Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Greetings my brothers and sisters in Christ. I come to you in Love and in the power of the Holy Spirit. There is a issue in the church today that I need to address and i'm asking for your views (backed by scripture of course). After you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and you like 2 Cor 5:17 states "Become new" do you still confess your sins to God seeking forgiveness? I know the truth, I just wanna see what others have to say on the topic....
Did Paul consider himself a "sinner"?, How many of which disciples/apostles think of themselves as sinners...? Are we supposed to think of ourselves or consider ourselves as sinners...? Even after we say we are saved...?
Theotokos is a word that means God-bearer or has traditionally come to be know as "Mother of God". Many seem to be "squeamish" over this term but it actually is about protecting Jesus's divinity since conception and is not about putting Mary in a place that somehow influences or contributes to God. Still this term is largely misunderstood and objected to, but to be honest I can understand.
Mary indeed gave birth to a child that was 100% divine and conceived 100% divine but this isn't the whole story. Christ is fully divine and fully human simultaneously and inseparable. To focus on the divine is irresponsible as Mary also gave birth to a child 100% flesh.
Theotokos is a traditional term and it's not the meaning I object to but...
How should you react?
Back in 1988 I might have quoted about Satan appearing as a angel of light and then taken them to some verses in Ecclesiastes that at the time seemed pretty direct and straightforward to me.
I no longer think that way at all.
Now I am sure that three year old Colton Burpo is an extremely credible witness and that he had the same type of experience that the Apostle Paul reports in II Corinthians 12:2-4.
2Corinthians 12:1 - 4
It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth ; such an one caught up to the third heaven
I've been having a lot of doubts in my faith for the past few months. Not the kind that can be easily dismissed, but actual, relatively rational thoughts.
I haven't really been able to talk to anyone about them, since no one in my family is a Christian and neither are any of my friends (online or off). So I'm wondering: how do y'all deal with doubt?
If anyone's interested, my specific concerns in the doubt are:
1. Inefficacy of (Intercessory) Prayer
Studies have shown that intercessory prayer doesn’t work. The Bible says it does – Jesus says it does! – but it doesn’t. It doesn’t have better outcomes for sick people, or make you more likely to succeed in your goals, or anything! We’re supposed to be able to move mountains and be...
I am a Christian Antinatalist. I do not want to be married for several reasons but one is that I do not want to have children. I feel that the world is not a safe place and I do not want to bring children into the world. I think children are beautiful but because of what I have experienced in life it shows me that life is not a safe place and not compassionate. I feel peace knowing my children will never hurt, because they will never be born. I have experienced alot of pain in my life and I don't feel life is good. I long for heaven and I long for being safe and healed in God's heaven. Antinatlism is just the philosophy that it is better not to have children because life is unsafe. Has anyone decided not to have children for similar...
The law misused is in opposition to Christ because of flesh that fights the spirit ..
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
“But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!
The cross has nullified the distinctive "I" of the flesh that seeks to keep the law along with the lust that fights the spirit.
I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and...
My local newspaper is apparently allowing people to send in obituaries for their pets and is posting them alongside the obituaries for people.
I am an animal lover. I love my dog dearly, and when he passes, I will be devastated.
But I would never dream of posting an obituary for him alongside people's loved ones in the paper.
Every time I think the left can't get any more outrageous and disrespectful of human life and dignity, I am proven wrong. This is just sick and extremely disrespectful to the relatives of the people listed alongside someone's dog.
In my Sola Scriptura debate, someone stated that Sola Scripture isn't about interpreting Scripture, and I responded that, that's exactly what happened to me, that I pulled up a Catholic proof-text, and someone immediately responded, not these exact words, but to the effect of:
No, no, no, it can't mean that, you're just taking that passage and running with it that! It can't mean that because, Sola Scriptura!
Again, not in those direct words, but that's what I got from it. I've decided to bring up the proof-text in question, and see if it determine what this passage really means, and whether or not Protestants are hiding behind Sola Scriptura when it comes to this passage.
The passage in question, comes from the Holy Gospel according...
Defenders of modern Millennialism often claim this was the view of the Early Church Fathers. I think it was not taught by any of them.
I consider the writings of an Early Church Father to not teach modern Millennialism if any of these are true:
--The start date already passed
--It's based on 6,000 years of human history (which, in 2017, is provably false)
--If you teach their full view in a Church teaching modern Millennialism, people would be very uncomfortable (because it diverges significantly)
I define modern Millennialism as a yet-future 1,000 year time period.
I propose we use the term Chiliasm interchangeably with Millennialism, but distinguish between older views and the modern views.
I propose we limit the discussion to...