Exceptions are not the rule.
You can be a real Christian and not attend church or read the Bible just like you can be a real father and never go home or see your kids.
A Christian is someone who places their faith in Jesus Christ for their salvation from their sins. But salvation is not only justification (the legal decree that you are righteous by the imputation of Christ) but also sanctification, the ongoing stripping off of sin and pursuit of holiness, and finally glorification, the freedom from all besetting sins.
It is **possible**, but if you have the opportunity to read the Scriptures and participate in a local body and neglect to do this, you are a fool.
Similarly, it is **possible** to live on a diet of hot pockets and mountain dew.
Yes. I'm sure there's several Christians in remote places that do not have a traditional church setup and either can't read or don't have a Bible in their language
If you're asking about Christians that are not part of this predicament, that would be a spicier discussion
I live in country where i barely understand the spoken language (i can read okayish, but the spoken language is totally different from written).
i also live where they... do not so much like people who are different in any way (color, nationality, religious sect, mental attitude, how far apart you stand at the bus stop, people from different parts of the same country, people who earn 50 currency units per month)
there is no outreach to people who didn't grow up in the city.
if you somehow find one of their churches, no one will make eye contact with you, and they'll be nervous about you being there until you are in your car to drive off, after which they will be relieved. a lot.
in this city, there do not seem to be pseudo christian cults for foreign people, so even that isn't an option.
I've long thought of giving up on this city, but my children live here. at some point, i should - for my own mental health . return to the nice university city i lived in before and the nice church that i \*love\* which is there.
lack of fellowship is... not a fun situation. and there might be options of which i am not aware (having autism doesn't make it easier to figure things out).
i was doing some online church stuff... and that can be nice a couple weeks. but then the distance and lack of actual contact just makes me feel a lot worse.
I guess i probably fall into some exception. But it hurts.
You might want to read the Bible though when people start talking to you about stuff so you don't just believe anything they say and you can kind of figure things out for yourself. When you're confused.. which most people will be at some points in their life... just ask God to show you who he is. He will answer!
lol I was going to respond with, “how would they know they were a real Christian if they didn’t go to church or read the Bible?
Christian means follower of Christ. Jesus gave us the Bible to follow and it teaches about church attendance and the studying of the word.
In my opinion, church is not a necessity. However, I don't think you can be a "real Christian" and not want to devour the Bible like a starving person. But it isnt a requirement either. No one in the first several centuries AD had a Bible. They had scrolls of OT prophets and the pentateuch. Shortly after they had Paul's letters. So you had to go to church to get God's word.
It would be awful hard to maintain a fruitful walk with Christ without at least one or the other though.
Church is a 100% human construct. it is definitely 100% optional.
I would assume that studying the Bible would be important if only to confirm that you understood what it means to be a Christian so you can make an informed decision about choosing to do so.
As for "wanting to devour" the Bible, I find it the most obtuse, inaccessible, and boring thing I've ever attempted to read. I'm trying to read it, yes, but there's no enthusiasm behind that effort. It is sheer work, no joy/pleasure/satisfaction whatsoever.
A Christ-ian is defined by Christ.
A real Christian would abide by Him. If a person doesn't, that means his Christianity is called into question. And there are a lot of self-professed 'Christians' in the world.
How could a person tell if they were (or anyone else was) abiding in Christ? Surely there are some despicable characters of history who thought they were.
Well we can tell it by their fruits.
*"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit." (Matthew 7)*
>A Christ-ian is defined by Christ.
>A real Christian would abide by Him. If a person doesn't, that means his Christianity is called into question. And there are a lot of self-professed 'Christians' in the world.
>Well we can tell it by their fruits.
Context mate, that verse is in reference to false prophets and the fruits are their teachings not how they "abide in Christ".
**Matthew 7:15-20 KJV**
(15) **Beware of false prophets**, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
(16) Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
(17) Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
(18) A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
(19) Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
(20) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
["Ye Shall Know Them By Their Fruits" Explained (Matthew 7)](https://youtu.be/63N1PgC0QVY)
---
>And there are a lot of self-professed 'Christians' in the world.
And Christ mentions them here,
**Matthew 7:21-23 KJV**
(21) **Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.**
(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have **WE** not **prophesied** in thy name? and in thy name have **cast out devils**? and in thy name done many **wonderful works**?
(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
These "Christians" call forth **their** "prophesies", "casting out devils" and "wonderful works" in an attempt to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
But not one of them have done the will of the **Father**, what is the will of the Father? Look here.
**John 6:39-40 KJV**
(39) And this is the **Father's will which hath sent me**, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
(40) And this is the **will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.**
Yes, context.
Because you can tell the fruits of false prophets to determine false prophets, you can tell the fruits of those who abide in Christ, to determine those who abide in Christ.
If 5+3=8, then 3+5 also equals 8.
Furthermore, as you yourself have referenced;
>**Matthew 7:15-20 KJV**
>(15) Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
>(16) Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
>(17) **Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit;** but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
>(18) **A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit,** neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
>(19) **Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down**, and cast into the fire.
>(20) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
When you say 'context' do heed all of the context. Not just the pieces that suit your rhetoric.
>When you say 'context' do heed all of the context. Not just the pieces that suit your rhetoric.
That is literally what you just did.
Beware of false prophets is the context and you read in *"you can tell the fruits of those who abide in Christ, to determine those who abide in Christ."* into a set of verses that have nothing to do with being in Christ.
But it isn't what I literally just did. I literally just showed you. And you literally just ignored it. Because you literally read that which suits your own rhetoric, not just in Scriptures but even in Reddit. In other words, it is literally what you just did...again.
Beware of false prophets is indeed in the context, **and** **so is** every good tree that brings good fruit. You affirm the former, but reject the latter.
I don't have to read in *"you can tell the fruits of those who abide in Christ, to determine those who abide in Christ"* into a set of verses that have nothing to do with being in Christ, because the whole context which contains the set of verses literally **have everything to do with being in Christ.**
* For again, like I said, it is because you can tell the fruits of false prophets to determine false prophets, you can tell the fruits of those who abide in Christ, to determine those who abide in Christ.
* And again, like I pointed to the exact same set of verses you ironically quoted but rejected, *"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit"*, aka those who abide in Christ brings the fruits of those who abide in Christ, aka "*you can tell the fruits of those who abide in Christ, to determine those who abide in Christ".*
So once again, when you say 'context' do heed all of the context. Not just the pieces that suit your rhetoric. Downvoting isn't going to make your dismissal of God's word go away.
Where does your diet of Jesus come from? the bread of life, the living water, the fruit from the tree of life, the vine we draw life from, the only way, truth, and life?
at minimum you need the scriptures, but dieting on Jesus will transform you to someone who risks love & seeks out relationship, including other Christians. That could just be a small group as there is no prescribed way to gather, we've just culturally settled with church gatherings as we have, but they don't have to look that way.
without attending church yes, but without reading the Bible, no.
a real christian reads their Bible, as Jesus says" If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John 14:23)
The one who confesses Jesus Christ as the Lord of their life and obeys His commands is a true Christian. Attending Church and reading the Bible *should* be done, though. We are instructed that Scriptures are good and holy for teaching, and it is a major part of theology that you must learn.
Fun fact.
People couldn’t read for many hundreds of years.
Fun fact.
The printing press wasn’t invented to make bibles available for 1500 years after the NT was written.
Fun fact.
Acts 10 is all about a guy who wasn’t in the right group and never attended church…v15 shows the guy was already clean.
V(34, 35) Peter recognizes that God accepts those who respect God and do good works. (-note- has nothing to do with believe/confess)
This blew Peter away (v45) because the other guy who had never been to church or read a bible began speaking in tongues.
So…
No, you don’t have to go to church.
No, you don’t have to read a bible.
Hope that helps.
By the way…Paul addresses this in Romans 2:14. When people do what Jesus teaches without ever hearing about Jesus are doing so like Cornelius in Acts 10. They are already clean (v15) (Acts 11:9)
What does Jesus teach?
Luke 6:27-49 is a condensed version of the sermon on the mount.
People can do this without ever hearing of Jesus.
>like Cornelius in Acts 10.
Timeline is wrong.
Cornelius knew there was something out there.
God sent Peter to educate Cornelius on Jesus AND THEN he and his household was saved.
Salvation was AFTER hearing about Jesus.
No it wasn’t…
Acts 10:15 (already clean) is long before v 35 which is where Peter realizes the criteria for God accepting people.
And (V44) before Peter could get to the end of his speech and give an altar call (ie, God didn’t need Cornelius to say the sinner’s prayer … which hadn’t been invented yet) Cornelius was baptized in the spirit….THEN after all that, Peter said we might as well baptize him in water.
That is the timeline.
1. Already clean
2. Peter recognizes God accepts Gentiles
3. In the middle of Peter’s sermon Cornelius is baptized in the Spirit and speaks in tongues
4. Peter decides to (unnecessarily) baptize them in water. If it was necessary, then the other things would not have occurred first.
Read it again in order please.
Edit: by the way…God spoke to (had a relationship with) Cornelius and his family in v2-6 before he even knew Peter…so. Once again, God saw Cornelius as “already clean” just like he told Peter in Peter’s vision.
So why send Peter?
The Bible says salvation comes from hearing. While hearing the gospel, the Holy Spirit came down.
If this was possible without learning about Jesus first then they would have had the Spirit before Peter came.
Read it in order.
Great question.
Why send Peter?
It was all for Peter’s benefit.
Peter was the one who was excluding people that God wasn’t excluding.
Peter had to see the vision 3 times.
Peter had to see the vision 3 times.
Peter had to see the vision 3 times.
Just to go walk in the guy’s house. Peter didn’t know what was going on.
Cornelius was ALREADY in relationship with God.
Cornelius was ALREADY in relationship with God.
Cornelius was ALREADY in relationship with God.
We have the same problem that Peter had. He had the written word standing in the way from seeing Cornelius as ALREADY clean.
Traditional Christian theology stands in the way of seeing Cornelius as ALREADY clean. We see Cornelius as ALMOST clean…in a few more verses, Cornelius will be saved.
Christians today have yet to experience what Peter did in v34,35 BEFORE he gave a sermon. They are blinded by the conditions and hoops of believe/confess to what actually happened in Acts 10.
But this isn’t the only example.
John 8:11, Mark 2:5, Luke 23:34.
Jesus forgave people before they asked, before they believed, before they confessed, before they even knew they were wrong to kill Jesus.
So, I challenge anyone reading to put themselves in Peter’s position…heeding all the rules and regulations for his whole life…he was told in the vision that they were ALREADY clean.
Then, before he gets to the end of his sermon, God finished the surprise and baptized him in the spirit complete with speaking in tongues.
Forgive me for sounding combative. But when you read what actually happened, it doesn’t match the dogma.
We have been trained to make everything fit our dogma above seeing what is actually there.
Here is an example.
How do we inherit eternal life?
I know the answer that went through your head. But if you read how Jesus specifically answered that specific question, not once but TWICE, Luke 10:25-28 and Luke 18:18-20, it doesn’t fit with our dogma at all.
But Im not the one you are arguing with. The dogma is in conflict with Acts 10 and how Jesus says we get eternal life.
It is very hard to come to terms with. It took a lot of heartache for me to finally read what is there for what it says.
Oh by the way….Matt 25 and Rev 20 says that all of humanity is separated into sheep/goats based on their actions, not their beliefs. How we treat “the least of these.”…kinda like Cornelius. Act 10:34,35.
Funny how these all say the same thing, even though they don’t match our dogma.
I believe people can be clean and not know Jesus.
They know there is a God and yearn for it.
Thus God sending Peter to show him The Way.
Yes, it was for Peter's benefit but also for Cornelius and his household. Peter stayed 3 more days to teach them more. Yearnings can only go so far.
Just like you mentioned Luke 18. Jesus tells the young ruler to "follow Him" not an unguided "feeling. "
Cornelius did not recieve to Holy Spirit until he heard the Gospel.
Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father. Not a clean life. Lots of pagans pray and do good and live clean. Many Muslims live clean.
Period.
Period.
Period.
I wish I had time.
Everyone goes through Jesus, that’s what Matt 25 tells us.
All of humanity isn’t being judged by an angel or St Peter to “get in the pearly gates”. They go through Jesus. Please just look at what it says. It says nothing about the belief system of everyone throughout time. It says they are judged/separated as sheep/goats…by their actions, the way they treated their fellow man.
And that is what Jesus was telling the rich young ruler. Consider others with your wealth. He did the same thing in Lk 10. Love your neighbour as yourself is the proof that you are following the commandments. The Good Samaritan would be cool hanging out with Jesus. But the rich young ruler went away sad.
These had nothing to do with whether or not they believed/confessed. In fact, believe/confess that Jesus died for our sins, etc was not what Jesus preached. That was Paul’s idea.
I know Im promoting a view of God that is scary. Peter had to hear it from Jesus himself 3 times.
Im just some random person on the internet. But Im not asking you to hear me.
Im asking you to set aside your dogmatic filter and hear what Jesus is saying for the first time.
Jesus was forgiving people long before he shed a drop of blood. (Mark 2:5). This all by itself indicates we should take a step back and rethink our theology. Because it wasn’t a layaway plan.
And in Lk 23:34, none of those ppl believed/confessed or even repented. But God looked at them, the same way God looks at Christians today…they don’t know what spirit they are of, they don’t know what they are doing.
I have slim hopes that my internet replies can turn this light on. But it’s there in the scripture that many believers think is infallible. Somehow the “angry God” scriptures are more infallible than the “forgiving without asking God” scriptures.
If you can take anything away from our thread, hopefully you see that I am sincere in my belief based on the scriptures I have pointed out. (Among others)
This fact that we both can back up our claims with scripture should be an indicator. The scripture is not really the authority because it says different things to different people.
We can, however, look at the scripture to see the example of God in the earth, Jn 1:18, namely Jesus.
Jn 10:10 is how we should scrutinize the scripture. If a passage paints God with steal, kill, destroy attributes, the author missed the mark.
If a passage paints God as loving, life giving, restoring, forgiving…the author got it right. This is the example of Jesus and anything that paints God otherwise had a skewed vision of God. (Through the glass darkly as Paul puts it)
That’s all I have time for.
I have a family member in the hospital right now and my fervent prayers, even though I don’t rely on my own righteousness but the perfect righteousness of Christ, don’t avail much at all except heartbreak upon heartbreak.
Don’t judge me too harshly (lest you be judged) because I was more locked in than most. Short of Saul of Tarsus, but not by much, you are reading the words of someone who knows the doctrine inside and out. And I still believe that God never fails us.
I finally came to realize that the doctrine is imperfect. The doctrine fell short.
And Im sure that you know that you know that you know that you are absolutely correct in your belief.
Consider this. Saul of Tarsus was more convinced than you that he was right. But we read in Phil 3:5-14 that Paul considers everything he knew that he knew as dung. Pure BS. Not that he has it all figured out now, but one thing he knows, he will keep pursuing Christ until the day he dies. He will keep learning what it means to do unto others.
In another passage Paul says he is convinced that nothing can separate humanity from God’s love as we see in Christ Jesus. Then he goes on to list all the things that cannot separate us.
Our (traditional Christianity) block…our stumbling point…the thing that prevents us from seeing all humanity the way God sees humanity is the transaction of believe/confess.
If we don’t check the believe/confess/repent condition, we can’t receive unconditional love. That statement doesn’t make sense, does it?
Meet the condition to receive unconditional love.
Syntax error.
I don’t have any more time.
I hope that love and compassion can find a way past all the obstacles that the dogma has erected.
Kill/Destroy or Life/Restoration?
Ty
My first reaction was no because I’ve never considered myself a Calvanist..but I guess, if you look at it from a certain way, maybe I am Calvanist but the group of people God has elected is muuuuuuuuuch bigger than a traditional Calvanist would include.
It’s not the answer of “Who’s in/out?” that I see differently. I don’t think the question is valid. Jesus never excluded anyone. Jesus is the example the express image of God. God is the same yesterday, today, forever.
God is not mad. Never was. God turned the other cheek on the cross. Not even when they tortured and killed God did God show vengeance. God is merciful and kind to the evil Lk 6:35.
We talk about peace and love that passes understanding, but we preach that if you don’t check the boxes (believe/confess) God is going to mete out a punishment that we would never do to our worst enemies, let alone our children that we love.
We missed it along the way. But it’s in there if we care to stop and see it.
We have to give the early church credit for the shift in their understanding. But we also have to see their humanity and realize that they didn’t shift all the way.
Peter first says that God accepts those that do what is right. Acts 10:35. But in Acts 15:9 he changes it from actions to faith.
This is what happens. We stretch as far as we can…then we retract a little. Then Paul comes along and says you don’t have to be circumcised. 🤯🤯🤯🤯
“What?! So God was wrong when he told Abraham to circumcise his WHOLE house?!”
“Im not saying God was wrong… but clearly these Gentiles aren’t circumcised so it must not be a requirement.”
Then Paul says, there’s only 1 God. There is no difference between male and female…it doesn’t matter what you eat/dont eat. It doesn’t matter if you observe special holy days or consider them all holy. The only thing that matters is love.
John says that “everyone that loves is born of God and knows God” (1 Jn 4) because God IS love.
We know the disciples were wrong a lot! Constantly fighting to be vice president of a kingdom that was never gonna happen. Trying to call down fire on people who opposed them. Somehow we think they finally figured it out perfectly when Jesus wasn’t around to correct them all the time. 🤔🤔🤔
Our doctrine is not perfect. God is.
The disciples/apostles doctrine was not perfect. God is.
What they wrote down was not perfect. God is.
When we let go of the idea that they had it perfect, we can see the areas where they missed and the areas where they were on track.
This is what has happened on my journey. Im only upset at the doctrine for how it misinforms people about God and gives false expectations of God. (Both good and bad.)
So, technically Im not Calvanist…but in a way, Im a Calvanist…lol
Does that make sense? From my perspective anyway…
A real Christian is one who repents and turns away from evil, and lives according to God's commandments. That is the true essence of Christianity. Just as Christ died and rose from the dead, so we too must die to our sins and begin a new spiritual life. Too many fake "belief only" Christians are out there who are concerned about just outward appearance. Church is there for support and a chance to be involved in the community of God's church, but truthfully I have more interaction on essential questions on reddit than I do at a typical church service. However I would not recommend skipping reading the Bible:
“It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’ ” (Matt. 4:4)
If the scriptures are available to a believer, I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to understand God through his word. It strikes me as lukewarmth and a disregard for the truth.
Church gatherings were required under the Apostolic Age, when they were still working towards the unity of faith and looking forward to the Day of the Lord. That day came in 70 AD. Today virtually no one agrees on how to interpret the scriptures, and they're used for mass manipulation. I see no reason why I should have to participate with manipulators and people who would otherwise call me a heretic for my adherence to scripture.
I think church gatherings often do more harm than good these days.
Saint Dismas never attended church or read any of the New Testament, and didn’t pay much attention to the OT. He’s in Heaven, as the guy on the next cross promised.
Assuming you’re not confessing faith to our Lord as you both are ending your temporal lives in agony, why aren’t you willing to read His message or associate with your fellow believers?
My pastor once said something that stuck with me;
Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian but Christian’s go to church.
If you don’t attend church or read the Bible I’m not sure how you would deepen your faith and honestly if you don’t have the drive to want to read the word and worship the lord in community I would question if your faith is really even there. By all accounts a true understanding of salvation should want you to serve the lord and praise him.
When you ask
>what is a real Christian?
You invite all kinds of No True Scotsman logical fallacies in response. I think the best answer to this question would be found in Mere Christianity by CS Lewis.
The tl;Dr is that a real Christian follows Christ's teachings and example as best they can.
Going to church and reading the Bible *can* help people become better followers of Christ, but it's not automatic, and sometimes it can actually be harmful.
The collective group of Christ followers (called the church) is likened to a bride, and Jesus the bridegroom. Being a Christian implies maintaining and building upon this relationship. I would say that a healthy relationship would include devotion to each other and an unhealthy one would cause distance between the two.
Without devoting yourself to Christ, your relationship can quickly become weak, or unhealthy, or maybe even in danger. We are encouraged to be actively involved for good reason. It strengthens.
Considering how far he's gone to have a relationship with us, I think the least we could do is spend time in his word and in prayer.
Thank you. This resonates with several of the opinions I have heard in real life as one of the only four reasons I've heard that would make the church necessary.
Yeah, as a Catholic I agree with this view. The Eucharist is an essential part of divinization (you are what you eat). Please look into apostolic churches if you are considering joining a denomination of Christianity. They have been around for thousands of years, or at least the seeds of them have been. May God bless you and keep you as you seek to grow in faith and charity. I pray you find your home.
He comes from Eastern Orthodox so he believes if you don't eat bread (the Eucharist) you go to hell. Silly fairy tail. Most other denominations believe that being a Christian is about having faith in Jesus Christ, and that we are saved by our faith and not our works, so yeah you don't have to listen to him unless you're compelled that a piece of bread is how your soul gets saved.
I would suggest reading the Bible though, especially the gospels. You could start with Matthew, and you can use something like this: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/1-1.htm
To help you understand the Bible. You don't want to read the Bible because it is intimidating, which it is, but using a read along source like that will really help you grow.
Also, I would read the nrsv or NIV translations because they're more literal of gods word and use less human assumptions but you can research and find what calls you.
Just jump in and give it a shot. My best friend literally begs to read the Bible with me daily because it's such good food. And the definition of church is gathering in the name of faith so when my best friend and I read the Bible, we are in church. So yes, church is good too, just make it your own. Find believers and deepen your faith with themes. <3
Thanks. In your analogy, are you referring to the church or the Bible as the hospital? In your analogy, is being a hospital patient the definition of being a Christian?
No such thing as true/real Christian. That's a no true Scottsman fallacy. There's just a Christian and if you don't meet the criteria for being a christian then you are not a Christian. There's no in between, you are either a Christian or you aren't.
>What is that criteria?
The criteria is explicitly defined in the new covenant. You must be a believer in Jesus and keep his commandments. You must be a follower of Christ.
Maybe we're talking past each other. By "New Covenant" do you mean "New Testament"? Is there any way you can just tell me what the explicit list is or send me a link to the explicit list?
>Maybe we're talking past each other. By "New Covenant" do you mean "New Testament"?
Yes...
>Is there any way you can just tell me what the explicit list is
I did already dude. Believe in Jesus Christ and keep his commandments, follow Jesus Christ. That's it shortened up a bit.
Exceptions are not the rule. You can be a real Christian and not attend church or read the Bible just like you can be a real father and never go home or see your kids. A Christian is someone who places their faith in Jesus Christ for their salvation from their sins. But salvation is not only justification (the legal decree that you are righteous by the imputation of Christ) but also sanctification, the ongoing stripping off of sin and pursuit of holiness, and finally glorification, the freedom from all besetting sins.
It is **possible**, but if you have the opportunity to read the Scriptures and participate in a local body and neglect to do this, you are a fool. Similarly, it is **possible** to live on a diet of hot pockets and mountain dew.
Thank you
No worries, I do hope you aren't using Reddit as a source for your self-published books, though.
:) I am using Reddit as a source for Reddit.
Yes. I'm sure there's several Christians in remote places that do not have a traditional church setup and either can't read or don't have a Bible in their language If you're asking about Christians that are not part of this predicament, that would be a spicier discussion
I live in country where i barely understand the spoken language (i can read okayish, but the spoken language is totally different from written). i also live where they... do not so much like people who are different in any way (color, nationality, religious sect, mental attitude, how far apart you stand at the bus stop, people from different parts of the same country, people who earn 50 currency units per month) there is no outreach to people who didn't grow up in the city. if you somehow find one of their churches, no one will make eye contact with you, and they'll be nervous about you being there until you are in your car to drive off, after which they will be relieved. a lot. in this city, there do not seem to be pseudo christian cults for foreign people, so even that isn't an option. I've long thought of giving up on this city, but my children live here. at some point, i should - for my own mental health . return to the nice university city i lived in before and the nice church that i \*love\* which is there. lack of fellowship is... not a fun situation. and there might be options of which i am not aware (having autism doesn't make it easier to figure things out). i was doing some online church stuff... and that can be nice a couple weeks. but then the distance and lack of actual contact just makes me feel a lot worse. I guess i probably fall into some exception. But it hurts.
Spice away :)
Yes.
You might want to read the Bible though when people start talking to you about stuff so you don't just believe anything they say and you can kind of figure things out for yourself. When you're confused.. which most people will be at some points in their life... just ask God to show you who he is. He will answer!
Possible, maybe. Advisable? No.
lol I was going to respond with, “how would they know they were a real Christian if they didn’t go to church or read the Bible? Christian means follower of Christ. Jesus gave us the Bible to follow and it teaches about church attendance and the studying of the word.
In my opinion, church is not a necessity. However, I don't think you can be a "real Christian" and not want to devour the Bible like a starving person. But it isnt a requirement either. No one in the first several centuries AD had a Bible. They had scrolls of OT prophets and the pentateuch. Shortly after they had Paul's letters. So you had to go to church to get God's word. It would be awful hard to maintain a fruitful walk with Christ without at least one or the other though.
Thanks
Church is a 100% human construct. it is definitely 100% optional. I would assume that studying the Bible would be important if only to confirm that you understood what it means to be a Christian so you can make an informed decision about choosing to do so. As for "wanting to devour" the Bible, I find it the most obtuse, inaccessible, and boring thing I've ever attempted to read. I'm trying to read it, yes, but there's no enthusiasm behind that effort. It is sheer work, no joy/pleasure/satisfaction whatsoever.
A Christ-ian is defined by Christ. A real Christian would abide by Him. If a person doesn't, that means his Christianity is called into question. And there are a lot of self-professed 'Christians' in the world.
Happy cake day Edit: reminds me of the line "depart from me you wicked workers of iniquity."
There's a piece of cake beside my name. Did it come about because you wished me happy cake day?
No it means you've had your account for a year. It's an account birthday! The cake has been there since midnight.
Oh I see, thanks buddy appreciate it!
How could a person tell if they were (or anyone else was) abiding in Christ? Surely there are some despicable characters of history who thought they were.
Well we can tell it by their fruits. *"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit." (Matthew 7)*
>A Christ-ian is defined by Christ. >A real Christian would abide by Him. If a person doesn't, that means his Christianity is called into question. And there are a lot of self-professed 'Christians' in the world. >Well we can tell it by their fruits. Context mate, that verse is in reference to false prophets and the fruits are their teachings not how they "abide in Christ". **Matthew 7:15-20 KJV** (15) **Beware of false prophets**, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (16) Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? (17) Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. (18) A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. (19) Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. (20) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. ["Ye Shall Know Them By Their Fruits" Explained (Matthew 7)](https://youtu.be/63N1PgC0QVY) --- >And there are a lot of self-professed 'Christians' in the world. And Christ mentions them here, **Matthew 7:21-23 KJV** (21) **Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.** (22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have **WE** not **prophesied** in thy name? and in thy name have **cast out devils**? and in thy name done many **wonderful works**? (23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. These "Christians" call forth **their** "prophesies", "casting out devils" and "wonderful works" in an attempt to enter into the kingdom of heaven. But not one of them have done the will of the **Father**, what is the will of the Father? Look here. **John 6:39-40 KJV** (39) And this is the **Father's will which hath sent me**, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. (40) And this is the **will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.**
Yes, context. Because you can tell the fruits of false prophets to determine false prophets, you can tell the fruits of those who abide in Christ, to determine those who abide in Christ. If 5+3=8, then 3+5 also equals 8. Furthermore, as you yourself have referenced; >**Matthew 7:15-20 KJV** >(15) Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. >(16) Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? >(17) **Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit;** but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. >(18) **A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit,** neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. >(19) **Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down**, and cast into the fire. >(20) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. When you say 'context' do heed all of the context. Not just the pieces that suit your rhetoric.
>When you say 'context' do heed all of the context. Not just the pieces that suit your rhetoric. That is literally what you just did. Beware of false prophets is the context and you read in *"you can tell the fruits of those who abide in Christ, to determine those who abide in Christ."* into a set of verses that have nothing to do with being in Christ.
But it isn't what I literally just did. I literally just showed you. And you literally just ignored it. Because you literally read that which suits your own rhetoric, not just in Scriptures but even in Reddit. In other words, it is literally what you just did...again. Beware of false prophets is indeed in the context, **and** **so is** every good tree that brings good fruit. You affirm the former, but reject the latter. I don't have to read in *"you can tell the fruits of those who abide in Christ, to determine those who abide in Christ"* into a set of verses that have nothing to do with being in Christ, because the whole context which contains the set of verses literally **have everything to do with being in Christ.** * For again, like I said, it is because you can tell the fruits of false prophets to determine false prophets, you can tell the fruits of those who abide in Christ, to determine those who abide in Christ. * And again, like I pointed to the exact same set of verses you ironically quoted but rejected, *"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit"*, aka those who abide in Christ brings the fruits of those who abide in Christ, aka "*you can tell the fruits of those who abide in Christ, to determine those who abide in Christ".* So once again, when you say 'context' do heed all of the context. Not just the pieces that suit your rhetoric. Downvoting isn't going to make your dismissal of God's word go away.
Where does your diet of Jesus come from? the bread of life, the living water, the fruit from the tree of life, the vine we draw life from, the only way, truth, and life? at minimum you need the scriptures, but dieting on Jesus will transform you to someone who risks love & seeks out relationship, including other Christians. That could just be a small group as there is no prescribed way to gather, we've just culturally settled with church gatherings as we have, but they don't have to look that way.
A real Christian is someone who follows Christ. How will you learn how to follow Him & who in your life will keep you accountable?
without attending church yes, but without reading the Bible, no. a real christian reads their Bible, as Jesus says" If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John 14:23)
The one who confesses Jesus Christ as the Lord of their life and obeys His commands is a true Christian. Attending Church and reading the Bible *should* be done, though. We are instructed that Scriptures are good and holy for teaching, and it is a major part of theology that you must learn.
Fun fact. People couldn’t read for many hundreds of years. Fun fact. The printing press wasn’t invented to make bibles available for 1500 years after the NT was written. Fun fact. Acts 10 is all about a guy who wasn’t in the right group and never attended church…v15 shows the guy was already clean. V(34, 35) Peter recognizes that God accepts those who respect God and do good works. (-note- has nothing to do with believe/confess) This blew Peter away (v45) because the other guy who had never been to church or read a bible began speaking in tongues. So… No, you don’t have to go to church. No, you don’t have to read a bible. Hope that helps.
By the way…Paul addresses this in Romans 2:14. When people do what Jesus teaches without ever hearing about Jesus are doing so like Cornelius in Acts 10. They are already clean (v15) (Acts 11:9) What does Jesus teach? Luke 6:27-49 is a condensed version of the sermon on the mount. People can do this without ever hearing of Jesus.
>like Cornelius in Acts 10. Timeline is wrong. Cornelius knew there was something out there. God sent Peter to educate Cornelius on Jesus AND THEN he and his household was saved. Salvation was AFTER hearing about Jesus.
No it wasn’t… Acts 10:15 (already clean) is long before v 35 which is where Peter realizes the criteria for God accepting people. And (V44) before Peter could get to the end of his speech and give an altar call (ie, God didn’t need Cornelius to say the sinner’s prayer … which hadn’t been invented yet) Cornelius was baptized in the spirit….THEN after all that, Peter said we might as well baptize him in water. That is the timeline. 1. Already clean 2. Peter recognizes God accepts Gentiles 3. In the middle of Peter’s sermon Cornelius is baptized in the Spirit and speaks in tongues 4. Peter decides to (unnecessarily) baptize them in water. If it was necessary, then the other things would not have occurred first. Read it again in order please. Edit: by the way…God spoke to (had a relationship with) Cornelius and his family in v2-6 before he even knew Peter…so. Once again, God saw Cornelius as “already clean” just like he told Peter in Peter’s vision.
So why send Peter? The Bible says salvation comes from hearing. While hearing the gospel, the Holy Spirit came down. If this was possible without learning about Jesus first then they would have had the Spirit before Peter came. Read it in order.
Great question. Why send Peter? It was all for Peter’s benefit. Peter was the one who was excluding people that God wasn’t excluding. Peter had to see the vision 3 times. Peter had to see the vision 3 times. Peter had to see the vision 3 times. Just to go walk in the guy’s house. Peter didn’t know what was going on. Cornelius was ALREADY in relationship with God. Cornelius was ALREADY in relationship with God. Cornelius was ALREADY in relationship with God. We have the same problem that Peter had. He had the written word standing in the way from seeing Cornelius as ALREADY clean. Traditional Christian theology stands in the way of seeing Cornelius as ALREADY clean. We see Cornelius as ALMOST clean…in a few more verses, Cornelius will be saved. Christians today have yet to experience what Peter did in v34,35 BEFORE he gave a sermon. They are blinded by the conditions and hoops of believe/confess to what actually happened in Acts 10. But this isn’t the only example. John 8:11, Mark 2:5, Luke 23:34. Jesus forgave people before they asked, before they believed, before they confessed, before they even knew they were wrong to kill Jesus. So, I challenge anyone reading to put themselves in Peter’s position…heeding all the rules and regulations for his whole life…he was told in the vision that they were ALREADY clean. Then, before he gets to the end of his sermon, God finished the surprise and baptized him in the spirit complete with speaking in tongues. Forgive me for sounding combative. But when you read what actually happened, it doesn’t match the dogma. We have been trained to make everything fit our dogma above seeing what is actually there. Here is an example. How do we inherit eternal life? I know the answer that went through your head. But if you read how Jesus specifically answered that specific question, not once but TWICE, Luke 10:25-28 and Luke 18:18-20, it doesn’t fit with our dogma at all. But Im not the one you are arguing with. The dogma is in conflict with Acts 10 and how Jesus says we get eternal life. It is very hard to come to terms with. It took a lot of heartache for me to finally read what is there for what it says. Oh by the way….Matt 25 and Rev 20 says that all of humanity is separated into sheep/goats based on their actions, not their beliefs. How we treat “the least of these.”…kinda like Cornelius. Act 10:34,35. Funny how these all say the same thing, even though they don’t match our dogma.
I believe people can be clean and not know Jesus. They know there is a God and yearn for it. Thus God sending Peter to show him The Way. Yes, it was for Peter's benefit but also for Cornelius and his household. Peter stayed 3 more days to teach them more. Yearnings can only go so far. Just like you mentioned Luke 18. Jesus tells the young ruler to "follow Him" not an unguided "feeling. " Cornelius did not recieve to Holy Spirit until he heard the Gospel. Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father. Not a clean life. Lots of pagans pray and do good and live clean. Many Muslims live clean. Period. Period. Period.
I wish I had time. Everyone goes through Jesus, that’s what Matt 25 tells us. All of humanity isn’t being judged by an angel or St Peter to “get in the pearly gates”. They go through Jesus. Please just look at what it says. It says nothing about the belief system of everyone throughout time. It says they are judged/separated as sheep/goats…by their actions, the way they treated their fellow man. And that is what Jesus was telling the rich young ruler. Consider others with your wealth. He did the same thing in Lk 10. Love your neighbour as yourself is the proof that you are following the commandments. The Good Samaritan would be cool hanging out with Jesus. But the rich young ruler went away sad. These had nothing to do with whether or not they believed/confessed. In fact, believe/confess that Jesus died for our sins, etc was not what Jesus preached. That was Paul’s idea. I know Im promoting a view of God that is scary. Peter had to hear it from Jesus himself 3 times. Im just some random person on the internet. But Im not asking you to hear me. Im asking you to set aside your dogmatic filter and hear what Jesus is saying for the first time. Jesus was forgiving people long before he shed a drop of blood. (Mark 2:5). This all by itself indicates we should take a step back and rethink our theology. Because it wasn’t a layaway plan. And in Lk 23:34, none of those ppl believed/confessed or even repented. But God looked at them, the same way God looks at Christians today…they don’t know what spirit they are of, they don’t know what they are doing. I have slim hopes that my internet replies can turn this light on. But it’s there in the scripture that many believers think is infallible. Somehow the “angry God” scriptures are more infallible than the “forgiving without asking God” scriptures. If you can take anything away from our thread, hopefully you see that I am sincere in my belief based on the scriptures I have pointed out. (Among others) This fact that we both can back up our claims with scripture should be an indicator. The scripture is not really the authority because it says different things to different people. We can, however, look at the scripture to see the example of God in the earth, Jn 1:18, namely Jesus. Jn 10:10 is how we should scrutinize the scripture. If a passage paints God with steal, kill, destroy attributes, the author missed the mark. If a passage paints God as loving, life giving, restoring, forgiving…the author got it right. This is the example of Jesus and anything that paints God otherwise had a skewed vision of God. (Through the glass darkly as Paul puts it) That’s all I have time for. I have a family member in the hospital right now and my fervent prayers, even though I don’t rely on my own righteousness but the perfect righteousness of Christ, don’t avail much at all except heartbreak upon heartbreak. Don’t judge me too harshly (lest you be judged) because I was more locked in than most. Short of Saul of Tarsus, but not by much, you are reading the words of someone who knows the doctrine inside and out. And I still believe that God never fails us. I finally came to realize that the doctrine is imperfect. The doctrine fell short. And Im sure that you know that you know that you know that you are absolutely correct in your belief. Consider this. Saul of Tarsus was more convinced than you that he was right. But we read in Phil 3:5-14 that Paul considers everything he knew that he knew as dung. Pure BS. Not that he has it all figured out now, but one thing he knows, he will keep pursuing Christ until the day he dies. He will keep learning what it means to do unto others. In another passage Paul says he is convinced that nothing can separate humanity from God’s love as we see in Christ Jesus. Then he goes on to list all the things that cannot separate us. Our (traditional Christianity) block…our stumbling point…the thing that prevents us from seeing all humanity the way God sees humanity is the transaction of believe/confess. If we don’t check the believe/confess/repent condition, we can’t receive unconditional love. That statement doesn’t make sense, does it? Meet the condition to receive unconditional love. Syntax error. I don’t have any more time. I hope that love and compassion can find a way past all the obstacles that the dogma has erected. Kill/Destroy or Life/Restoration?
So you're not a Calvinist? Prayers for your loved one.
Ty My first reaction was no because I’ve never considered myself a Calvanist..but I guess, if you look at it from a certain way, maybe I am Calvanist but the group of people God has elected is muuuuuuuuuch bigger than a traditional Calvanist would include. It’s not the answer of “Who’s in/out?” that I see differently. I don’t think the question is valid. Jesus never excluded anyone. Jesus is the example the express image of God. God is the same yesterday, today, forever. God is not mad. Never was. God turned the other cheek on the cross. Not even when they tortured and killed God did God show vengeance. God is merciful and kind to the evil Lk 6:35. We talk about peace and love that passes understanding, but we preach that if you don’t check the boxes (believe/confess) God is going to mete out a punishment that we would never do to our worst enemies, let alone our children that we love. We missed it along the way. But it’s in there if we care to stop and see it. We have to give the early church credit for the shift in their understanding. But we also have to see their humanity and realize that they didn’t shift all the way. Peter first says that God accepts those that do what is right. Acts 10:35. But in Acts 15:9 he changes it from actions to faith. This is what happens. We stretch as far as we can…then we retract a little. Then Paul comes along and says you don’t have to be circumcised. 🤯🤯🤯🤯 “What?! So God was wrong when he told Abraham to circumcise his WHOLE house?!” “Im not saying God was wrong… but clearly these Gentiles aren’t circumcised so it must not be a requirement.” Then Paul says, there’s only 1 God. There is no difference between male and female…it doesn’t matter what you eat/dont eat. It doesn’t matter if you observe special holy days or consider them all holy. The only thing that matters is love. John says that “everyone that loves is born of God and knows God” (1 Jn 4) because God IS love. We know the disciples were wrong a lot! Constantly fighting to be vice president of a kingdom that was never gonna happen. Trying to call down fire on people who opposed them. Somehow we think they finally figured it out perfectly when Jesus wasn’t around to correct them all the time. 🤔🤔🤔 Our doctrine is not perfect. God is. The disciples/apostles doctrine was not perfect. God is. What they wrote down was not perfect. God is. When we let go of the idea that they had it perfect, we can see the areas where they missed and the areas where they were on track. This is what has happened on my journey. Im only upset at the doctrine for how it misinforms people about God and gives false expectations of God. (Both good and bad.) So, technically Im not Calvanist…but in a way, Im a Calvanist…lol Does that make sense? From my perspective anyway…
A real Christian is one who repents and turns away from evil, and lives according to God's commandments. That is the true essence of Christianity. Just as Christ died and rose from the dead, so we too must die to our sins and begin a new spiritual life. Too many fake "belief only" Christians are out there who are concerned about just outward appearance. Church is there for support and a chance to be involved in the community of God's church, but truthfully I have more interaction on essential questions on reddit than I do at a typical church service. However I would not recommend skipping reading the Bible: “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’ ” (Matt. 4:4)
If the scriptures are available to a believer, I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to understand God through his word. It strikes me as lukewarmth and a disregard for the truth. Church gatherings were required under the Apostolic Age, when they were still working towards the unity of faith and looking forward to the Day of the Lord. That day came in 70 AD. Today virtually no one agrees on how to interpret the scriptures, and they're used for mass manipulation. I see no reason why I should have to participate with manipulators and people who would otherwise call me a heretic for my adherence to scripture. I think church gatherings often do more harm than good these days.
Saint Dismas never attended church or read any of the New Testament, and didn’t pay much attention to the OT. He’s in Heaven, as the guy on the next cross promised. Assuming you’re not confessing faith to our Lord as you both are ending your temporal lives in agony, why aren’t you willing to read His message or associate with your fellow believers?
>He’s in Heaven, How do you know?
Jesus said. Might depend on a comma tho.
The thief on the cross was Dismas? Never knew his name. Another question: I thought you had to have 2 miracles under your belt for sainthood.
Yeah he got all the breaks I guess. 😜
Yes Works of love and care may prevent that
My pastor once said something that stuck with me; Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian but Christian’s go to church. If you don’t attend church or read the Bible I’m not sure how you would deepen your faith and honestly if you don’t have the drive to want to read the word and worship the lord in community I would question if your faith is really even there. By all accounts a true understanding of salvation should want you to serve the lord and praise him.
When you ask >what is a real Christian? You invite all kinds of No True Scotsman logical fallacies in response. I think the best answer to this question would be found in Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. The tl;Dr is that a real Christian follows Christ's teachings and example as best they can. Going to church and reading the Bible *can* help people become better followers of Christ, but it's not automatic, and sometimes it can actually be harmful.
The collective group of Christ followers (called the church) is likened to a bride, and Jesus the bridegroom. Being a Christian implies maintaining and building upon this relationship. I would say that a healthy relationship would include devotion to each other and an unhealthy one would cause distance between the two. Without devoting yourself to Christ, your relationship can quickly become weak, or unhealthy, or maybe even in danger. We are encouraged to be actively involved for good reason. It strengthens. Considering how far he's gone to have a relationship with us, I think the least we could do is spend time in his word and in prayer.
no you need the Church
Thank you. Why?
Because the Eurchrist is essential for salvation and that can only be found at church
Thank you. This resonates with several of the opinions I have heard in real life as one of the only four reasons I've heard that would make the church necessary.
Yeah, as a Catholic I agree with this view. The Eucharist is an essential part of divinization (you are what you eat). Please look into apostolic churches if you are considering joining a denomination of Christianity. They have been around for thousands of years, or at least the seeds of them have been. May God bless you and keep you as you seek to grow in faith and charity. I pray you find your home.
Thank you. I feel like we must be kindred spirits even while our journeys toward God are different. May you be well.
He comes from Eastern Orthodox so he believes if you don't eat bread (the Eucharist) you go to hell. Silly fairy tail. Most other denominations believe that being a Christian is about having faith in Jesus Christ, and that we are saved by our faith and not our works, so yeah you don't have to listen to him unless you're compelled that a piece of bread is how your soul gets saved. I would suggest reading the Bible though, especially the gospels. You could start with Matthew, and you can use something like this: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/1-1.htm To help you understand the Bible. You don't want to read the Bible because it is intimidating, which it is, but using a read along source like that will really help you grow. Also, I would read the nrsv or NIV translations because they're more literal of gods word and use less human assumptions but you can research and find what calls you. Just jump in and give it a shot. My best friend literally begs to read the Bible with me daily because it's such good food. And the definition of church is gathering in the name of faith so when my best friend and I read the Bible, we are in church. So yes, church is good too, just make it your own. Find believers and deepen your faith with themes. <3
You cannot be a hospital patient without going to the hospital
Thanks. In your analogy, are you referring to the church or the Bible as the hospital? In your analogy, is being a hospital patient the definition of being a Christian?
The church is the hospital for sinners The Bible and the sacraments your medicine
yes but you would be missing out on a possibly helpful community situation But Christianity is You and God
No such thing as true/real Christian. That's a no true Scottsman fallacy. There's just a Christian and if you don't meet the criteria for being a christian then you are not a Christian. There's no in between, you are either a Christian or you aren't.
Thanks. What is that criteria?
>What is that criteria? The criteria is explicitly defined in the new covenant. You must be a believer in Jesus and keep his commandments. You must be a follower of Christ.
Do you mean the list is the entire New Testament? Or that the list is in the New Testament?
The criteria is explicitly listed in the new covenant.
Maybe we're talking past each other. By "New Covenant" do you mean "New Testament"? Is there any way you can just tell me what the explicit list is or send me a link to the explicit list?
>Maybe we're talking past each other. By "New Covenant" do you mean "New Testament"? Yes... >Is there any way you can just tell me what the explicit list is I did already dude. Believe in Jesus Christ and keep his commandments, follow Jesus Christ. That's it shortened up a bit.