What are the Basic Differences Between Religion and the Gospel

[auparavant]

We cannot choose Christ. Our natural inclination is to deny a holy God. How can we choose a holy God when we are inherently evil ourselves?

John 6:44: No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;

It is not horrible for God to choose some and not others. All human beings deserve hell. It's actually merciful of Him to choose some to avoid His just punishment.

I'm saying we have free will. G-d never removed it from us. We can choose death any time...just as we can choose life. He offers salvation to every man...not just some men. Why is John 3:16 obscure in this thread?


"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."


He has always been speaking to us to draw us to Him. Jesus is His last revelation. All men, from Genesis to today. He chooses you, me, the Hindu buffalo-herder in the countryside, the Wallstreet criminal, the....everyone. He chooses us all.

 

[fifi134]

I'm saying we have free will. G-d never removed it from us. We can choose death any time...just as we can choose life. He offers salvation to every man...not just some men. Why is John 3:16 obscure in this thread?


"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

I never said we don't have free will. If we are choosing life, best believe it is the Spirit yielding us towards Him. It's His work in us that causes us to be saved.

 

[auparavant]

I never said we don't have free will. If we are choosing life, best believe it is the Spirit yielding us towards Him. It's His work in us that causes us to be saved.

That is with a person searching. There is a spark of life in him, searching for G-d and He reveals Himself to said person. There are no unsalvageable persons in this world. His revelations are to all mankind.

 

[fifi134]

That is with a person searching. There is a spark of life in him, searching for G-d and He reveals Himself to said person. There are no unsalvageable persons in this world. His revelations are to all mankind.

I think I see what you're saying, but I don't believe everyone will be saved.

 

[Galadriel]

No, Christianity is not a religion. It's about a relationship with Christ. 2nd Cor 5:17 "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."

Christianity is a religion (I do not subscribe to your definition of religion), and the 2 Cor. verse you quoted doesn't say a "relationship with Christ"--it says that we become new creatures in Christ. Christ sanctifies and renews us.

Religion is man's attempt to reach God, while Christianity is God's attmept to reach man through the gospel of Christ.

I don't define religion as man's attempt to reach God; this perhaps accounts for some of the confusion/disagreement.

Christ didn't give us his bride, the church.
The church aka the body of Christ aka the bride of Christ was given to him. He is the church's bridegroom.

Christ takes His Bride (the Church) and sanctifies her and presents her to Himself. He is the Bridegroom.
The Church is also His Mystical Body (of which He is the Head).
The Church on Earth was established by Christ and He appointed Peter and the Apostles to lead, teach, preach, and defend.

But baptism does not save anyone.

Baptism is a sacrament--a visible sign through which God communicates invisible grace. The Holy Spirit gives us sanctifying grace through Baptism. This is what it means to be baptized by water and the Spirit. Baptism also makes one a member of the Church.

IF that were true, then I was saved at age 7 when I had no idea what was going on. A lot of people are saved but are not baptized.

The Church has always baptized children and infants along with adults. Just as circumcision (whether or child or adult convert) was a sign of being part of the Covenant, Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant. The Holy Spirit works through baptism to infuse sanctifying grace into our souls.

Those who come to a saving knowledge say on their deathbed, or in hospitals, psych wards, prison, etc they may not have the chance to be baptized.

That's what we call Baptism of Desire. There are people who die before receiving formal baptism, but there is the baptism of desire, and also the baptism of blood. in the early Church, during the persecutions, many catechumens (converts studying and learning the Christian faith and preparing for baptism) were often murdered along with baptized members of the Church. The catechumens were seen as martrys, and "baptized by blood."

We're under grace, no longer under law.

Yes, we are no longer under Mosaic Law.

That dispensation is OT. We're still in the dispensation of grace. So following the law is obedience but not apart of his grace that saves us.

I think you may be confusing justification and sanctification.

The first Christians was at the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon them in Acts 2.

The followers of Jesus began being called "Christians" at that point, but Mary and the Apostles were followers of Christ before Pentecost.

God wants all the glory and honor and does not want it to be shared with anyone else. Mary was chosen as a vessel to carry Jesus and to be his mother but she needed him as much as everyone else needed him.

Sorry, if you've ever carried to term and given birth to a child, it's far more than being an incubator or "vessel." And you don't stop being a mother once the child is born.

Who said she didn't need redemption? Who is making her equal with God?

 

[aribell]

It portrays baptism, the visible Church, prayer, etc. as things that are lacking in God's grace and lacking in importance when Scripture clearly teaches otherwise. It creates a false dichotomy between a Christian's interior life (aka "relationship with Christ") and the Church and Sacraments as if they are contrary to one another and not working together. It also confuses Justification with Sanctification.

I think that while the visible and the invisible are not inherently contrary to one another, that the visible should be merely the outward expression of what has occurred spiritually and invisibly, like a leprous hand being made whole only after an expression of faith.

We have the inward change and that inward change leads us to the outward actions, just like feeling lonely might lead me to call a friend.

The article may not be the best, but in general I think the sentiment that says "I hate religion but love Jesus" is attempting (perhaps badly-I didn't like the YT vid at all) to get at the fact that unless you are actually transformed by Christ, all of the outward stuff-even prayer-is meaningless. Unless I truly believe and have known Christ, no Christian activity is going to draw me closer to Him.

Many people do look to Sunday attendance, prayers, charitable works, etc. as the aim and satisfaction of the Christian life. Many are much more religious than Christlike or faithful.

The Church has always had a physical presence in the world, but also believe that that physical presence has morphed over time from a united, organic entity to multiple inorganic ones, with true believers scattered all over.

In some ways it ends up being a semantics argument because it's not about the words used, but the ideas expressed.

 

[Galadriel]

@Galadriel Yes, the bride is the Church. I never said it wasn't. I was responding to the notion that we are not waiting to be given to Christ.

The marriage in Revelation speaks on the day when we will be united as one with Christ once and for all, just as a bride is united as one with her groom. We are not there yet, as this will not be completed until He returns.

We are already His Bride, thus it makes no sense to wait to be His Bride. He's already married to the Church.

Remember, the saints in heaven are also full members of the Church. The Church is universal--for all people, in all times and places.

Revelation shows that the Church will undergo a final persecution and then triumph in the end (glorification) just as Christ underwent His death and resurrection.

 

[Galadriel]

My criticism is with the article (I know you are not the author of the article, that you were just sharing it).

As I said before, I never intended to judge or offend anyone by the article. I'm just sitting at my desk (I worked through my lunch break for Overtime) trying to get some cases out of the way and sometimes I'll surf the web to take a mini- break and came upon this article and it was on my heart to share. Not to start stuff (I'm already dealing with ending of a friendship) so extra drama was not the intent. I personally don't know the Catholic faith because I didn't grow up learning it and ironically it wasn't touched that much in my Religion/Philosophy class. (interesting) So I'm not downing Catholics or any other faiths. I don't know anyone on here personally but I do know that I love everyone and just love sharing the gospel and talking about the anything relating to Jesus is soothing and uplifting. I cannot attend bible study because I work on the days my church has it. So yes, I take advantage of coming here, rapture ready, or just general surfing to research, and study, and learning, as well as fellowship with others. So if I did offend anyone, I do apologize. Just be careful (and I'm sorry that my words are so close together, something is wrong with my netbook keyboard) because Satan is working harder because he knows his number is almost up. I'll continue to keep everyone in my thoughts and prayers. Love you all.

 

[fifi134]

We are already His Bride, thus it makes no sense to wait to be His Bride. He's already married to the Church.

Remember, the saints in heaven are also full members of the Church. The Church is universal--for all people, in all times and places.

Revelation shows that the Church will undergo a final persecution and then triumph in the end (glorification) just as Christ underwent His death and resurrection.

We are not waiting to be His bride, we are waiting for the marriage to occur. That will not happen until He returns.

The triumph at the end of the Last Days marks when all believers will be united with Christ. Thus the marriage has not officially happened yet because His work on earth is not yet fully complete.

 

[Nice & Wavy]

You know what, some of you are doing the same thing in this thread that you said you did not want done to you in a catholic thread. That is exactly what I am getting out of reading the responses.

The original poster posted something that she felt was on her heart from something she read she posted it, and she had every right to do it. There were responses to what she said that felt that what she said wasn't fully correct as far as you were concerned....FROM A CATHOLIC POINT OF VIEW! That's fine, but...don't make her out to feel as though she is wrong for posting it. I happened to be blessed by what she wrote and if I had issue with something, I can pm her about it instead of doing what is being done in this thread.

At some point....there must be PEACE! SHALOM! in this forum. I don't care how you may say that you are only giving your opinions and the rights to it, etc. but I see something different here...I see a stirring up that isn't of God and I'm not going to sit, read, and allow this to continue.

If it is not aligning up with what you believe....that's OK. After this past week we should have learned that togetherness is what is needed...not a bickering back and forth. It's not healthy for the Body of Christ and its not healthy for those who may be watching and may have an opportunity to come to Christ but won't because confusion is certainly present.

We must come together in this forum...this is a Christian Forum, not a religious forum. Some may believe that Christianity is a religion and I don't. So? What's wrong with that. There are many things that we are not going to, let's say understand, about one another and what we believe. That's OK. We must learn to stop trying to fight each other with what we feel is right and just be.................a Christian!

Thank you and good night!

N&W

 

[Galadriel]

I think that while the visible and the invisible are not inherently contrary to one another, that the visible should be merely the outward expression of what has occurred spiritually and invisibly, like a leprous hand being made whole only after an expression of faith.

I agree , and you've just explained what a sacrament is--a visible sign of an inward grace.

However I tend to raise an eyebrow at denigrating the visible Church because:

1) Christ founded the Church
2) It's His instrument of salvation
3) The Church is the keeper, teacher, interpreter, and protector of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition

By breaking away from the Church or viewing it as a glorified social gathering (not saying you are doing this), it denies the nature, role, and importance of the Church in God's plan of salvation, as well as opens up the door to false teachings and doctrines.

 

[Galadriel]

We are not waiting to be His bride, we are waiting for the marriage to occur. That will not happen until He returns.

He is already married to the Church. The Church is His bride (Ephesians 5:25). What the Church is waiting for is her glorification.

The triumph at the end of the Last Days marks when all believers will be united with Christ. Thus the marriage has not officially happened yet because His work on earth is not yet fully complete.

Explain?

 

[Galadriel]

It is certainly not my intention to attack or be negative toward OP. I already made it clear that my criticism is with certain things said in the article, which is why I quoted and addressed each part that I disagreed with and explained why.

You know what, some of you are doing the same thing in this thread that you said you did not want done to you in a catholic thread. That is exactly what I am getting out of reading the responses.

The original poster posted something that she felt was on her heart from something she read she posted it, and she had every right to do it. There were responses to what she said that felt that what she said wasn't fully correct as far as you were concerned....FROM A CATHOLIC POINT OF VIEW! That's fine, but...don't make her out to feel as though she is wrong for posting it. I happened to be blessed by what she wrote and if I had issue with something, I can pm her about it instead of doing what is being done in this thread.

At some point....there must be PEACE! SHALOM! in this forum. I don't care how you may say that you are only giving your opinions and the rights to it, etc. but I see something different here...I see a stirring up that isn't of God and I'm not going to sit, read, and allow this to continue.

If it is not aligning up with what you believe....that's OK. After this past week we should have learned that togetherness is what is needed...not a bickering back and forth. It's not healthy for the Body of Christ and its not healthy for those who may be watching and may have an opportunity to come to Christ but won't because confusion is certainly present.

We must come together in this forum...this is a Christian Forum, not a religious forum. Some may believe that Christianity is a religion and I don't. So? What's wrong with that. There are many things that we are not going to, let's say understand, about one another and what we believe. That's OK. We must learn to stop trying to fight each other with what we feel is right and just be.................a Christian!

Thank you and good night!

N&W

 

[Nice & Wavy]

^^you may not have intentionally done it, but you did it nonetheless and that's why I have issue with it, regardless if its only from the article that you had issue with.

When you said "What's up with this I hate religion but love Jesus" quote really showed that your intentions in this thread was not a good one.

You ladies said that you wanted to have a catholic forum where you could come together with what you believe without it being 'derailed'. Well, I feel the same thing is being done in this thread and its uncalled for.

 

[LucieLoo12]

When I am say this, I am not trying to be offensive. But this is a FORUM. Things are going to be discussed. Why is it that when something is opposed in a thread it has to be labled as "attacking". OP did not even write the article,she said she re posted. Our views or opinions was not directed to her personally,because we dont know her personally. We was going by what the article said. It seems alot of times that if you dont agree with the OP point of view(not just in this thread but in alot of threads), that you are wrong. Why post something if you dont want to hear opinions on what is being posted? Should we just agree with everything that is being posted to "keep the peace"? It's not bickering back and forth...its called a discussion. Now if things get out line and people start name calling and things get heated then yes it needs to stop, but just because there is a disagreement that does not mean its an argument going.

We take things too personally. I've seen people say DIRECTLY insult someone,and no one says nothing. but when we oppose a mindset or way of thinking we are wrong? Thats why I like discussing things with lalea(she is not the only one) because she dont take things personally. She may disagree with you in one thread but in the next thread she isn't bringing up what when in one in the last thread.

Maybe we need to have our threads titled " Please post if you agree with me, you dont agree dont post".

We should be able to discuss things freely without people think we jumping on them. I will give an example, yesturday in the Hip Hop thread me and LoveisYou didnt agree on the topic. Now Loveisyou has said some edifying posts before and I've agreed with her on many topics, but on this topic we didnt agree. Does this mean I am going to hold it against her or not like her because we didnt agree? Of course not. Because we are entitled to our own opinions. Because someone may feel that a poster's post mean something doesn't mean that assumption is true. My post get misunderstood all the time. Sometimes people read it in the wrong tone.

But come on ladies. Let's not make this forum where people are scared to state how they feel. This goes both ways.

If the poster said it wasn't her intention, then say "Amen" and move on. But don't say well it was your intention.Thats how mess gets started.You can't know what is the real intentions of someone's heart is. Only God knows that.

By know means am I trying to start anything with this post. But we have to remember this is a forum. I think that since alot of things have been going on, alot of people are "sensitive" and any sign of disagreement we want to shut everything down. But that is all I am done.

 

[sidney]

I agree we should be able to reason together but if it turns into attack and vindication it is no longer fruitful. All things by his spirit.

 

[Sharpened]

The Church is what they practiced because Our Lord establishes a Church and the Apostles lead it. The purpose of the Church is to be God's vehicle or instrument of salvation on Earth (we preach the Gospel, people hear the Gospel, are converted and baptized, the Church adminsiters the sacraments, the Church teaches and defends the moral and theological truths revealed in Scripture and taught by the Apostles).

What is being practiced today is not what the first ekklesia did in the NT. I am not going to go into the details; anyone can check it out for themselves. Every group I see has a little bit right and a whole lot wrong, but few are willing to deal with it. Formulaic routines (like going to church, which is a misnomer in light of what Scripture says) do not save; the baptism of the Holy Spirit and His direct guidance do. The Lord has His reasons for keeping me out of what people call church and religion.

That's not "religion," those are erroneous or superficial beliefs/statements.

And yet, they are said and implied often in this forum and off the net by believers. You want a separate forum to cater to your needs; Jesus told us to endure. I do.

No, He criticized hypocrisy (teaching/proclaiming one thing but living or doing to the contrary) and legalism (adherence to Mosaic Law for the sake of the Law and forgetting why God gave it to begin with), not religion.

Mark 7
1Now when the Pharisees gathered to Him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2they saw that some of His disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) 5And the Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6And He said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

“‘This people honors Me with their lips,
but their heart is far from Me;
7 in vain do they worship Me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

8You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

9And He said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)— 12then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Matthew 15:1-9 contains a shorter version of this.

I think you're taking a mindset/attitude you don't like ("Phariseeism", legalism, hypocrisy), and calling it "religion."

Luke 17:20-21 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”

No, our focus should be on the Kingdom of Heaven. It has nothing to do with like or dislike, simply focus.

Jesus gives Peter authority over His Church Matthew 16:17-19

Paul:

And from Miletus [Paul] sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church. When they had come, he said to them, " … Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among whom the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the Church of God. (Acts 20:17,18,28).​

Peter:

I exhort the elders who are among you … to shepherd the flock of God which is among you, overseeing them. (1 Pet. 5:1-2).​

Jesus gave authority over His Body to the Holy Spirit (the Rock or power of God in Spirit), not man. The Apostles were vessels of honor for the Holy Spirit to operate through. Notice, they did not do anything until the Holy Spirit came upon them. Because people fail to recognize this, we have division and people trying to share power with God, unintentional or otherwise. Paul ranted about this issue in 1 Corinthians 1:11

The Bible says we are temples of the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit dwells in us by God's grace through baptism.

This does not contradict what I said. Is the Holy Spirit what ties believers together or not?

 

[Sharpened]

Paul says salvation comes by hearing the Gospel, and the Gospel must be preached. The Church, the Body of Christ, is God's instrument of spreading the Gospel throughout the earth. Yes, Christ is the Head of the Church, but the Church is still His chosen instrument.

Without the Holy Spirit’s power, the Evangel has no saving effect. The Holy Spirit is greater than the Body, for without Him, there would be no Body.

Christ spoke in Aramaic, that is why Peter is called Cephas. In Greek it would be Petros (and English, Peter).

By saying Peter was the foundation, you are saying Paul was wrong in calling Jesus the Rock, Jesus calling Himself the chief cornerstone, and canceling centuries of symbolism. If that is the case, then we all are the Rock, for we are in Christ and Christ in us. In a roundabout way, you may have proven your point about the Ekklesia, but it is not about religion but the Kingdom.

1 Peter 2
1Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. 2Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, 3now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.

4As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”

7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

“The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,”
8and,

“A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”

They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

This is not supported by Scripture. The Church is both the Body and Bride of Christ. We are not waiting to be given to Christ.

You forget the symbolism of the wedding feast.

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.

Revelation 19:7-8 Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.

The people who are perfect in God’s eyes become the Bride. Many are called (the Ekklesia, the Body) but few are chosen (the Elect, the Bride). If the Body is imperfect, how is that a pure virgin Bride? Too many weeds and chaff to burn up still.

Division happens because of sin. Christianity on Earth still struggles, and as humans we fail; however God's grace will see us through. It is God's will that we all be one Church. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism..."

What you have said does not contradict what I said. The Lord is the one who predicted division would happen; He is sovereign and knows the beginning from the end. Very few have ever bothered to ask Him what He wanted.

Water baptism was done by John the Baptist. The baptism administered by the Apostles and the Bishops (Episkopos) and Priests (Presbyters) in the NT is of the water and the Holy Spirit.

Baptism of water and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit are NOT the same thing; the latter being more important than the former and there no others are mentioned. Also, the thief on the cross did not get baptized.

This does not contradict what I said. The Greek word for bishop (which also means elder, shepherd, pastor, guardian, overseer) is fine, but presbyter (old man, elder) does not mean priest (hiereus in the Greek) and they had no Levitical priests. By His shed blood, we are all priests under the King and High Priest Yeshua (1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:6, Revelation 5:10).

So...are you saying being baptized (with water) is unnecessary?

I said the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the most important. Not every will receive it during a water baptism and few are making sure they have.

It is your (misguided) opinion that Mary is "adored." I would put forth that in an effort to downplay Mary (because of a lack of understanding of her position within Catholicism) that a person may inadvertently commit a theological error (that error being the denial that Jesus Christ possesses both fully human and fully divine natures which exist in a hypostatic union within His one Person).

Watching people kneeling before and kissing the feet of a Mary statue is not beyond appreciation? Where is this practiced in the Bible? Nowhere, in fact it is spoken against.

No believer I have seen in this forum has yet to downgrade Who Christ was, so that was unnecessary.

I do not care about theological errors, only His truth as He teaches me.

Are you saying we do not freely accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?

No, I am saying that He chooses. Many are called but few are chosen as He said, not me.

The sinner's prayer may not be in the Bible, but it is a pious expression of Biblical principles, and asks for Jesus' mercy and forgiveness.

The problem that the person in the article addresses is the belief that is all one has to do—say a prayer and you are saved. It has little to do with piety, but being lax to continue on the path towards Him, to learn about and perform one’s job in the Kingdom.

To know and understand what the Gospel is, why Jesus died for us, and the ability to examine and discern between true doctrines and false ones, right morality and theology and erroneous ones, is not "intellectualism" or "self-righteousness."

You missed the point of the article and my reply. *shrug*

 

[Nice & Wavy]

Well, thank you Alicialynn....you could have addressed me by my screenname with this post because I know it is directed at me. But, I see now that no matter what is said in this forum, there will always be discord.

I'm done here....you keep on keeping on defending both sides.

ETA: @ the quoted, really Alicia...really? That is an interesting quote to say the least.

When I am say this, I am not trying to be offensive. But this is a FORUM. Things are going to be discussed. Why is it that when something is opposed in a thread it has to be labled as "attacking". OP did not even write the article,she said she re posted. Our views or opinions was not directed to her personally,because we dont know her personally. We was going by what the article said. It seems alot of times that if you dont agree with the OP point of view(not just in this thread but in alot of threads), that you are wrong. Why post something if you dont want to hear opinions on what is being posted? Should we just agree with everything that is being posted to "keep the peace"? It's not bickering back and forth...its called a discussion. Now if things get out line and people start name calling and things get heated then yes it needs to stop, but just because there is a disagreement that does not mean its an argument going.

We take things too personally. I've seen people say DIRECTLY insult someone,and no one says nothing. but when we oppose a mindset or way of thinking we are wrong?

Thats why I like discussing things with @lalea(she is not the only one)

because she dont take things personally. She may disagree with you in one thread but in the next thread she isn't bringing up what when in one in the last thread.

Maybe we need to have our threads titled " Please post if you agree with me, you dont agree dont post".

We should be able to discuss things freely without people think we jumping on them. I will give an example, yesturday in the Hip Hop thread me and @LoveisYou didnt agree on the topic. Now Loveisyou has said some edifying posts before and I've agreed with her on many topics, but on this topic we didnt agree. Does this mean I am going to hold it against her or not like her because we didnt agree? Of course not. Because we are entitled to our own opinions. Because someone may feel that a poster's post mean something doesn't mean that assumption is true. My post get misunderstood all the time. Sometimes people read it in the wrong tone.

But come on ladies. Let's not make this forum where people are scared to state how they feel. This goes both ways.

If the poster said it wasn't her intention, then say "Amen" and move on. But don't say well it was your intention.Thats how mess gets started.You can't know what is the real intentions of someone's heart is. Only God knows that.

By know means am I trying to start anything with this post. But we have to remember this is a forum. I think that since alot of things have been going on, alot of people are "sensitive" and any sign of disagreement we want to shut everything down. But that is all I am done.

 

[Galadriel]

^^you may not have intentionally done it, but you did it nonetheless and that's why I have issue with it, regardless if its only from the article that you had issue with.

When you said "What's up with this I hate religion but love Jesus" quote really showed that your intentions in this thread was not a good one.

You ladies said that you wanted to have a catholic forum where you could come together with what you believe without it being 'derailed'. Well, I feel the same thing is being done in this thread and its uncalled for.

Several lines from the post (esp. page 2) sound like they came from the YouTube video. They share the same sentiments--which I disagree with.

 

[Nice & Wavy]

Several lines from the post (esp. page 2) sound like they came from the YouTube video. They share the same sentiments--which I disagree with.

It's cool...carry on!

 

[LucieLoo12]

@Nice & Wavy

Yes your post may have initiated my response, but it was directed to more than just you. I see it done by many numerous posters.

Yes I am defending both sides because its always two sides to the situation.

1). People feeling like their topic can't be disagreed with
2). People feeling like they can't post/respond to their topic because of fear of what people may say or getting accused of sowing disccord

I am for discussing issues. I disagree alot of times. But I have never attacked someone personally on here. Only there opinion of a topic has been discussed.

I do discussed my beliefs on here but I never made a poster feel like they couldn't say what they wanted to. But I will say what I have to.And its interesting because I said I like discussing with a particular poster and I clearly said she was not the only one? Because I used her as an example of someone that I could discuss things with and she not take it personally? if anything that was a compliment to her.Not to bash anyone else.

I said this so we can all examine ourselves on here. We say we want unity but we stay nitpicking and trying to find something wrong with people's post. (in general)


If you are offended I do aplogize, for that was not my intention
Im done with this topic...

Well, thank you Alicialynn....you could have addressed me by my screenname with this post because I know it is directed at me. But, I see now that no matter what is said in this forum, there will always be discord.

I'm done here....you keep on keeping on defending both sides.
ETA: @ the quoted, really Alicia...really? That is an interesting quote to say the least.

 

[Nice & Wavy]

Alicialynn,

Carry on in the forum my dear...carry on!

Take care!

 

[Galadriel]

What is being practiced today is not what the first ekklesia did in the NT. I am not going to go into the details;

Yes it is, and so far you've not offered any evidence to back up your claim, and now you say "I'm not going into details."

anyone can check it out for themselves. Every group I see has a little bit right and a whole lot wrong, but few are willing to deal with it. Formulaic routines (like going to church, which is a misnomer in light of what Scripture says)

Church is not a misnomer.

the baptism of the Holy Spirit and His direct guidance do [save].

The baptism of the Holy Spirit occurred at Pentecost in the book of Acts. You say you are directed by the Holy Spirit in your beliefs, but so do people who claim that Jesus Christ isn't God, or that there is no Trinity, or no such thing as free will.

You claim your subjective interpretation of Scriptures is the Holy Spirit teaching you or guiding you.

The Lord has His reasons for keeping me out of what people call church and religion.

Why would God want someone outside of or lead someone away from His Church?

Mark 7
1Now when the Pharisees gathered to Him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2they saw that some of His disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) 5And the Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6And He said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

“‘This people honors Me with their lips,
but their heart is far from Me;
7 in vain do they worship Me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

8You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

9And He said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)— 12then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

This does not prove your position. This only condemns hypocrisy, specifically the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and scribes who did things like fasting in public to gain sympathy or praise, and not because they were repentant; they judged harshly other Jews but then failed to live up to the very standard by which they judged (or even lived in opposite of it). This is not a condemnation of religion or tradition--this is a condemnation of hypocrisy.

Luke 17:20-21 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”


No, our focus should be on the Kingdom of Heaven. It has nothing to do with like or dislike, simply focus.

The Pharisees were looking for the Messiah who would overthrow the Roman Empire's rule and establish an earthly kingdom from Jerusalem. Jesus told them they were mistaken, because He is the Messiah and the Kingdom of God had arrived and was among them.

Jesus gave authority over His Body to the Holy Spirit (the Rock or power of God in Spirit), not man.

This contradicts Scripture. Matthew 16:17-19 says Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom, and the authority to permit or forbid moral and religious beliefs/practices.

The Apostles were vessels of honor for the Holy Spirit to operate through.

I believe the Apostles were indwelt by the Holy Spirit and cooperated with the Holy Spirit's graces, but the Apostles (especially Peter) were given a specific task and authority in regards to the Church. They passed this authority and leadership to their Bishops (Episkopos) and Priests (Presbyters).

Notice, they did not do anything until the Holy Spirit came upon them.

The Apostles were following Christ and baptizing even during Christ's ministry. In fact, John the Baptists's disciples pointed this out (Gospel of John). They obviously didn't go out preaching Christ rose from the dead until He had actually died and rose from the dead.

Because people fail to recognize this, we have division and people trying to share power with God, unintentional or otherwise. Paul ranted about this issue in 1 Corinthians 1:11

I think we have division because of people saying the Holy Spirit is directly telling them to believe their own personal interpretations of Scripture.

 

[divya]

I would like to respectfully disagree based on the Scriptures. How does the Bible define religion or rather, true religion?

James 1:27 KJV - Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Therefore, true religion and the gospel are completely intertwined.

 

[makeupgirl]

Several lines from the post (esp. page 2) sound like they came from the YouTube video. They share the same sentiments--which I disagree with.

What youtube video? Could it be that the original author is speaking what is against all man-made religions that you disagree with? I read the entire article before posting and it mentioned nothing in the article about Catholicism, even though Catholicism is also a man-made religion because it's NOTHING in the bible that states that we should EVER honor, worship, or glorify Mary. (I've been trying not to say that because I know there are a lot of catholics in this thread but it's true, despite my ignorance about catholicism, it's not Christianity, it's religion) Yes, she was Jesus' mother and that's her relationship with him and yes I do believe that she is saved by her belief especially knowing that she gave birth and was told before hand that she would be the mother of the promised coming Messiah. However, Jesus said he was the only way to the Father, he is the alpha and omega, the bright and morning star. If he is the author and finisher of our faith, in that is where it should begin and end. In Christ alone, our hope is found. Not Mary, Buddha, Papa Smuff, Zordon, or anyone else.

My mom told me that people are going to believe what they want regardless of whether or not the truth is given. I'm beginning to see this for myself. God knew it all along. His word will always stand and come to pass. His will be done. I surrender all to him because I believe firmly in his word, the infalliable word of the almighty living risen God my Savior. I'll continue to pray for everyone but I will not post with an argumentive spirit but I also will not compromise what the bible says about the gospel to make anyone feel good and to support their idea of how to reach God, especially when he tells us what we have to do.

Im sorry if I may have offended someone with my post but if it's one thing I've learned with my walk with the Lord, the truth is always going to offend someone because it's not something they want to here but nevertheless I apologize.

So, thine will be done Father God in the name of Jesus, I pray that your gospel will continue to be taught in truth, full and free. Thank you Father for the free gift of salvation. I come before your throne asking for forgiveness if I have offended anyone, or done something that was against your word and for taking you for granted. Thank you for the blood of Jesus that cleanses us from all unrighteousness, when we confess our sins to you. Thank you Jesus, for your death, burial, and resurrection and for sitting at the right hand of the Father interceeding for us your children. Thank you that your will be done. In Jesus name by the power of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

 

[CoilyFields]

I would like to respectfully disagree based on the Scriptures. How does the Bible define religion or rather, true religion?

James 1:27 KJV - Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Therefore, true religion and the gospel are completely intertwined.

Girl I dont even know who you're disagreeing with but Ive been waiting to see if anyone would post this scripture!!!!

1. God shows us what true and pure religion would produce. But we must not confuse the fruit with the cause. An inner change (accepting Christ) is what causes us to bear good fruit. Not the church, doctrines, traditions etc...those are erected by God as necessary in helping cultivate our fruit.

2. The fact that pure and undefiled are there in the scripture means that people can, in fact, make religion something it should not be (Jesus emphasized this with the Pharisees).

3. As Christians I think we have to be careful because there is a movement against religion and for being "spiritual" and though we may know what we mean when we talk about defiled religion...the world only sees it as one big conglomerate. Kinda like...even though I know our AA culture has some serious issues...I will not bash them to a European American...because I know they may put them down with the intent to obliterate...while I may point out flaws with the intent to find solutions.

4. As for the disagreements... makeupgirl posted something that she found helpful...not everyone agreed with the content of that article...nothing wrong with that...but if offense rises lets ackowledge it, forgive and move on, all parties. (Thanks to the ladies who responded to me thread!)

 

[Galadriel]

Without the Holy Spirit’s power, the Evangel has no saving effect. The Holy Spirit is greater than the Body, for without Him, there would be no Body.

The Body is the Body of Christ. While the Holy Spirit dispenses graces to the Body of Christ, He does not take or replace the role of the Church, or of Apostolic authority.

By saying Peter was the foundation, you are saying Paul was wrong in calling Jesus the Rock, Jesus calling Himself the chief cornerstone, and canceling centuries of symbolism.

By saying Cephas (Peter) was the Cephas, and upon that Cephas Christ built His Church, I am merely quoting Christ's own words in the Gospel of Matthew.

I never said Christ was not our cornerstone, I simply quoted Matthew 16:17-19 to demonstrate that:

1. Christ founded a Church, a visible institution on Earth
2. Peter the Apostle was given the Keys to the Church, and the authority to permit or forbid beliefs and practices (this is what "bind and loose" mean)
3. Christ said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, which means Christ promises His protection of the Church always

If that is the case, then we all are the Rock, for we are in Christ and Christ in us.

This contradicts Scripture. Nowhere does Christ states, implies, or gives the authority given to Peter to anyone else.

The people who are perfect in God’s eyes become the Bride.

Again, this contradicts Scripture. The Bride of Christ is the Church. If you are a member of the Church, you are part of the Bride of Christ. You don't have to "wait to become the Bride."

Many are called (the Ekklesia, the Body) but few are chosen (the Elect, the Bride).

Are you saying there is a "church" within the Church? Are you saying a person must go through some second type of initiation or step in order to be considered part of the Bride of Christ?

If the Body is imperfect, how is that a pure virgin Bride? Too many weeds and chaff to burn up still.

The Church is holy, because her Spouse (Christ) is Holy. The Holy Spirit dispenses graces and works through her to bring about the sanctification of her individual members, the most perfect and holy of course being the Church members in Heaven. The individual imperfections of Church members here on Earth does not mean the Bride of Christ is not holy and pure, but our sanctification is a process.

Baptism of water and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit are NOT the same thing; the latter being more important than the former and there no others are mentioned.

Baptism of water = what John the Baptist did

Baptism of water and the Spirit = what the Church does

Also, the thief on the cross did not get baptized.

Baptism of Desire

This does not contradict what I said. The Greek word for bishop (which also means elder, shepherd, pastor, guardian, overseer) is fine,

Yet clearly you deny the meaning and purpose of a Bishop. If a Bishop is a shepherd, pastor, guardian, what is he guarding? He is guarding the flock and the teachings given him by the Apostles (Scripture + Apostolic Tradition).

However if individual members feel the Holy Spirit is directly leading them, then this makes a Bishop (in their view) superfluous.

but presbyter (old man, elder) does not mean priest (hiereus in the Greek) and they had no Levitical priests.

Priest is the English word for presbyter. I said nothing about OT Levitical priests. The Presbyters (whom we call priests in English) worked alongside the Bishops in the early Church. When Bishops had charge of entire areas or communities, the presbyter would minister to individual communities as a direct representative of the Bishop.

Watching people kneeling before and kissing the feet of a Mary statue is not beyond appreciation?

If you don't understand it, and if you're prejudiced against it, I can see why a person may come to the conclusion you have. While we do honor Mary as a great saint and the Mother of God, we do not believe she is divine or to be adored.

Where is this practiced in the Bible? Nowhere, in fact it is spoken against.

God is not against statues. He commands Moses to make a bronze serpent through which He worked a miracle of healing for the Israelites. Also, the Ark of the Covenant (by God's command) was adorned with statues of angels.

No believer I have seen in this forum has yet to downgrade Who Christ was, so that was unnecessary.

I didn't say anyone in this forum did, but the article committed a theological error by saying "Mary was just the mother of Jesus' humanity/human nature."

I do not care about theological errors, only His truth as He teaches me.

Apparently you do care about theological errors if you are taking the time to debate my opposing views.

The problem that the person in the article addresses is the belief that is all one has to do—say a prayer and you are saved. It has little to do with piety, but being lax to continue on the path towards Him, to learn about and perform one’s job in the Kingdom.

Who are you to judge that a person saying the Sinner's Prayer with sincerity doesn't have true conversion and doesn't receive God's grace? While the Sinner's Prayer is not a Catholic prayer, I think it is a good prayer and many have used it to express to Christ what is in their hearts.

it's almost as if you're creating a two-tier system of believers where a person is spiritually inferior or not saved unless they have experienced your (personal interpretation of) "baptism of the Holy Spirit."

You missed the point of the article and my reply. *shrug*

I understand it perfectly. I just happen to disagree.

 

[Galadriel]

I would like to respectfully disagree based on the Scriptures. How does the Bible define religion or rather, true religion?

James 1:27 KJV - Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Therefore, true religion and the gospel are completely intertwined.

Thank you for pulling that up, divya .

 

[Galadriel]

What youtube video?

This one: Why I hate religion but love Jesus

Also check out this priest's response: Why I love religion and love Jesus

Could it be that the original author is speaking what is against all man-made religions that you disagree with? I read the entire article before posting and it mentioned nothing in the article about Catholicism,

The part that spoke about Mary was obviously directed toward Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodox, who also honors Mary).

even though Catholicism is also a man-made religion because it's NOTHING in the bible that states that we should EVER honor, worship, or glorify Mary. (I've been trying not to say that because I know there are a lot of catholics in this thread but it's true, despite my ignorance about catholicism, it's not Christianity, it's religion)

Hmm, Catholicism isn't Christianity. I'd be happy to address this in a separate thread.

I surrender all to him because I believe firmly in his word, the infalliable word of the almighty living risen God my Savior.

I believe the Bible is infallible as well. How do you know the way that you are interpreting certain Scripture is true or correct?

And I ask this not in a snarky manner, but because there are so many erroneous teachings that have come from an individual saying "I rely on Scirpture alone, and this is what the Holy Spirit is guiding me to see."