toldailytopic: Is attending church necessary for salvation?

[zippy2006]

So you are clarifying that "church" is a community or body of believers which is not dependent on a physical gathering - it can be believers of like minds, unified in Christ spiritually. Am I on the same page with you on this?

Sure, but I think that usage of "church" is different than that of the question in the OP. And I would say that the physical gathering and actual interaction of Christians is related to the broader notion of the church as the mystical Body of Christ. In fact I don't know how you could become a Christian absent relations with that community.

 

[unknown]

So if church is not a physical community, which I believe is how people view what Paul said, then how does one "fellowship" spiritually? And does that misapply what Paul stated?

I'm lost,.....

please remind me what Paul stated.

"fellowship" and "community" are not the same thing. fellowship is physical, community doesn't have to be. TOL is a community. We can't "fellowship" here (except in spirit). Is it then a "church"? To some it is.

You speak of Paul, his letters are a form of what we call communication. can you see the relationship here, communication - community ????

 

[godrulz]

Um.....they were built to hold the church bell. :doh:

The bell was rung so the people would know when to go to church :doh:

We all know how much you hate churches, and condemn people who attend local churches to worship God together, but you will have to come up with a better conspiracy theory than “steeples- phallic symbols” to get people to sit home every Sunday like you do.

This is the lame tactics of JWs and Mormons (cults) that try to distance themselves from true Christianity. However, there are pagan influences in some areas, but we don't have to be afraid of them like JWs are. Outer things are not the issue for Protestant Evangelicals who have the Spirit and Word.

 

[Town Heretic]

Sure, but I think that usage of "church" is different than that of the question in the OP. And I would say that the physical gathering and actual interaction of Christians is related to the broader notion of the church as the mystical Body of Christ. In fact I don't know how you could become a Christian absent relations with that community.

I do. :wave2:

...though I also think fellowship is essential to healthy spiritual growth.

 

[zippy2006]

I do. :wave2:

:IA:

But in all truth your call wasn't wholly separate from interaction with Christianity. Do you think that anything would have been different had you truly never heard of Christ?

...though I also think fellowship is essential to healthy spiritual growth.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

:IA:

But in all truth your call wasn't wholly separate from interaction with Christianity.

I suppose my mother was praying for me. Does that count?

Do you think that anything would have been different had you truly never heard of Christ?

I don't think it had much to do with it on the conversion end of things... I'd been reared in the Episcopal church and already found the Christian myth a noble enough fairy tale...noble as I saw it could be but rarely was practiced, at any rate. By the time of my conversion I would have put money, had you asked me on laying improbable odds, on a more Hindu or Buddhist mindset winning the field.

I'm grateful for the instruction, in hindsight, because it made my transition much easier than had I been less familiar.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

I suppose my mother was praying for me. Does that count?

Of course it does in my book

I don't think it had much to do with it on the conversion end of things... I'd been reared in the Episcopal church and already found the Christian myth a noble enough fairy tale...noble as I saw it could be but rarely was practiced, at any rate. By the time of my conversion I would have put money, had you asked me on laying improbable odds, on a more Hindu or Buddhist mindset winning the field.

I'm grateful for the instruction, in hindsight, because it made my transition much easier than had I been less familiar.

:e4e:

I hope my curiosity doesn't injure the cat, or rather his tale, but may I ask for a more precise rendering of the event with a focus on the identification of the sender? Was there at all a chance of reading it as a call from a different religion? Just wondering.

 

[Town Heretic]

Of course it does in my book

But your book has extra stuff in it...:think: So are you adding me to the Apocrypha? :shocked:

I hope my curiosity doesn't injure the cat, or rather his tale, but may I ask for a more precise rendering of the event with a focus on the identification of the sender?

Sure. But there was a thread recently where I went into this with Watson and a few others in terms of effect and I set out more of the narrative version for fool ages ago somewhere...maybe even in Observations. I'll see if I can find them at some point. But I can at least answer on point here.

Was there at all a chance of reading it as a call from a different religion? Just wondering.

No. It was rather in the nature of the experience. There wasn't anything ambiguous about it.

 

[godrulz]

Jim Jones had a community of believers who worshiped, taught, fellowshiped and evangelized and served - in a church. Any thoughts? :chew:

Counterfeits do not disprove the genuine. A true church must be biblical, Christocentric, etc. Cults can have organization and similar externals without the reality of truth, Spirit, etc. Religion can have similarities, but it lacks the reality and relationship with God.

 

[godrulz]

Jone's church was considered "Christian" by the members and by others in the communities in which he developed his churches. Jesus was preached there. atrol:

Discernment is still needed. He may have started out ok, but ended up setting himself up as 'god' and throwing the Bible across the church and telling his followers to follow him, not the Book. False teachers/prophets are warned about and need to be exposed/rejected. He also taught a false god/christ.

 

[JoeyArnold]

If church is required, then we're co-saved through attendance, also.

 

[red cardinal]

Sure, but I think that usage of "church" is different than that of the question in the OP. And I would say that the physical gathering and actual interaction of Christians is related to the broader notion of the church as the mystical Body of Christ. In fact I don't know how you could become a Christian absent relations with that community.

Do you think that is more of an American mindset pertaining to "church" than the reality? What about the 1000s of believers in 3rd world countries that have no community, no contact? Do you perceive them as non-Christian then? What about those that have no church community due to illness with no contact from other believers, being home bound, enslaved? Do you view them as non-Christan as well?

 

[red cardinal]

Discernment is still needed. He may have started out ok, but ended up setting himself up as 'god' and throwing the Bible across the church and telling his followers to follow him, not the Book. False teachers/prophets are warned about and need to be exposed/rejected. He also taught a false god/christ.

Interesting. Actually Jones thought himself to be Christ. He quoted Scripture right up to the moment of his death. Have you heard the 45 minute tape from the "white night" when the actual suicide was carried out?

However; that point that I was really poking around at, is that his church believed it to be community and religious. They probably did more to promote "community" than many churches do today - encouraging the improvement of society and the unity of all, not based in race or color. This is why so many were drawn to him and why they migrated to Guyana - to seek that altruistic "perfect" society/church/religion. Not to mention that his beginnings in ministry were due to his charismatic flare - healings, prophetics, etc - and in the name of Jesus. So what sets his church apart from say, your church?

 

[red cardinal]

Counterfeits do not disprove the genuine. A true church must be biblical, Christocentric, etc. Cults can have organization and similar externals without the reality of truth, Spirit, etc. Religion can have similarities, but it lacks the reality and relationship with God.

So if that many people truly believed they had the "real deal" and they were mostly church going people before he arrived on the scene, what differences would there be between that church and any other based on the surface, which appears identical - and so much so, that people could not tell the difference?

From what I understand, the members there believed they had a relationship with God because they were reaching out to the community - food, services, community minded, socially acceptable, etc.

 

[red cardinal]

where I'm coming from.............

full article @
http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/matan_torah/the_bond.htm


Exodus 24

7And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.

I know you will say this pertains to Israel, but it in fact pertains to “Love thy neighbour as thyself”. The same “Love thy neighbour as thyself” that Christianity claims. In fact it is, in Christianity, the second greatest commandment.

How can it be achieved if a person is alone?

Do you really believe that a kabbalistic/talmudic view can be applied to Christianity?

To answer your last question - I think the point of the Gospel is that we can reach out to whomever God leads us to, or them to us, which is the beauty of the new covenant versus the old covenant. The nation of Israel versus the body of Christ. Why does "community" have to be other "Christians"? If we are one with Christ, then we are in community with Him, yes? no?

 

[godrulz]

So if that many people truly believed they had the "real deal" and they were mostly church going people before he arrived on the scene, what differences would there be between that church and any other based on the surface, which appears identical - and so much so, that people could not tell the difference?

From what I understand, the members there believed they had a relationship with God because they were reaching out to the community - food, services, community minded, socially acceptable, etc.

There would be true believers among his group that were deceived. The Word of God is the final test for truth vs error, Christian vs cult.

 

[red cardinal]

I'm lost,.....

please remind me what Paul stated.

"fellowship" and "community" are not the same thing. fellowship is physical, community doesn't have to be. TOL is a community. We can't "fellowship" here (except in spirit). Is it then a "church"? To some it is.

You speak of Paul, his letters are a form of what we call communication. can you see the relationship here, communication - community ????

Again, my comments are based in the church/majority Christian view, that one must be in physical community [an organized church] in order to be "obedient" to what Paul stated:

Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

 

[red cardinal]

There would be true believers among his group that were deceived. The Word of God is the final test for truth vs error, Christian vs cult.

Not to be argumentative, but Jim Jones church was based in Scripture. His members believed it to be so and he preached from the Bible. Each church/denomination has their own views and perceptions as to what the Bible "really" says ["test for truth"], so what makes your church different from Jim Jones'?

 

[godrulz]

Not to be argumentative, but Jim Jones church was based in Scripture. His members believed it to be so and he preached from the Bible. Each church/denomination has their own views and perceptions as to what the Bible "really" says ["test for truth"], so what makes your church different from Jim Jones'?

What he initially believed/taught was not the same as the final product. We can show that JWs and Mormons mistranslate/misinterpret Scripture. We can establish sound vs defective theology from Scripture. Claims to truth do not make false beliefs true. If Jones claimed to be Christ (like Moon, etc.), we can show that to be false from Scripture.

Subjective interpretation does not negate objective truth. My church has a sound statement of faith. Jones did throw the Bible across the room and did not have a high view of it as the Word of God at some point. He used it when convenient to manipulate the flock. We are to test things and be like a Berean. Relativism is not acceptable. God can give discernment and we can use our noodle.

 

[red cardinal]

What he initially believed/taught was not the same as the final product. We can show that JWs and Mormons mistranslate/misinterpret Scripture. We can establish sound vs defective theology from Scripture. Claims to truth do not make false beliefs true. If Jones claimed to be Christ (like Moon, etc.), we can show that to be false from Scripture.

Subjective interpretation does not negate objective truth. My church has a sound statement of faith. Jones did throw the Bible across the room and did not have a high view of it as the Word of God at some point. He used it when convenient to manipulate the flock. We are to test things and be like a Berean. Relativism is not acceptable. God can give discernment and we can use our noodle.

I think you are simplifying the issue. People believed in Jim Jones - that he had the truth, the way that Biblical principles demanded one lives. When one is convinced that their teacher/leader/pastor has all the answers and is able to "interpret" the Bible correctly and is subjected to hours of brain numbing obedience, that person is convinced they are the truth. Jim Jones was the extreme of what goes on in most churches today - but much more subtle and "acceptable". This is why I asked why your church is any different. You believe that your pastor is "of God". Jim Jone's followers believed he was "of God".