toldailytopic: Is attending church necessary for salvation?

[godrulz]

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".

I respect godly leadership, but disagree with peripheral things with my pastor. We agree on the essentials of the faith/gospel, but I test what he says and disagree. He is not a guru nor infallible. Jones indoctrinated/brainwashed/controlled people. My leadership humbly serves out of equality before God.

 

[zippy2006]

Do you think that is more of an American mindset pertaining to "church" than the reality?

No, I think it has always been there, in America and elsewhere.

What about the 1000s of believers in 3rd world countries that have no community, no contact?

It seems you may have answered your own question, else I would ask where specifically you are referring to.

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 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?

The connection between these two quotes isn't at all clear :idunno:

 

[godrulz]

The problem is not the biblical concept of local church, but how we do church (not always biblical, beneficial). We need to rethink how we do things, but that does not mean being anti-church (Scripture won't allow this kind of ecclesiology).

 

[red cardinal]

No, I think it has always been there, in America and elsewhere.

From my perspective, I see that American Christians view Christianity from a different view point than the rest of the world. They seem caught up in the additions and programs rather than the peripheral social issues, which lends them to believe that their "church community" is the formula for "correct" application of Paul's words. In reality, this is a false dichotomy.

It seems you may have answered your own question, else I would ask where specifically you are referring to.



The connection between these two quotes isn't at all clear :idunno:

You stated: "In fact I don't know how you could become a Christian absent relations with that community."

So I read that as saying that if you are not in community aka going to a church, then you are not a Christian. Did I miss something?

 

[red cardinal]

I respect godly leadership, but disagree with peripheral things with my pastor. We agree on the essentials of the faith/gospel, but I test what he says and disagree. He is not a guru nor infallible. Jones indoctrinated/brainwashed/controlled people. My leadership humbly serves out of equality before God.

I don't understand how your pastor can be correct on the "essentials of the faith/gospel" but then test what he says and disagree. If he is teaching the "essentials" then what do you disagree with him on. Sorry, if that makes no sense to me

I think you may not perceive that pastorship is really a form of "programing" - which may be subtle, but really just another form of what Jim Jones did. The outcome may not be physical death, but I can surely see the negative spiritual ramifications.

 

[annabenedetti]

St. John Chrysostom, 4th. century:

You cannot pray at home as at church, where there is a great multitude, where exclamations are cried out to God as from one great heart,
and where there is something more: the union of minds, the accord of souls, the bond of charity, the prayers of the priests.

 

[JoeyArnold]

I don't understand how your pastor can be correct on the "essentials of the faith/gospel" but then test what he says and disagree. If he is teaching the "essentials" then what do you disagree with him on. Sorry, if that makes no sense to me

I think you may not perceive that pastorship is really a form of "programing" - which may be subtle, but really just another form of what Jim Jones did. The outcome may not be physical death, but I can surely see the negative spiritual ramifications.

What? Pastor program? You mean brain washing?

Subliminal messages? Presenting errors, apostasy, heresy, bad things, teaching them as fact, as truth, as good, as moral, twisting the Bible, or whatever? Did Jim Jones do this?

I believe that some or most pastors aren't as good as others. Emphasis on some or most.

 

[red cardinal]

St. John Chrysostom, 4th. century:

You cannot pray at home as at church, where there is a great multitude, where exclamations are cried out to God as from one great heart,
and where there is something more: the union of minds, the accord of souls, the bond of charity, the prayers of the priests.

The Bible - Words of Christ, 1st century :thumb:

Joh 4:20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Joh 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Joh 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

 

[godrulz]

I don't understand how your pastor can be correct on the "essentials of the faith/gospel" but then test what he says and disagree. If he is teaching the "essentials" then what do you disagree with him on. Sorry, if that makes no sense to me

I think you may not perceive that pastorship is really a form of "programing" - which may be subtle, but really just another form of what Jim Jones did. The outcome may not be physical death, but I can surely see the negative spiritual ramifications.

I am Open Theist and my pastor is Arminian. We are both Pentecostal, both affirm the Trinity, Deity, resurrection of Christ, etc. I am Moral Government Theology on the atonement, but he is more classical Arminian. We both reject Calvinism. I am moderate on alcohol, but he is against it. We agree on far more than we disagree on. My old pastor was open to Open Theism, but not dogmatic about Young Earth Creationism (which I am...he was open to theistic evolution). I deny original sin, but they affirmed it.

Some issues are salvific and others are not. I tend to read a book during his good sermons. His messages are biblical, but not always deeply doctrinal (if they are, they are basic vs controversial). I am not afraid to disagree with him (I work closely since I am an elder) and he gives me freedom of conscience within parameters since the Holy Spirit is my boss, not Him).

http://www.paganchristianity.org/

You would like this and I share some concerns, but it is an overreaction. House churches also have problems and are a placebo vs panacea.

Let us be part of the solution vs problem and support a local church, godly leadership, but bold enough to disagree and be change agents in love and humility.

The myth that the early church was perfect is just that. There were divisions, doctrinal disputes, moral issues, yet Paul did not throw the baby out with the bathwater. He brought correction, not cessation of support or removal from a God-given institution (Catholics have a bigger problem, but Protestants, even evangelicals, need reform).

 

[godrulz]

St. John Chrysostom, 4th. century:

You cannot pray at home as at church, where there is a great multitude, where exclamations are cried out to God as from one great heart,
and where there is something more: the union of minds, the accord of souls, the bond of charity, the prayers of the priests.

Corporate celebration, small groups cells, families, individuals before God, etc. Both/and vs either/or.

Catholic Mother Church goes beyond Scripture. Christianity is relationship with Christ. One can be a nominal Catholic who is faithful to the Church without being in relationship with Christ or one can know Christ, but reject the Catholic Church or be slack in church attendance.

 

[unknown]

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

There was no NT until 400 years after Christ.

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?

right, it takes two, just like I said.

 

[godrulz]

There was no NT until 400 years after Christ.



right, it takes two, just like I said.

The letters/books predated that as Scripture even if the canon was not formally finalized (I think it was earlier than 400 A.D.). Likewise, Scripture was extant centuries before chapters/verses were added/numbered or English versions appeared.

 

[unknown]

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:

The 501c3 coporation churches that you seem to be speaking of did not exist in Paul's time.

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.

I am in agreement with Paul here. I thought I posted earlier what I call church. Every soul that crosses one's path is an opportunity to attain a spiritual connection. We fellowship wherever we are. We maintain the connection when physically apart by our prayers for "the others" (the ones we are to "love as ourself")

btw,
The Buddha taught the principle "Love your neighbor as yourself" 500 years before Christ came on the scene.

Being a Pharisee, Paul would have been very well educated in the Kabbalistic viewpoint. In fact what he is claiming with his testimony about what happened on the Damascus road, if true, would by definition make him a Kabbalist (one who has received) . Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc were all Kabbalists. The NT always references the OT, if the writers were not Kabbalists, meaning those who have received (and what is received is "Torah" a Hebrew word for "enlightenment" or more common today "instruction" ) the writers would not be qualified to write anything. How could they teach something they don't have?

 

[JoeyArnold]

The letters/books predated that as Scripture even if the canon was not formally finalized (I think it was earlier than 400 A.D.). Likewise, Scripture was extant centuries before chapters/verses were added/numbered or English versions appeared.

Forgive their beliefs or lies. People will try bumping or stretching out the birth of the Bible canon up several centuries. It is only because they're trying to destroy the Bible's reputation or ability to be the truth.

Arguing about the birth of the Bible canon is almost like arguing about a book that is written about your mom. Someone may argue about the date the biography, about your mom, was written. You wouldn't care so much about when or how or where or by whom it was written by or for or whatever.

You're mostly concern with what it is saying. And you'll know if the book, about your mother is accurate enough or not, regardless of when the book was written. This goes for the canon.

If you know Jesus like you know your own mother or spouse or closes friend or a brother who is closer than a brother, or a friend who is more than just a friend to you, or whatever, then you'll know whether or not the Bible is accurate or not, regardless of when the canon was finished.

 

[kmoney]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for March 2nd, 2011 11:11 AM

toldailytopic: Is attending church necessary for salvation?

Necessary for salvation? No.

Beneficial? Yes.

 

[unknown]

The 501c3 coporation churches that you seem to be speaking of did not exist in Paul's time.

I guess he was building them though.

 

[kmoney]

Is believing in the historical person of Jesus necessary for salvation? :think: (think of a savage who has never heard the name)

Well, thinking about that savage, no. :chuckle: What say you?

 

[Lovejoy]

The 501c3 coporation churches that you seem to be speaking of did not exist in Paul's time.




I am in agreement with Paul here. I thought I posted earlier what I call church. Every soul that crosses one's path is an opportunity to attain a spiritual connection. We fellowship wherever we are. We maintain the connection when physically apart by our prayers for "the others" (the ones we are to "love as ourself")

btw,
The Buddha taught the principle "Love your neighbor as yourself" 500 years before Christ came on the scene.

Being a Pharisee, Paul would have been very well educated in the Kabbalistic viewpoint. In fact what he is claiming with his testimony about what happened on the Damascus road, if true, would by definition make him a Kabbalist (one who has received) . Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc were all Kabbalists. The NT always references the OT, if the writers were not Kabbalists, meaning those who have received (and what is received is "Torah" a Hebrew word for "enlightenment" or more common today "instruction" ) the writers would not be qualified to write anything. How could they teach something they don't have?

I won't speculate on the rest of that stuff, but I would like to point out that Jesus was actually quoting Leviticus 19:18, which was written a thousand years before the Buddha.

 

[unknown]

I won't speculate on the rest of that stuff, but I would like to point out that Jesus was actually quoting Leviticus 19:18, which was written a thousand years before the Buddha.

Yes, thank you for the reference. The article quoted gave the reference to the part in Exodus, but I did not have the part in Leviticus, it is the covenant that Exodus refers to.

 

[red cardinal]

There was no NT until 400 years after Christ.

The NT was written and circulated mid first century as letters, [Rev at the end of the first century] which were quoted from as early as the 2nd century. It was not a compiled book, but there was a NT Jesus is the New "Testament" aka Covenant :thumb:

There was no completed Talmud until 500 AD and then later added to as the Rabbinical system kicked into high gear :car:

right, it takes two, just like I said.

What I thought you stated is that "neighbor" was within the church, not outside it. Perhaps I missed something? My view of "neighbor" is the entire population of the world.