In The Name of Religions;
MOST religions have a history of repression, hate, and murder. Just about everywhere in history where you find religious people running, or influencing, the civil government you find repression, hate, and murder. There are so many examples of this that it cannot be denied.
1. The Jewish clerics that had Jesus crucified by the civil government (the Romans).
2. The stoning of both Paul and Stephens by the Jews.
3. The Roman Empire persecuting the Christians before Christianity became the official religion of the state.
4. The RCC prosecuting those they considered heretics
5. The Roman Catholic Church inquisitions and murder by having peopled burned at the stake.
"In the name of religion" the Catholics held Inquisitions and charged people with heresy (those that had other opinions about God than the RCC view). They then turned them over to the civil government to be burned at the stake. Christians went from being oppressed to oppressing others. By the way, Jesus was considered to be a heretic by the Pharisees and was turned over to the civil government [the Romans] to be crucified.
6. The essential rule of John Calvin as the theocratic ruler of Geneva (the city of God).
Under Calvin, Catholicism was banned as heresy and punishable by death. Adultery, blasphemy, idolatry, and witchcraft were all punishable by death. Calvin had people with different understandings of the scriptures burned at the stake.
7. Under the influence of Ulrich Zwingli the secular government executed the Anabaptists.
8. The murder, by many Muslims, that have others killed in the name of their religion.
9. The hanging of those who were accused of witchcraft in Salem during the "witch hunts."
The list could go on but these are enough. Why do these things happen? It is because of those that wish to ""impose"" their religious beliefs on others. One of the reasons we have Protestant Churches today is because of those European Governments that had a king strong enough to oppose the RCC, and it's influence over governments, at that time.
It seems to me that most people of the world have always made up a religion that would explain their existence and relationship to a god that they think exists. Many come up with religious rules to bind other people under; to control others.
As far back as we can see by archaeology and written history we find that man developed religions. They were made up of what men reasoned in their minds god was/is. Man made god according to his own imagination.
Most made up a religion that required men to do things in order to appease the god they thought they saw. In lands where there are volcanoes they saw an angry god that needed men to do things to satisfy him. This is true of the Egyptians and the Greeks. In a lot of these religions men reasoned that their god required sacrifices of some kind. Some even thought that their god required human sacrifices. Most all used their religions to oppress and foster wars against others.
Jesus was absolutely correct when He said; "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit." If the god of religions require men to persecute and kill others for him, and to impose their religious beliefs on others for him, then that god is "to small" and the hearts of those that worship that god and contemplate killing others is "to small." God does not need men to kill and oppress others for Him. As for me I judge the tree (religions) by the fruit they produce, good or evil.
Scripture:
Micah 6:6-8
6 With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old?
7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8 He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?
(NKJ)
John 16:2-3
2 They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God.
3 They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me.
(NIV)
Acts 7:48-52
48 "However, the Most High does not live in houses made by men. As the prophet says:
49 "'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me? says the Lord. Or where will my resting place be?
50 Has not my hand made all these things?'
51 "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!
52 Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him--
(NIV)
Heb 10:5-10
5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, 'Here I am-- it is written about me in the scroll-- I have come to do your will, O God.'"
8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made).
9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second.
10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
(NIV)
Jesus said:
Matt 7:15-20
15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
16 "You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
17 "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 "Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
(NKJ)
RichardBurger
It all started with Cain and Abel and it has been going on ever since. Good post, Richard.
Abel was the first Christian martyr.
Whenever I get the idea that there is some good in religion, I sit down and read "Fox's Book of Martyrs" That usually brings me to my senses.
: Robert Pate Sat Dec 15, 2007 - 09:58:24
RichardBurger
It all started with Cain and Abel and it has been going on ever since. Good post, Richard.
Abel was the first Christian martyr.
Whenever I get the idea that there is some good in religion, I set down and read "Fox's Book of Martyrs" That usually brings me to my senses.
And, what was the situation in which Abel was murdered? Abel offered a sacrifice that was pleasing to God, while Cain didn't.
Abel's offered that sacrifice according to his
religion, didn't he?
DCR
No, it was a blood offering that pointed to Christ. No works.
Cains offering was from his crops that he had grown and harvested with his hands, with his own works.
Robert, news break, your book is the writtin declaration of your form of religion.
FTL
: Harold Sat Dec 15, 2007 - 15:35:22
Robert, news break, your book is the writtin declaration of your form of religion.
FTL
Complete with its own creed, it seems.
Sorry, But I don't have a religion, nor do I practice a religion. I am solely dependent upon the work of Christ to save me, plus 0.
: Harold Sat Dec 15, 2007 - 15:35:22
Robert, news break, your book is the writtin declaration of your form of religion.
FTL
Harold, do you know the definition of religion?
The first definition is a belief in a god, any god.
All of the rest are about what men do for the god they believe exists.
But true Christianity is not about what we do for God. It is about what God has done for us.
But men want to blend a mix of what God has done for us with what we do for God.
Personally I do not believe true Chrsitainty can be definded by the word religion.
Richard
God killed at least 2,038,344 people?
Satan only killed 10 Hmmmm
'Abel was the first Christian martyr.' ::eek:: ::whistle::
even by conservative young-earther guessing, he was around 4000 years before anyone could even be a christian.
amazing foolishness.
dj
David
Johnson
Why do you suppose Abel offered a blood offering that pointed to Christ?
: Robert Pate Sat Dec 15, 2007 - 12:00:11
DCR
No, it was a blood offering that pointed to Christ. No works.
Cains offering was from his crops that he had grown and harvested with his hands, with his own works.
It may have arguably pointed to Christ. But, it was still an act of Abel's religion. Robert, I think part of the problem is that you have a very specific definition in mind for the word "religion," one which has a negative connotation... which is not necessarily the same definition that others limit it to.
From www.dictionary.com:
religion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion) -
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
DCR
I think that you have a problem with the word religion. The word religion is not defined by the world. The word religion can only be defined by Christianity. The Pharisees were religious because they were trying to please God by their works. Christianity is not really a religion, nor are those who understand and embrace the gospel religious. Religion is basically man's presentation of himself to God. Christians do not try to go around Christ and present themselves to God. Those who do that are religious and are under the law.
The bible does not use the word religion. However the word law and religion are interchangeable. To do the law is to do religion. To do religion is to do the law. I do not consider myself to be under the law, nor do I consider myself to be religious.
It is nice to make a distinction between religion and salvation, and I do the same, but the Bible does mention "pure religion", meaning that there must both a pure, and an impure variety. I think the difference to note is that religion merely describes the external, whereas salvation includes the internal.
This is an all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares example:
I am justified by God through faith in the atoning blood of the Lord Jesus Christ alone, however I can only justify God (that is make Him real to men) by what they see me do. Hence the term religion can be properly applied to what men see me do, and yet the term religion does not, nor can not automatically include salvation, which is internal. Salvation is the square, religion is the rectangle, often times trying to pass itself off as a square.
CRP
: Robert Pate Sat Dec 15, 2007 - 22:25:08
DCR
I think that you have a problem with the word religion. The word religion is not defined by the world. The word religion can only be defined by Christianity. The Pharisees were religious because they were trying to please God by their works. Christianity is not really a religion, nor are those who understand and embrace the gospel religious. Religion is basically man's presentation of himself to God. Christians do not try to go around Christ and present themselves to God. Those who do that are religious and are under the law.
Actually, "Christianity" doesn't define the word the way you describe above.
You do. Are you the only one allowed to define the word "religion"? What if I want to refer to James 1:27 on how to define "pure and undefiled religion"?
: Robert Pate Sat Dec 15, 2007 - 22:25:08The bible does not use the word religion.
Sorry, but that's incorrect. The Bible most certainly does use the word religion. See James 1:27. But, what it doesn't do is restrict the word to only the negative connotation that you keep forcing. Is there such a thing as false and vain religion? Of course! That's not the issue. But, religion is not always false or vain. James 1:27 proves that point without a doubt.
And, besides rehashing your same rhetoric about "religion" and the "religious," you still haven't proved that Abel wasn't practicing an act of his religion by offering the animal sacrifice in Genesis 4:4.
: Robert Pate Sat Dec 15, 2007 - 19:19:18
David
Johnson
Why do you suppose Abel offered a blood offering that pointed to Christ?
abel was not a christian, and any who are led by the Holy Spirit know it.
dj
I think that anyone that is under the law is religious. Paul referred to people who were trying to be saved some other way than by the gospel to be under the law.
"Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law (because you did something religious) or by the hearing of faith." (the gospel)
For sure there are people who are trying to be saved by works. They are not Christians. What shall we call them? I call them the religious.
How did Abel know that a blood offering would be pleasing to God? Did he have foreknowledge of the crucifixion. Will those that were there please answer?
: Robert Pate Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 07:18:42
I think that anyone that is under the law is religious. Paul referred to people who were trying to be saved some other way than by the gospel to be under the law.
"Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law (because you did something religious) or by the hearing of faith." (the gospel)
For sure there are people who are trying to be saved by works. They are not Christians. What shall we call them? I call them the religious.
Then, I suggest you find a different term to use... because there are plenty of "religious" Christians
who are not trying to be saved by works. Your use of the words "religion" and "religious" only hurts the case you are trying to make.
Belief in salvation in Christ is a religious belief.
You have religious beliefs, Robert. And, you are very religious in promoting those religious beliefs on this forum, I might add. To any person who understands the conventional use of those words, your saying that you "have no religion" is quite honestly laughable.
You do yourself a disservice by going on about that.
: Robert Pate Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 07:22:53
How did Abel know that a blood offering would be pleasing to God? Did he have foreknowledge of the crucifixion. Will those that were there please answer?
I'm not sure where you're going with these questions. We might infer that God commanded that sacrifices be done, as a forerunner of the sacrifices commanded under Levitical laws later. But, we can only guess, since I can't find that we're told before that in the text. Abel may or may not have had foreknowledge of Christ's sacrifice. We don't know.
Why does it matter?
Richard,
We're all aware of the checkered past od organized religion. Nobody is trying to justify or overlook any of that. And it is well documented on these forums how you feel about organized religion.
So, that in mind, I am curious, what is your alternative? Maybe that's a topic for another thread, I don't know. And I am not trying to avoid the topic or come across as critical of you.
But when I read your post that is my first thought. While I don't join you in what seems to be a universal condemnation of organized religion, I concede that there are humungous problems with organized religion. I will concede that organized religion has a lot of problems. I think there is much good from organized religion that you overlook, but there is also a lot of problems.
And since there are people out there like you and Robert who have been so vastly turned off by organized religion that they dare not darken the door of a church building, then I am curious what should the alternative be? We are told to fellowship together.
I have been to home worship services where all they wanted to do was sit around and criticise denominations and large churches. Please tell me you have some alternative other than that in mind.
In the name of religion slavery has been abolished in many places in the world - and hopefully will be abolished in all places soon. In the name of religion hospitals have been built so that the sick could get the care they need. In the name of religion men and women have established ministries to people who most people don't want to acknowledge exist - lepers, AIDS victims, etc. In the name of religion men and women have taken the good news of Jesus Christ to the uttermost parts of the earth.
Have some bad things been done in the name of religion? You bet. But so have some very good things. We cannot simply say that if something that was done by a follower of Christ was bad it was because they were following religion and if something was done good they were following Christ. It's a lot more complicated than that. We are following Christ but we are still living in a fallen world that won't be completely redeemed until Christ returns.
: Robert Pate Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 07:22:53
How did Abel know that a blood offering would be pleasing to God?
My guess ... it was revealed to him by God.
"Organized religion" begins when two or more people agree to common doctrines.
So, if Richard has come to associate with others on the basis of shared doctrinal beliefs... I hate to break it to him... but, he's participating in organized religion. If he's trying to persuade others to agree with his "religious beliefs" (yes, he does have them), then he's "organizing" his religion, at a fundamental level.
DCR
This is my last attempt to define religion. The bible defines it, but for some reason you do not want the word "religion" defined.
Paul defined religion, Acts 26. He was talking with King Agrippa, verse 5 "Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our RELIGION I lived a PHARISEE." Paul never used the word religion again after that, no, not even when he told us to do good works, he never told us to be religious, because religion is being a Pharisee.
: david johnson Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 06:37:52
: Robert Pate Sat Dec 15, 2007 - 19:19:18
David
Johnson
Why do you suppose Abel offered a blood offering that pointed to Christ?
abel was not a christian, and any who are led by the Holy Spirit know it.
dj
That is a bit of a stretch to make that comment. Abel is justified before God the same way I am, by faith. He looked approx. 4000 years forward to the coming Messiah, I look 2000 years backward to the Messiah who has come. Neither of us actually saw the day, and yet both of us are justified before God by grace through faith in the atoning blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
If not a Christian, what would you call him?
CRP
Circuitridingpreacher
All who are justified by faith, have been justified by Christ.
Abel like Abraham believed that God would provide a savior. Like you said they looked forward to that day, we look back. It was by faith, it has always been by faith.
Abel is a Christian, so is Abraham, all who embrace the promise of a savior are Christians.
Good post, Circuitridingpreacher. Hope to hear more from you.
non-christian.
it is not a stretch to realize christianity did not exist within that time frame. it is falsehood to claim that it did.
dj
: david johnson Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 10:34:38
non-christian.
it is not a stretch to realize christianity did not exist within that time frame. it is falsehood to claim that it did.
dj
Well then, since you don't believe the blood of Christ washed them, I guess you are not planning to meet Abel, Noah, Job, Abraham, David, Daniel etc. in heaven.
The disciples might have been first derogatively called Christians in Antioch, but make no mistake about it, there have been Christians (the bride of Christ) for 6000 years.
CRP
Circuitridingpreacher
I don't believe dave is saying these folks won't be saved. (David correct me if I am misunderstanding you) The blook of Christ goes both backward and forward. They were justified by faith as we are but not faith in Christ. Therefore not what one would call a Christian. (That being one who comes to God by faith in Christ. Later Johnb
: Robert Pate Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 09:48:20
DCR
This is my last attempt to define religion. The bible defines it, but for some reason you do not want the word "religion" defined.
...which is an odd thing to say, considering
I gave the dictionary definition of the word earlier:
: DCR Sat Dec 15, 2007 - 21:19:05From www.dictionary.com:
religion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion) - "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
I also reminded you that the Bible does define "pure and undefiled religion" in James 1:27, which you seem to be unwilling to accept.
: Robert Pate Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 09:48:20Paul defined religion, Acts 26. He was talking with King Agrippa, verse 5 "Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our RELIGION I lived a PHARISEE." Paul never used the word religion again after that, no, not even when he told us to do good works, he never told us to be religious, because religion is being a Pharisee.
But, that doesn't make your case. Paul did describe the Pharisees there as a "sect of our religion"... the religion there being Judaism. Yet, this doesn't demand the way you're trying to use the word. Furthermore, as Paul himself says there, the Pharisees were only a "sect" of their religion... which implies that not all of the Jewish religion was necessarily Pharisee.
Can everyone here simply agree that "religion" has been redefined back to its original intent rather than dispensed with? In other words, the concept of "religion" was perverted, corrupted, when in reality it always was to mean the love of God played out in our lives, originating from a regenerated heart?
Maybe we should start a poll on whether people out there believe "religion" in and of itself is evil, or if it has some true reality for believers. I don't really see any impetus scripturally for us to fill our daily vocabulary with that word, yet I do not see it as satanic if it is viewed perhaps as it is supposed to be viewed. It seems like it is peoples' perceptions of the word that is the stumbling block, not the word itself.
: Johnb Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 11:44:52
Circuitridingpreacher
I don't believe dave is saying these folks won't be saved. (David correct me if I am misunderstanding you) The blook of Christ goes both backward and forward. They were justified by faith as we are but not faith in Christ. Therefore not what one would call a Christian. (That being one who comes to God by faith in Christ. Later Johnb
they're smart enough to figure that out. these guys just ignore it, 'cause it does not fit their scheme.
dj
: da525382 Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 17:19:55It seems like it is peoples' perceptions of the word that is the stumbling block, not the word itself.
Agreed. That's what I'm trying (perhaps in vain) to get Robert to see.
: david johnson Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 17:21:23
: Johnb Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 11:44:52
Circuitridingpreacher
I don't believe dave is saying these folks won't be saved. (David correct me if I am misunderstanding you) The blook of Christ goes both backward and forward. They were justified by faith as we are but not faith in Christ. Therefore not what one would call a Christian. (That being one who comes to God by faith in Christ. Later Johnb
they're smart enough to figure that out. these guys just ignore it, 'cause it does not fit their scheme.
dj
I don't really have much of a scheme, but wouldn't mind finding out what yours is.
Do you believe David and Abraham belong to the bride of Christ?
If your answer is yes, then they are indeed Christians, if no, then please explain the tier system you have created in heaven?
CRP
: Johnb Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 11:44:52
Circuitridingpreacher
I don't believe dave is saying these folks won't be saved. (David correct me if I am misunderstanding you) The blook of Christ goes both backward and forward. They were justified by faith as we are but not faith in Christ. Therefore not what one would call a Christian. (That being one who comes to God by faith in Christ. Later Johnb
Just like Christians should be expecting Christ to return a second time, David, Abraham and the rest listed were expecting Christ to come the first time to pay their sin debt. They all earnestly trusted in Christ's atonement for salvation. Now Ahab on the other hand though belonging to Israel by birth, does not belong to the bride and is hellbound.
CRP
: VerbumReale Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 08:20:33
Richard,
We're all aware of the checkered past od organized religion. Nobody is trying to justify or overlook any of that. And it is well documented on these forums how you feel about organized religion.
So, that in mind, I am curious, what is your alternative? Maybe that's a topic for another thread, I don't know. And I am not trying to avoid the topic or come across as critical of you.
But when I read your post that is my first thought. While I don't join you in what seems to be a universal condemnation of organized religion, I concede that there are humungous problems with organized religion. I will concede that organized religion has a lot of problems. I think there is much good from organized religion that you overlook, but there is also a lot of problems.
And since there are people out there like you and Robert who have been so vastly turned off by organized religion that they dare not darken the door of a church building, then I am curious what should the alternative be? We are told to fellowship together.
I have been to home worship services where all they wanted to do was sit around and criticise denominations and large churches. Please tell me you have some alternative other than that in mind.
It is not that I don't dare darken the door of a Church. What I do is join in with a Sunday school class, a Sunday night Bible study class, and a Tuesday night Bible study class. But that does not mean that I am supporting a Church. As a matter of fact, the Tuesday night Bible study class meets in the homes of the people in the class. I do not go to the Church service since there is never any actual study of the Scriptures. It is usually a sermon using a snipet of Scripture pulled out of context to make up a nice story about social living or to support a doctine of works.
You said; "I am curious what should the alternative be? We are told to fellowship together."
I think I am fellowshipping together with like minded Christians. Why do you think that their can only be fellowship in an organized Church? I have never found that there is much fellowswhip in the Church services of an organized religion. The only real fellowship is in small groups studing the word of God. It is in these groups that there is real fellowship.
: RichardBurger Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 18:37:57
: VerbumReale Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 08:20:33
Richard,
We're all aware of the checkered past od organized religion. Nobody is trying to justify or overlook any of that. And it is well documented on these forums how you feel about organized religion.
So, that in mind, I am curious, what is your alternative? Maybe that's a topic for another thread, I don't know. And I am not trying to avoid the topic or come across as critical of you.
But when I read your post that is my first thought. While I don't join you in what seems to be a universal condemnation of organized religion, I concede that there are humungous problems with organized religion. I will concede that organized religion has a lot of problems. I think there is much good from organized religion that you overlook, but there is also a lot of problems.
And since there are people out there like you and Robert who have been so vastly turned off by organized religion that they dare not darken the door of a church building, then I am curious what should the alternative be? We are told to fellowship together.
I have been to home worship services where all they wanted to do was sit around and criticise denominations and large churches. Please tell me you have some alternative other than that in mind.
It is not that I don't dare darken the door of a Church. What I do is join in with a Sunday school class, a Sunday night Bible study class, and a Tuesday night Bible study class. But that does not mean that I am supporting a Church. As a matter of fact, the Tuesday night Bible study class meets in the homes of the people in the class. I do not go to the Church service since there is never any actual study of the Scriptures. It is usually a sermon using a snipet of Scripture pulled out of context to make up a nice story about social living or to support a doctine of works.
You said; "I am curious what should the alternative be? We are told to fellowship together."
I think I am fellowshipping together with like minded Christians. Why do you think that their can only be fellowship in an organized Church? I have never found that there is much fellowswhip in the Church services of an organized religion. The only real fellowship is in small groups studing the word of God. It is in these groups that there is real fellowship.
Another day another time I might have responded to this but after the post you put up in another thread where you made a completely unsubstantaisted accusation against me, essentially accusing me of conspiring against you behind your back I will decline, lest I say something that might lead to another false unsubstantiated accustion. I do not come to these boards to be treated like that.
: Circuitridingpreacher Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 17:55:16
: david johnson Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 17:21:23
: Johnb Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 11:44:52
Circuitridingpreacher
I don't believe dave is saying these folks won't be saved. (David correct me if I am misunderstanding you) The blook of Christ goes both backward and forward. They were justified by faith as we are but not faith in Christ. Therefore not what one would call a Christian. (That being one who comes to God by faith in Christ. Later Johnb
they're smart enough to figure that out. these guys just ignore it, 'cause it does not fit their scheme.
dj
I don't really have much of a scheme, but wouldn't mind finding out what yours is.
Do you believe David and Abraham belong to the bride of Christ?
If your answer is yes, then they are indeed Christians, if no, then please explain the tier system you have created in heaven?
CRP
i've created a tier system in heaven? a fine extrapolation of silliness you have there.
the atonement of Christ for those that preceded His earthly death makes them saved.
i will be glad to read the passage in genesis that cites abraham's baptism in the tigris or euphrates, though.
dj
: david johnson Mon Dec 17, 2007 - 03:41:35
: Circuitridingpreacher Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 17:55:16
: david johnson Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 17:21:23
: Johnb Sun Dec 16, 2007 - 11:44:52
Circuitridingpreacher
I don't believe dave is saying these folks won't be saved. (David correct me if I am misunderstanding you) The blook of Christ goes both backward and forward. They were justified by faith as we are but not faith in Christ. Therefore not what one would call a Christian. (That being one who comes to God by faith in Christ. Later Johnb
they're smart enough to figure that out. these guys just ignore it, 'cause it does not fit their scheme.
dj
I don't really have much of a scheme, but wouldn't mind finding out what yours is.
Do you believe David and Abraham belong to the bride of Christ?
If your answer is yes, then they are indeed Christians, if no, then please explain the tier system you have created in heaven?
CRP
i've created a tier system in heaven? a fine extrapolation of silliness you have there.
the atonement of Christ for those that preceded His earthly death makes them saved.
i will be glad to read the passage in genesis that cites abraham's baptism in the tigris or euphrates, though.
dj
Do Abraham and David belong to the bride of Christ or not?
CRP
You just don't get it, as soon as you wrote down what you believe, yaou became a religion.
FTL