus]

We know from Hebrews 11 that there were men of faith throughout the OT.

And what do we "know" about Hebrews, and what do we assume? And what about the gospels? Who wrote them? How do we know what is written in them, actually happened? Like people coming out of their graves and walking around Jerusalem? Jesus walking on water and ascending into the clouds? An "authentic" Christian is supposed to just believe it. But Christians are also believing in certain doctrines and beliefs based on interpretations made by Church leaders. How do we know what they believed is true? Tradition? Anyway, you "know", but some of us don't "know". For me, there's just too much mythy stuff in the Bible. Like Moses' cane turning into a snake? Do you literally believe that happened?

I'd imagine that a person claiming to be an "authentic" Christian would take the Bible very literally. But then what about a person who starts doubting some of those stories literally happened? Like a world-wide flood? Or a six-day creation that happened less then 10,000 years ago? Does this person cease to be an "authentic" Christian at some point? And, if so, does that mean an "authentic" Christian cannot have any doubts about those stories and must believe they are literally true?

Then the other thing... doctrines. Which doctrines must be believed and which doctrines, when added into a person's beliefs, makes them no longer an "authentic" Christian? And, same thing, each Christian is going to believe their Church has it right and the other ones have it wrong and have added in false beliefs and doctrines. And if that is happening, and I think it is, then believing in a Church or a Church leader's interpretations are important as to who is an "authentic" Christian and who isn't.

 

[metis]

And what do we "know" about Hebrews, and what do we assume? And what about the gospels? Who wrote them? How do we know what is written in them, actually happened? Like people coming out of their graves and walking around Jerusalem? Jesus walking on water and ascending into the clouds? An "authentic" Christian is supposed to just believe it. But Christians are also believing in certain doctrines and beliefs based on interpretations made by Church leaders. How do we know what they believed is true? Tradition? Anyway, you "know", but some of us don't "know". For me, there's just too much mythy stuff in the Bible. Like Moses' cane turning into a snake? Do you literally believe that happened?

I'd imagine that a person claiming to be an "authentic" Christian would take the Bible very literally. But then what about a person who starts doubting some of those stories literally happened? Like a world-wide flood? Or a six-day creation that happened less then 10,000 years ago? Does this person cease to be an "authentic" Christian at some point? And, if so, does that mean an "authentic" Christian cannot have any doubts about those stories and must believe they are literally true?

Then the other thing... doctrines. Which doctrines must be believed and which doctrines, when added into a person's beliefs, makes them no longer an "authentic" Christian? And, same thing, each Christian is going to believe their Church has it right and the other ones have it wrong and have added in false beliefs and doctrines. And if that is happening, and I think it is, then believing in a Church or a Church leader's interpretations are important as to who is an "authentic" Christian and who isn't.

Within Catholicism, the Church has the right and the obligation to teach what it believes to be true, but we as congregants have the right of "personal discernment", which is covered in the "Catechism". Therefore, Catholics are all over the place on a great many issues.

An example of the above that we now seeing take place is how the cardinals and the bishops are responding to Pope Francis, and they are also all over the page, let me tell ya.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Are some healings the "figment" of the person's imagination? Or even faked? Are some who claim to be Christian healers, frauds? Are some Catholics healed? Are some Mormons healed? How about JW's? Or what about non-Christians? Are Hindus healed? Or Muslims? Or what about religions thought by some to be cults? Like Scientologists... Do some of them get healed? If any of these other people that have contradictory beliefs as yours get healed, then was it God and the Holy Spirit doing it?

I would hope that your Christian beliefs are true and real. And that it was God and the Holy Spirit that healed you, but what about the healings, and I would suspect there are some, in these other religions? Since it wasn't the God you believe in, but a belief in a different God, then what? Was it a figment of their imagination? Is their belief in their religion just a figment of their imagination? I think some Christians do think that way... That the beliefs are false, and the people have been duped into believing.

Then it gets down to Christian versus Christian. Some have fallen for false doctrines, and some, the "authentic" Christians have the true beliefs.... and of course, live by them. Sorry, but religious beliefs, even yours, and religious experiences are just too easily faked... And some people are just too easily fooled. And, of course, it's not you, but it's always the other people that are the ones being fooled.

I can understand that a person seeking God is going to ask such questions. But the claim l make, having experienced baptism in the Holy Spirit, is that my knowledge of God is a reality. This knowledge is not a claim to omniscience (!), but to knowledge of God's love (the Spirit of Christ) at a personal level.

There's an interesting and enlightening story in John's Gospel, of the healing of a man born blind [John 9]. This man was healed by Jesus on the sabbath, and when cross-examined by doubting Pharisees the man responded, 'Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened my eyes'.

I am past the stage of questioning the authenticity of the scriptures. After years of study, l'm convinced that the Bible is of divine origin, and that Jesus is Lord.

As Paul says, 'work out your own salvation with fear and trembling'. [Philippians 2:12]

One can be a great philosopher until the day of one's death, never having encountered the truth of God!

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'd imagine that a person claiming to be an "authentic" Christian would take the Bible very literally.

Its true that some people think that is some kind of seal of approval upon their authenticity, but they are ignoring Galatians 5:22 if they do.

It is the anti christ thinking that is unacceptable, the choice to judge and exclude other people. Being authentic is good, but saying other people aren't is unnecessary and poisonous.

If a Christian is authentic then they will develop the values that show it: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. What matters is not a lawyer's skill with words, subtle arguments or tricks of the tongue. That is not considered a seal of authenticity.

 

[CG Didymus]

Within Catholicism, the Church has the right and the obligation to teach what it believes to be true, but we as congregants have the right of "personal discernment", which is covered in the "Catechism". Therefore, Catholics are all over the place on a great many issues.

An example of the above that we now seeing take place is how the cardinals and the bishops are responding to Pope Francis, and they are also all over the page, let me tell ya.

So, is that a good thing? If the Bible is true. And the Catholic Church has the right interpretation of that truth. And its leader is infallible, then whatever the Church says should be followed and obeyed. But who believes that these days?

It's the problem that Protestants had. Who has the true interpretation of the Bible? They couldn't agree and hold themselves together, so they broke off into a bunch of denominations and sects. Are Catholics relatively unified in spite of there being various points of disagreement?

 

[CG Didymus]

I can understand that a person seeking God is going to ask such questions. But the claim l make, having experienced baptism in the Holy Spirit, is that my knowledge of God is a reality. This knowledge is not a claim to omniscience (!), but to knowledge of God's love (the Spirit of Christ) at a personal level.

There's an interesting and enlightening story in John's Gospel, of the healing of a man born blind [John 9]. This man was healed by Jesus on the sabbath, and when cross-examined by doubting Pharisees the man responded, 'Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened my eyes'.

I am past the stage of questioning the authenticity of the scriptures. After years of study, l'm convinced that the Bible is of divine origin, and that Jesus is Lord.

As Paul says, 'work out your own salvation with fear and trembling'. [Philippians 2:12]

One can be a great philosopher until the day of one's death, never having encountered the truth of God!

Sounds good to me. I can't expect a believer in any religion to go against what they have experienced as being the truth. To those of us that don't believe, the problem is how do you deal with those people in those other religions and those in different sects within Christianity that don't believe like you? Some of them are just as sure of their truth and experience as you are. That's why some of us question all of it. And think that all religious people have let themselves fall for things that seem true and real but aren't.

Since religions do believe in very different things, they all can't be The Truth. But they can very easily be believed to be true by some people. Like a Muslim and you would probably disagree on enough things that you would each believe that the other person is following false teachings. It might happen between you and a Mormon. And from my pov, I can understand why each believes what they do, but, since I don't have a "Truth" to judge them by, I can't say that they are wrong. You can. You have a belief in the Bible and an interpretation of the Bible that you can use to judge whether or not these other people have true or false beliefs. The problem is... they do that to you. So, then what do we do?

 

[CG Didymus]

Its true that some people think that is some kind of seal of approval upon their authenticity, but they are ignoring Galatians 5:2 if they do.

It is the anti christ thinking that is unacceptable, the choice to judge and exclude other people. Being authentic is good, but saying other people aren't is unnecessary and poisonous.

If a Christian is authentic then they will develop the values that show it: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. What matters is not a lawyer's skill with words, subtle arguments or tricks of the tongue. That is not considered a seal of authenticity.

That sounds good to me too. But how to you deal with people that have religious beliefs that are way different than yours? Like even in the Bible, some of the neighboring people followed what the Bible calls false gods and had Elijah kill all their prophets.

I think it would be great if all religions focused on the joy, the peace and those other things, and those things, and people living by those things would be the people that were called "authentic" Christians. And I think there's some verses that allude to that? And actually, the parable of the Good Samaritan might apply. It has the guy that has the wrong beliefs ending up being the true friend in need to the injured person. Was he then the "authentic" believer? What do you think?

 

[Brickjectivity]

That sounds good to me too. But how to you deal with people that have religious beliefs that are way different than yours?

You treat them as better than yourself if we are going by the text of Philippians 2:3 which says "nothing according to self-interest or according to vain conceit, but in humility be esteeming one another surpassing themselves," This is actually wins souls very well. Arguments, on the other hand, entrap people into situations for which they are unprepared. Arguments backed up by miracles are no better. Argument can result in a form of godliness that is hollow. Its like when you try to impose a republic and freedom of speech onto people who don't really want it or aren't interested in the associated responsibilities. It doesn't take unless they are interested, and if they are interested they can do it themselves. If the 'Fruit of the spirit' is present, then that is the seal of authenticity.

You might notice in these forums that 'Non christian' people (they don't claim to be Christian) here often have arguments against Christianity, however they do not disrespect any Christian who has demonstrated authentic moral development. Nobody objects to this. Hindus don't. Muslims don't. Everybody likes moral development. This is how Christianity begins and its only strength. We aren't an argument based entity. Its sad that so many of us think we are going to save the world through having the right arguments. Our scriptures never say this. They actually say "overthrowing arguments, and every high thing lifting itself up against the knowledge of God, and taking captive every thought into the obedience of Christ," (2 Corinthians 10:5) Arguments are not Christian, usually. The knowledge "Of God" or "From God" does not require one person arguing with another. Our canonized scripture James 1:5 says "Now if any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him." He says "It will be given to him." Where is the need for arguments and entrance exams?

The need for arguments and entrance exams comes from stubborn people who want to have their way, according to James one of the shortest and clearest books in the NT which apparently no one reads. It is apparently inconvenient for people who want to impose their own subtle understanding of the scripture and of Christ. Its like a bone stuck in the mouth.

And I'm not cherry picking. There is almost no chapter in the NT which does not allude to this concept of God revealing knowledge directly and that we shouldn't judge other people. Pick any chapter. I'll show you an example there. You can probably do it for yourself. If I can't then I can at least pick one from the next or previous chapter. The NT is completely pocked with this.

Like even in the Bible, some of the neighboring people followed what the Bible calls false gods and had Elijah kill all their prophets.

The story of Elijah is told in the book(s) Kings. The example you mention is from the first of two volumes called I Kings chapter 18. Elijah's actions are forbidden in the Torah, and so this story actually is not literal. Jewish prophets are not exempt from following the Torah. The story is real in a way but mystically, not strict History. It is a telling of something, kind of like a tattoo or graffiti version. The same goes for the story of Phineas driving a spear through two people. That is murder, forbidden in the Torah. Jews don't explain this explicitly, and they don't have to. Its nobody's business; however Christianity which is a spinoff or copy of Judaism does show in its scriptures that these are nonliteral. First of all Jesus discusses death and life as sin and repentance. The story in Kings chapter 18 means these false prophets of Baal have been shunned from the community, though the story is more exciting. But we don't have to rely upon Christian scripture to demonstrate that in Ezra's Tanach that sin is equated with death. The prophets talk about Israel's fall into sin as death. Anyways, its against Torah. No prophet is going to go around slaying false prophets. I don't care if an angel comes down from the sky and says "Elijah. I want you to take this holy, holy extra holy sword and slay this really very evil dude." Elijah won't do it, because to Elijah this would make him a murderer, breaking the Torah, something worse than death. I hope I have explained this clearly and have convinced you, but even if not I have certainly convinced myself. Try and trust me on it.

I think it would be great if all religions focused on the joy, the peace and those other things, and those things, and people living by those things would be the people that were called "authentic" Christians. And I think there's some verses that allude to that? And actually, the parable of the Good Samaritan might apply. It has the guy that has the wrong beliefs ending up being the true friend in need to the injured person. Was he then the "authentic" believer? What do you think?

I think that the more the words the less the meaning, and how does anyone benefit? My own post has gotten so long that a very small concept has gotten stretched and expanded to the point that it is probably noxious to read. See the scripture reference in my signature.

 

[CG Didymus]

I think that the more the words the less the meaning, and how does anyone benefit? My own post has gotten so long that a very small concept has gotten stretched and expanded to the point that it is probably noxious to read. See the scripture reference in my signature.

Yeah, I've done that a few times. I made my point and find something else to add and pretty soon I've got a bunch of words that just clutter things up.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Sounds good to me. I can't expect a believer in any religion to go against what they have experienced as being the truth. To those of us that don't believe, the problem is how do you deal with those people in those other religions and those in different sects within Christianity that don't believe like you? Some of them are just as sure of their truth and experience as you are. That's why some of us question all of it. And think that all religious people have let themselves fall for things that seem true and real but aren't.

Since religions do believe in very different things, they all can't be The Truth. But they can very easily be believed to be true by some people. Like a Muslim and you would probably disagree on enough things that you would each believe that the other person is following false teachings. It might happen between you and a Mormon. And from my pov, I can understand why each believes what they do, but, since I don't have a "Truth" to judge them by, I can't say that they are wrong. You can. You have a belief in the Bible and an interpretation of the Bible that you can use to judge whether or not these other people have true or false beliefs. The problem is... they do that to you. So, then what do we do?

Yes, l agree with much of what you say.

IMO, the Holy Spirit 'leads' a person into truth; things still have to be learned at an intellectual level.

 

[metis]

So, is that a good thing? If the Bible is true. And the Catholic Church has the right interpretation of that truth. And its leader is infallible, then whatever the Church says should be followed and obeyed.

Only when the pope speaks "ex cathedra", which has only been done twice in almost 2000 years.

Again, we have the right of disagreeing with what the Church may officially teach, and that makes sense as no one, including a pope, is perfect.

Are Catholics relatively unified in spite of there being various points of disagreement?

To a point, yes, as we are a "big tent" organization.

 

[CG Didymus]

You might notice in these forums that 'Non christian' people (they don't claim to be Christian) here often have arguments against Christianity, however they do not disrespect any Christian who has demonstrated authentic moral development.

Yes, there is a situation that happens to some Christians... They fall short of the expected Christian moral code. Big time preachers have "fallen" into sin. But, since I doubt anyone can avoid it, every Christian falls short somehow. If then, they go preaching about a high moral standard, especially when it comes to sexual moral codes, non-Christians can easily make the case for them being hypocrites.

I wouldn't think anybody is going to complain about anybody in any religion that tries to live a good honest life. But, when it comes to Christianity, part of what is expected of them is to go preach the "good news" to a lost world. So, how can they be honest about their own "sins" or shortcomings, and be able to tell others how Jesus has transformed their life? That is.... transformed it a little or even a lot, but not completely?

The Christian moral code is way too high for most all people I know.... Don't look at a woman with lust or you've committed adultery? And who knows other than the Christian whether they've done this or not? And in their "witness" to the truth of Christ in their lives, how do they live with that? How can they admit it to those people that they preach to about the good news of Jesus?

So.... what can an authentic Christian do? To be completely honest with others, they have to admit their own faults and shortcomings and then say what? That Jesus has changed my life and can change yours.... but not completely. You will be left with a little bit of your sin nature that will, from time to time, will cause you to fall into sin. And if they don't admit it, they are living a hypocritical life where they preach about how the Holy Spirit living in them but, in their hearts and minds, they are sinning as much as the person they preaching to and trying to get saved. By admitting their faults are they being too honest to people that will use that against them? Or, if they try and hide their sins, people will use that against them anyway and call them hypocrites... Because we all know that nobody is perfect and, in some ways, and with some things, they are committing sins. What can a true and honest Christian do?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yes, there is a situation that happens to some Christians... They fall short of the expected Christian moral code. Big time preachers have "fallen" into sin. But, since I doubt anyone can avoid it, every Christian falls short somehow. If then, they go preaching about a high moral standard, especially when it comes to sexual moral codes, non-Christians can easily make the case for them being hypocrites.

I wouldn't think anybody is going to complain about anybody in any religion that tries to live a good honest life. But, when it comes to Christianity, part of what is expected of them is to go preach the "good news" to a lost world. So, how can they be honest about their own "sins" or shortcomings, and be able to tell others how Jesus has transformed their life? That is.... transformed it a little or even a lot, but not completely?

The Christian moral code is way too high for most all people I know.... Don't look at a woman with lust or you've committed adultery? And who knows other than the Christian whether they've done this or not? And in their "witness" to the truth of Christ in their lives, how do they live with that? How can they admit it to those people that they preach to about the good news of Jesus?

So.... what can an authentic Christian do? To be completely honest with others, they have to admit their own faults and shortcomings and then say what? That Jesus has changed my life and can change yours.... but not completely. You will be left with a little bit of your sin nature that will, from time to time, will cause you to fall into sin. And if they don't admit it, they are living a hypocritical life where they preach about how the Holy Spirit living in them but, in their hearts and minds, they are sinning as much as the person they preaching to and trying to get saved. By admitting their faults are they being too honest to people that will use that against them? Or, if they try and hide their sins, people will use that against them anyway and call them hypocrites... Because we all know that nobody is perfect and, in some ways, and with some things, they are committing sins. What can a true and honest Christian do?

Either the Father converts people or arguments do, and its not arguments.

First of all Christians in general do not have to preach or argue. That is my opinion based first upon scriptures in the NT, secondly based upon the principles in the NT, thirdly based upon experience and reason. Does the Father reveal to Peter that Jesus is the Christ or does the Father not? This is the 'Rock' upon which everything must stand, so we must not ignore it. It is a principle.

I have endured many sermons where squirrels in suits made me feel guilty for not preaching, arguing and sermonizing people around me. I believed them, but they were wrong. Their message was to hide and save nuts, to save manna in jars for weeks, to make up smooth arguments like "The Roman Road" and speeches and to come up with clever discussions and retorts for objections. I was to make arguments to cause people to believe in God and in Jesus. "Be ready to give an answer for your hope!" they misquoted. They just didn't get it, but they taught me and many others their wrong ideas. They taught us to be their disciples instead of Jesus' disciples.

Also saying "Jesus transformed my life" is not foolish enough to be called 'Preaching'. First it is a self defensive statement defending your own honor at the cost of Jesus glory. Preaching about Jesus has to be foolish. You retain no personal honor from it or should retain none. It has to be very simple unbelievable statements such as "Jesus was born of a virgin, died etc and after three days was risen again." You have to trust that God will intervene. That is preaching.

Saying "Jesus transformed my life, so I no longer am a sinner" is not preaching and is an argument. That is the problem with it, and in my understanding you're likely to entrap someone rather than convert someone. So what I am saying is that you are, perhaps unintentionally, starting your own little cult by arguing instead of preaching foolishly.

Therefore an authentic Christian need only grow in morality and serenity and in doing good. If they are going to preach they should do so without defending their own honor. That is how it is to be done.

 

[CG Didymus]

I have endured many sermons where squirrels in suits made me feel guilty for not preaching, arguing and sermonizing people around me. I

Well, preaching doesn't have to be a negative thing. But it usually is. And it's usually associated with people that do try and make people feel guilty. They, I'd assume, think that they are the "authentic" Christians. But some of us have come to hate Christianity because of those types of preachers. And... it's usually them that get caught having affairs or exploiting people for their money. But what can you do? They are the most visible Christians, because they on the radio and TV.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well, preaching doesn't have to be a negative thing. But it usually is. And it's usually associated with people that do try and make people feel guilty. They, I'd assume, think that they are the "authentic" Christians. But some of us have come to hate Christianity because of those types of preachers. And... it's usually them that get caught having affairs or exploiting people for their money. But what can you do? They are the most visible Christians, because they on the radio and TV.

You raise a very important point. What you are seeing with this kind of preaching and this kind of guilt and this kind of verbal test of authenticity is a resurgence of anti christ, but this is expected. We're supposed to be fighting against anti christ over generations. It is part of a plan alluded to by various NT writers. Your pain was expected, anticipated and part of the program. It is part of our fight.

Christianity is like a laboratory for resolving how to unify people. The whole religion is designed to have fragmentation within it which challenges us to forgive each other. Its on purpose. This comes from the 'Gnostic' element which is evident in the NT writings saying that God and give wisdom to anyone. From the beginning it was expected that people would disagree strongly. The religion seems designed to bring out the disagreement in people, the pride, the animosity, the confrontations and then deal with them with forgiveness. Its just like how laboratories operate. We incorporate a miniature version of the world's problems into the religion where we can learn to fight it in miniature, and we do this over generations of Christians. It is like thousands of simulations. In Christianity the anti christ is to be treated like an oyster treats an irritant. When Christians learn to do this such begin to win and to defeat antichrist. When they don't do it, anti christ makes a resurgence. You see the kinds of things you're seeing today. Therefore Christianity acts as a laboratory to see what works -- what gets people to unify in spite of differences. Its History can be read like a laboratory manual.

So why do I think this was purposely done? I guess I'll just list a few of the relevant indicators in the NT that talk about this.

[Mat 16:17-18 NIV] 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
[Mat 10:34-38 NIV] 34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-- 36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' 37 "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
[Mat 7:15-16 NIV] 15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
[Jhn 17:23 NIV] 23 I in them and you in me--so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
[Act 20:30 NIV] 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.
[1Co 15:28 NIV] 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
[1Jo 3:18-19 NIV] 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth. 19 This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence:
[1Co 1:19 NIV] 19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
[1Co 11:18-20 NIV] 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat,

No, these are not the whole list but only a few to give an idea of what I am talking about. I could go on and on, because all of the scriptures in the NT are focused upon this. Christianity begins with the radical assumption that the Father can reveal things to individuals, that we must forgive, that we have power to forgive sins and that in order to take communion we must do so. I assert to you that it was anticipated that there would be friction, false teachings, evil leaders and people who didn't want to listen to sound principles. Christ is nevertheless expected to unify. The book Revelation describes Christianity as a war against various enemies, internal enemies described in its first chapters about the problems with seven churches. These internal enemies are in the symbols of John's revelation, and over the eons they are to be eventually destroyed by all church people unifying, answering Jesus prayer.

 

[Riders]

Well being raised in the Southern Baptist church till I was 13 I know some Baptists think they're the only ones going to heaven. Some think some churches are going to heaven outside of them.

They get along with Community churches, Pentecostals, non-denominational churches, and bible churches.

But when it comes to the Catholic church, the Lutherans, Episcopalian, Orthodox, and Presbyterians those types of churches in they're mind are going to hell.

 

[Muffled]

Well being raised in the Southern Baptist church till I was 13 I know some Baptists think they're the only ones going to heaven. Some think some churches are going to heaven outside of them.

They get along with Community churches, Pentecostals, non-denominational churches, and bible churches.

But when it comes to the Catholic church, the Lutherans, Episcopalian, Orthodox, and Presbyterians those types of churches in they're mind are going to hell.

I believe I attend an SBC church. I believe the idea is that one must receive Jesus as Lord and Savior to avoid Hell and go to Heaven and some denominations do not promote that so the salvation of thier members is in question.

Personally I believe I have met Roman Catholics who claim to be born again and have been to Roman Catholic Pentecostal gatherings which would suggest the people had the Holy Spirit.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Psalm 27:1. 'The LORD is my light and my salvation'.

It's not our light that shines, but the light of the LORD that shines from within us!

Jesus, the messiah, didn’t write Psalms.

 

[Riders]

I believe I attend an SBC church. I believe the idea is that one must receive Jesus as Lord and Savior to avoid Hell and go to Heaven and some denominations do not promote that so the salvation of thier members is in question.

Personally I believe I have met Roman Catholics who claim to be born again and have been to Roman Catholic Pentecostal gatherings which would suggest the people had the Holy Spirit.

Thatś is exactly what I am talking about. So because they don´t have to alter calls to accept Jesus as Lord they can not
possibly be Christians. The Bible says nothing about accepting Jesus, it says you must believe.

John 3 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that who so ever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

All those churches you think are not saved because they don do the altar call thing, give classes where people make a statement of belief in the church's belief at the end of the class which covers salvation.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Not so. Jesus came to die, and he died.

Scripture says, 'Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good'. [Romans 12:21]

He never volunteered. He ran until the cops caught him.