forum Christian Chat

Started November 14, 2018 by @Rvan group

tune

I'm there now :)
Bout to pop open the Martinelli's

Heck. Yeah!

I just watched the video of Sadie Robertson's wedding and I am about to cry. Disney could never. Sadie and Christian are so in love and their faith is so strong and it's everything I want in life. Christian & Sadie Huff are a real-life fairytale.

I have no idea who these people are.

Sadie Robertson is from Duck Dynasty, and she's written several books and does a lot of Christian events. Christian Huff is her husband.

So I was watching another Sadie Robertson video and she was wearing a sweatshirt that said SPIRITUAL GANGSTER and that is the exact vibe I want to give off

Does anyone else have favorite books of the Bible?
The book of Luke played the biggest part in getting me saved. I love his more intellectual point of view, but the other gospels are cool too. After reading that and Romans, I got saved and baptized.
Ecclesiastes is dope because it's like "Godly nihilism" if that makes sense. It's dark and deep.
In my Bible, like the entire book of Psalms is highlighted. Reading that helps me worship best, probably. What about you guys?

Ooh I love Psalms and Proverbs. And Esther. She’s dope.

Esther and Mordecai were such an iconic duo

_{>has never read the bible}

I've heard the Bible described as God's love letter to humanity. I think it's important for everyone to read it, because it's God's word. If you can, and this goes for everybody, you should try and find a translation that works with you and is enjoyable to read. There are lots of Bible apps and websites to look at. Definitely start in the New Testament, maybe with a gospel. A chapter a night from your chosen book is a good way to start. There's 31 Proverbs, so you could try reading one a day, every month as well. The extra time taken out of the day to read it is worth it.

I would go with the New Testament first, at least Genesis, Exodus, Judges, Samuel, and Kings just to get a bit of a backstory/cultural grounding. But that's just me. The New Testament as the Gospel is infinitely important.
_{Seriously, Nutella. Read a Bible.}

Does anyone else have favorite books of the Bible?

Not exactly. But Judges and Maccabees are pretty cool. Acts is also cool bc first years of the church + the odyssey of Paul.

So you're reading out of the Catholic Bible, Dom, why is that? I'm curious since the Apocrypha was never considered scripture until the Catholics decided it was. Do you think it is?

I do think reading Maccabees would be interesting, since the story of Hannukah is in it. The history is cool. But I don't think it counts as the Word.

So you're reading out of the Catholic Bible, Dom, why is that? I'm curious since the Apocrypha was never considered scripture until the Catholics decided it was. Do you think it is?

Does a bit of research
Does more
(Thank you for this.)
So. From what I can tell is that the Jews did not have a set cannon and that there was dispute that was settled against the Apocrypha in ~200 AD. However converting was done with the version that did have the Apocrypha. By the time it was settled with the Jews, Christians had already been using it for a while, even though there was some dispute of it, most notably by Saint Jerome. (There might be others, but I looked up about Athanasius and there isn't enough evidence to say he was definitely against it.) One thing that I think is a good enough reason to accept it is that It was made Biblical cannon by the whole church before the Great Schism.
They are accepted today by both the Catholic and Orthodox church, the closest churches to the original. Also it should be noted that the canon books weren't seriously challenged until Luther, who said the pope was the antichrist, and that personal conscience was the highest thing to listen to.

https://www.gotquestions.org/apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html

I don't know man, the Apocrypha seems pretty sus. Especially that third link they give in the second paragraph. Jewish scribes never considered is inspired literature. And why do you say the Catholic and Orthodox churches are closest to the original? The original church, which is pretty well described in Acts, as you know, started spreading from Israel across the Mediterranean and had a heavy conversion rate in Rome. Persecution of Chritsian was frequent and required by law-

Christian worship was forbidden, and those Christians who refused to recant lost their legal rights. Later, it was ordered that Christian clergy be arrested and that all inhabitants of the empire sacrifice to the gods.

Over time the Christian population in Rome grew while the pagan belief system lost popularity, this, I think is where the Catholics come in. The Catholic church has many pagan influences, and in my opinion was the Roman governments way of keeping power over the people's religion once they saw paganism was out of fashion.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-questions.html
You should read some of these articles. Btw, I would never say Martin Luther was a great guy or a perfect Christian, but I do believe he made many contributions in getting the people away from Catholic hierarchy and blasphemy and towards reading God's Word for themselves.

Alright. For problem one. Magic. There was also a serpent statue that healed people of venom that was made by Moses at the command of God.
Though it is not works only that deliver us from salvation, works do much for us. It is said that faith without works is dead and that they are not separate from each other. This was also in the Old Testament, where they were told to make sin offerings to cleanse themselves.
Historical errors are not so grave. I believe there were some in the New Testament as well, though I cannot be sure. I do not think it matters theologically.

Most of those pagan influences (Christmas is pagan, All Saints is Saturnalia) have already been debunked. I see no reason to believe others, though obviously we should check.
As for Luther, he did indeed cause more fractionation of the church, something that one should not do. Granted, the Catholic church was a wreck at the time. 1. He should have stayed on his track to fix it. (What he was trying to do, although foolishly, with his 99 theses.) 2. The Catholics had a sortofish good reason for being a mess. around two hundred years before, the Black Death had just about finished. It is important to not that the vast majority of the good priests of the Catholic church had sacrificed their lives to minister to the sick, effectively killing off a great many of the best priests and leaving behind as successors the more selfish bent ones. So the church was a wreck. And Luther was write to try to fix that. But when he didn't get his way he caused more separation in the church instead of healing.

But my argument above still stands. The original church split it 1054, due to the pope asserting supremacy and publicly changing the Nicene Creed, a change that had already been struck down at council. The Orthodox church, knowing this was wrong, refused to stay together. Just about every other church has (to my knowledge) come from people such as Luther who split off of the Catholic church. The closest we have (that I know of for certain) of the original church is the Catholic and Orthodox. They both agree that the Apocrypha is valid and therefore so do I.

Though it is not works only that deliver us from salvation, works do much for us. It is said that faith without works is dead and that they are not separate from each other. This was also in the Old Testament, where they were told to make sin offerings to cleanse themselves.

Ok, this is a bad way of thinking and goes against what the Bible actually says.
See Ephesians 2:8-9 and Roman's 10:10.
Salvation comes through faith in God and his grace, nothing else.
In the Old Testament, Jews were commanded to make sacrifices for themselves, yes. They were told to keep themselves clean and obey the Law, yes. But they couldn't. The Law was given by God partially to show his people that they couldn't follow the Law, to show them that they were sinful and needed a savior, the Messiah to defeat sin. Jesus is that Messiah, and he served as a final sacrifice when he died on the cross, talking all of humanity's sin on him. He rose back to life to prove he defeated sin and death. We don't make sacrifices anymore because He was the last. If we carry on thinking following the Law and performing works will save us, even partially, it undermines God's sacrifice for us. When Jesus said "it is finished" (John 19:30) He meant it. There's nothing you or I or anyone could do to gain our salvation, even just a little bit. It's about was Jesus has already done. You are right in saying faith without works is dead (James 2:14). What this means is that works are evidence of faith, fruit of faith. If you don't show works, you don't have the faith that saves you in the first place. It doesn't mean that faith andworks save you, it just means that works are evidence of true faith that God graces salvation through. This video does a good job explaining-

None of this is to say you shouldn't bother to follow the Law- again, avoiding sin and practicing good works is evidence of faith, and has many benefits. It helps get you closer to God. But it doesn't save you. The whole point of the Gospel is that we're sinners and God died for us. And through that sacrifice, we are saved from eternal damnation if we put our faith in him.

I'll get to the other stuff in a while, maybe.

Though it is not works only that deliver us from salvation, works do much for us. It is said that faith without works is dead and that they are not separate from each other. This was also in the Old Testament, where they were told to make sin offerings to cleanse themselves.

Ok, this is a bad way of thinking and goes against what the Bible actually says.
See Ephesians 2:8-9 and Roman's 10:10.
Salvation comes through faith in God and his grace, nothing else.

Well yes but also no. The demons believe and faith without works is dead. Not to say that our works earn us salvation, but that we must (attempt to) do what God says in order to gain salvation. (Did I make the distinction easy to understand?)

In the Old Testament, Jews were commanded to make sacrifices for themselves, yes. They were told to keep themselves clean and obey the Law, yes. But they couldn't. The Law was given by God partially to show his people that they couldn't follow the Law, to show them that they were sinful and needed a savior, the Messiah to defeat sin.

Where did you get this?

Jesus is that Messiah, and he served as a final sacrifice when he died on the cross, talking all of humanity's sin on him. He rose back to life to prove he defeated sin and death. We don't make sacrifices anymore because He was the last. If we carry on thinking following the Law and performing works will save us, even partially, it undermines God's sacrifice for us. When Jesus said "it is finished" (John 19:30) He meant it. There's nothing you or I or anyone could do to gain our salvation, even just a little bit.

If there is nothing we can do, why bother doing anything at all? I very much think you are wrong on this point. Mustn't we do our part as well? If not, holiness is completely optional. I am not asserting that by works are we saved, but that we must have faith, and to have true faith, one must have works, and that if we have works, it is that that makes our faith alive and allows us to accept the gift of salvation. If we don't do our part, we have no free will in the matter and it is God who saves and damns without anything to do with us or our actions when clearly it is our choices that lead us to damnation.

It's about was Jesus has already done. You are right in saying faith without works is dead (James 2:14). What this means is that works are evidence of faith, fruit of faith. If you don't show works, you don't have the faith that saves you in the first place. It doesn't mean that faith and works save you, it just means that works are evidence of true faith that God graces salvation through.

If there is nothing we can do, why bother doing anything at all? I very much think you are wrong on this point. Mustn't we do our part as well? If not, holiness is completely optional. I am not asserting that by works are we saved, but that we must have faith, and to have true faith, one must have works, and that if we have works, it is that that makes our faith alive and allows us to accept the gift of salvation. If we don't do our part, we have no free will in the matter and it is God who saves and damns without anything to do with us or our actions when clearly it is our choices that lead us to damnation.

Ok, because you said this I feel like we agree. And I said at the end of my rant why we should do anything at all, because we should strive to get closer to God and lead lives with as little sin as possible.

In the Old Testament, Jews were commanded to make sacrifices for themselves, yes. They were told to keep themselves clean and obey the Law, yes. But they couldn't. The Law was given by God partially to show his people that they couldn't follow the Law, to show them that they were sinful and needed a savior, the Messiah to defeat sin.

Where did you get this?

This is what the Bible is about. Everyone's a sinner (Roman's 3:23) in need of God's perfect, final sacrifice. He promised a Messiah, Jesus, to save us. The Law is proof that we're sinners- it's the definition of morality and we all fail to fulfill it. Only Jesus could fulfill the law, which is why he was the perfect sacrifice.

In the Old Testament, Jews were commanded to make sacrifices for themselves, yes. They were told to keep themselves clean and obey the Law, yes. But they couldn't. The Law was given by God partially to show his people that they couldn't follow the Law, to show them that they were sinful and needed a savior, the Messiah to defeat sin.

Where did you get this?

This is what the Bible is about. Everyone's a sinner (Roman's 3:23) in need of God's perfect, final sacrifice. He promised a Messiah, Jesus, to save us. The Law is proof that we're sinners- it's the definition of morality and we all fail to fulfill it. Only Jesus could fulfill the law, which is why he was the perfect sacrifice.

(That's the part I meant.) Thanks for the answer.

Salvation comes through faith in God and his grace, nothing else.

Well yes but also no. The demons believe and faith without works is dead. Not to say that our works earn us salvation, but that we must (attempt to) do what God says in order to gain* salvation. (Did I make the distinction easy to understand?)

I agree with most of this (everything in bold) except for the part where you said we can "gain" salvation. Again, we can't. That was the whole point in Jesus dying. But I think we, for the most part, agree but are using different language to describe it. I think it's dangerous to hint that one can "gain" or "earn" salvation. Perhaps if you said *edify or *prove our salvation, then I would agree with the entire statement.

If there is nothing we can do, why bother doing anything at all? I very much think you are wrong on this point. Mustn't we do our part as well? If not, holiness is completely optional. I am not asserting that by works are we saved, but that we must have faith, and to have true faith, one must have works, and that if we have works, it is that that makes our faith alive and allows us to accept the gift of salvation. If we don't do our part, we have no free will in the matter and it is God who saves and damns without anything to do with us or our actions when clearly it is our choices that lead us to damnation.

Ok, because you said this I feel like we agree. And I said at the end of my rant why we should do anything at all, because we should strive to get closer to God and lead lives with as little sin as possible.

Oh good.