Revelation

PeaceLikeaRiver said:
Well, followers of Buddha are Buddhists. Buddhism is a religion.
Followers of Allah are Muslims. Islam is a religion.
Followers of Jesus Christ are Christians, so why wouldn't Christianity be a religion? What other word would you use?
Personally, I've never liked the idea of a "personal lord and savior Jesus Christ." Growing up, I learned that Jesus was for everyone, and this all sounds a bit too selfish: MY personal savior, ME, MINE, etc.
Just my opinion however.
Click to expand...

Buddha was a man and men had to personal relationship with him as he could not forgive sin nor even tried to..
Allah was one of 360 pagan idols worshiped by the tribes of Arabia. He is not God and can not forgive sins and there is no personal relationship with him at all.

Jesus was the God-man and it is a personal relationship with Him that saves man. Therefore IMO Christianity is a PERSON...Christ.

What you like is really not in the plan. It is what the Word of God says not what we like or even think.

A.W. Toozer said............
"He has promised to receive us, poor and sinful though we be. But the idea that we can make him stand while we render the verdict of whether He is worthy of our acceptance is a frightful calumny--and we ought to get rid of it!"

John 15:16 says......... "You did not choose Me, but I chose you..."

That makes it "personal". Since Jesus is a person, and we are saved by believing upon Him for the forgiveness of sin...........
When we come to Christ He then becomes our PERSONAL SAVIOUR!

It is all about a relationship with God that we have access to heaven. Jesus is the key to that access! THE ONLY KEY!
 
Major said:
Buddha was a man and men had to personal relationship with him as he could not forgive sin nor even tried to..
Allah was one of 360 pagan idols worshiped by the tribes of Arabia. He is not God and can not forgive sins and there is no personal relationship with him at all.

Jesus was the God-man and it is a personal relationship with Him that saves man. Therefore IMO Christianity is a PERSON...Christ.

What you like is really not in the plan. It is what the Word of God says not what we like or even think.

A.W. Toozer said............
"He has promised to receive us, poor and sinful though we be. But the idea that we can make him stand while we render the verdict of whether He is worthy of our acceptance is a frightful calumny--and we ought to get rid of it!"

John 15:16 says......... "You did not choose Me, but I chose you..."

That makes it "personal". Since Jesus is a person, and we are saved by believing upon Him for the forgiveness of sin...........
When we come to Christ He then becomes our PERSONAL SAVIOUR!

It is all about a relationship with God that we have access to heaven. Jesus is the key to that access! THE ONLY KEY!
Click to expand...
 
Mike Flanaganmenstein said:
The book of Revelation is all of the evidence anyone should need in order to know that the NWO is already in full swing.
Click to expand...

There is NO new world order.

It is the same OLD one with the name new emblazoned on it.

Nothing changed, same old oligarchies with self-absorbed, self-entitled rich people trying to still push a camel through the eye of the needle.
 
PeaceLikeaRiver said:
I don't know what happened there, sorry.
However, Christianity is a religion - that is the word the dictionary uses.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing that point. However the dictionary is NOT an inspired book that speaks to the spiritual side of man.

When we consider what Christianity is, it can not be denied that it is a PERSON because without Christ there would be no Christianity at all. Then when one considers that our access to God is only through Christ we can easily see that it is by a relationship in a person and not a religion that makes the access to God possible.
 
Major said:
No one is arguing that point. However the dictionary is NOT an inspired book that speaks to the spiritual side of man.

When we consider what Christianity is, it can not be denied that it is a PERSON because without Christ there would be no Christianity at all. Then when one considers that our access to God is only through Christ we can easily see that it is by a relationship in a person and not a religion that makes the access to God possible.
Click to expand...

Do you worship Christ?
Is Christ God?
Is there a written prescribed method that you worship God by?

If you can say yes to all of these, THAT is religion.

It is NOT a bad word. It is just a word.

All who do not want to use it are just being stubborn for the sake of looking like they are somehow special.

God is NOT a respecter of men. Your appearance of being special is meaningless to God.

Also the evasion of a word, just because you do not like it, is disingenuous.
 
Major said:
No one is arguing that point. However the dictionary is NOT an inspired book that speaks to the spiritual side of man.

When we consider what Christianity is, it can not be denied that it is a PERSON because without Christ there would be no Christianity at all. Then when one considers that our access to God is only through Christ we can easily see that it is by a relationship in a person and not a religion that makes the access to God possible.
Click to expand...
When we discuss things in the real world we require common definitions for things. If I have one definition for what a Christian is and another person defines it differently than that, we are going to run into problems and difficulties. This is what the purpose of the dictionary is, it ties things together into a commonly held understanding.

The purpose of the dictionary is not to trump the Bible and I'm certainly not saying that. However, if it tells us that Christianity is a religion, we have to believe it. And most Christians I am certain would also agree that they practice the religion of Christianity which means following Christ. As Dave said, it's not a bad word. If you fill in a form in a hospital and there is a blank that asks you to fill in your religion, you are not likely to cross the word "religion" out and write in "relationship" - you're going to say Christianity.
 
Dave Lucas said:
Do you worship Christ?
Is Christ God?
Is there a written prescribed method that you worship God by?

If you can say yes to all of these, THAT is religion.

It is NOT a bad word. It is just a word.

All who do not want to use it are just being stubborn for the sake of looking like they are somehow special.

God is NOT a respecter of men. Your appearance of being special is meaningless to God.

Also the evasion of a word, just because you do not like it, is disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Glad you asked!

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:3).
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" (Ex. 20:4).

The only acceptable way of worshipping God is to render homage to him according to the instructions given in his word. Any deviation from his word by adopting humanly-devised forms of worship is, de facto, a violation of the scriptural law of worship.
In other words, all religious ceremonies and institutions must have clear scriptural warrant, if they are to be admitted as valid expressions of worship. This concept has sometimes been called the regulative principle of worship. It is merely an application of the sola scriptura rule of Protestant theology.

Paul commands us in 1 Thess. 5:27.........
"I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren".

Then in Col 4:16.......
"And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea".

Closely tied to the reading of the scriptures was the practice of expounding the word by public preaching and teaching. Jesus routinely expounded the word of God within assemblies for public worship:

Matt. 9:35........
"Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom"

Therefore it is not surprising to see the apostles adopting the same course:

Acts 5:42.......
"And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ".

Later, Paul and Barnabas abode in Antioch in Acts 15:35........
"teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also".

Before Paul departed from Troas, "upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them" (Acts 20:7).

Preaching was obviously a regular part of public worship. Hence the apostolic aspirations, "I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also" (Rom. 1:15), and the apostolic admonitions: "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" (2 Tim. 4:2).

So, to answer your question of........."Is there a written prescribed method that you worship God by?"

Seems that there is!
 
PeaceLikeaRiver said:
When we discuss things in the real world we require common definitions for things. If I have one definition for what a Christian is and another person defines it differently than that, we are going to run into problems and difficulties. This is what the purpose of the dictionary is, it ties things together into a commonly held understanding.

The purpose of the dictionary is not to trump the Bible and I'm certainly not saying that. However, if it tells us that Christianity is a religion, we have to believe it. And most Christians I am certain would also agree that they practice the religion of Christianity which means following Christ. As Dave said, it's not a bad word. If you fill in a form in a hospital and there is a blank that asks you to fill in your religion, you are not likely to cross the word "religion" out and write in "relationship" - you're going to say Christianity.
Click to expand...

I place in....."Protestant Christian". But you are correct. I was simply trying to explain to you how some believers consider their relationship.
 
Major said:
Glad you asked!

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:3).
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" (Ex. 20:4).

The only acceptable way of worshipping God is to render homage to him according to the instructions given in his word. Any deviation from his word by adopting humanly-devised forms of worship is, de facto, a violation of the scriptural law of worship.
In other words, all religious ceremonies and institutions must have clear scriptural warrant, if they are to be admitted as valid expressions of worship. This concept has sometimes been called the regulative principle of worship. It is merely an application of the sola scriptura rule of Protestant theology.

Paul commands us in 1 Thess. 5:27.........
"I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren".

Then in Col 4:16.......
"And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea".

Closely tied to the reading of the scriptures was the practice of expounding the word by public preaching and teaching. Jesus routinely expounded the word of God within assemblies for public worship:

Matt. 9:35........
"Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom"

Therefore it is not surprising to see the apostles adopting the same course:

Acts 5:42.......
"And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ".

Later, Paul and Barnabas abode in Antioch in Acts 15:35........
"teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also".

Before Paul departed from Troas, "upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them" (Acts 20:7).

Preaching was obviously a regular part of public worship. Hence the apostolic aspirations, "I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also" (Rom. 1:15), and the apostolic admonitions: "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" (2 Tim. 4:2).

So, to answer your question of........."Is there a written prescribed method that you worship God by?"

Seems that there is!
Click to expand...

I know there is, that is why Christianity is a religion.

There I said it will it be all bad now? Should we all flee from it?

No. It is just a word.

Like bagel, hammer or blue. Just a word. No harm in a word.
 
Dave Lucas said:
And that is sad.

They only have it in name.
Click to expand...
I think what's worse are those that claim to believe in Jesus Christ only because they uttered a magic prayer "1,2,3 pray after me. NEXT!" Those are the ones that put their trust in the prayer and not in Jesus Christ. Only God will be able to know who is genuine and who is not because too many are stuck as babes in Christ themselves to know any better. The church is in a real mess.
 
Dave Lucas said:
There is NO new world order.

It is the same OLD one with the name new emblazoned on it.

Nothing changed, same old oligarchies with self-absorbed, self-entitled rich people trying to still push a camel through the eye of the needle.
Click to expand...

Very trivial comment sir. It is referred to as the NWO. Peace and love unto you brother and may God shine his mercy upon you!!
 
Dave Lucas said:
It is not trivial to reveal the truth. Old order, not new.

We should be honest about these things, not perpetuate more tin hat nomenclature.
Click to expand...

It is not the "old order", that is why even it's members use the term "new world order".
The old world order was a rule of particular areas by largely independant nation states.
In function, that is no longer the case. The decisions that determine the laws and activities of the various governments
are now determined by banking cartels and think tanks funded by owners of banking cartels.
The UN only serves as a front for the above and to give an appearance of legitimacy.
There are only a few treaties left to be signed and the UN will be the de facto ruling body for the entire world.
 
Glomung said:
It is not the "old order", that is why even it's members use the term "new world order".
The old world order was a rule of particular areas by largely independant nation states.
In function, that is no longer the case. The decisions that determine the laws and activities of the various governments
are now determined by banking cartels and think tanks funded by owners of banking cartels.
The UN only serves as a front for the above and to give an appearance of legitimacy.
There are only a few treaties left to be signed and the UN will be the de facto ruling body for the entire world.
Click to expand...

I can call myself a duck, am I a duck? No.

The US called the USSR communist was it? No. It was an totalitarian regime with socialism as an economy.

So why would you believe liars that want to shake your up with their terms?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top