The True Church

Old Moses

Member
Jun 16, 2017
24
2
85
NSW
✟8,544.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I'm not Catholic, so I have to wonder why you would post that?
Don't I have to be of the Nicene creed or whatever????? Eastern Orthodox, so do your believe in the Bible as it is written, or do you have your own interpretations.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,436
11,982
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,763.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Don't I have to be of the Nicene creed or whatever?????
The Nicene-Constantinopolean creed was formulated against heresies quite some time before Rome went their own way. The word "catholic" in the creed is an adjective, not a noun as the Church headed by the Pope now uses it.
Eastern Orthodox, so do your believe in the Bible as it is written, or do you have your own interpretations.
No one reads the Bible without interpreting, and everyone claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation and yet many of those interpretations are contradictory and often mutually exclusive. The Orthodox Church maintains the same interpretation which was handed down by the Apostles, as is evidenced by the writings of those who were personally taught by the same. That interpretation is safeguarded by the broad concensus of Church Fathers over the centuries. There is no individual interpretation in accordance with 2 Peter 1:20.
 
Upvote 0

Old Moses

Member
Jun 16, 2017
24
2
85
NSW
✟8,544.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The Nicene-Constantinopolean creed was formulated against heresies quite some time before Rome went their own way. The word "catholic" in the creed is an adjective, not a noun as the Church headed by the Pope now uses it.

No one reads the Bible without interpreting, and everyone claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation and yet many of those interpretations are contradictory and often mutually exclusive. The Orthodox Church maintains the same interpretation which was handed down by the Apostles, as is evidenced by the writings of those who were personally taught by the same. That interpretation is safeguarded by the broad concensus of Church Fathers over the centuries. There is no individual interpretation in accordance with 2 Peter 1:20.

By interpretations handed down by the apostles do you mean as written in the Bible?
In regards to Christian truths the Bible says "Call no man Father...." And I post a quotation from another source.

I raise this issue as you have said that your church uses the title "Father", what other titles does it use, and would you agree that there is no indication in the Bible that titles 'do not maketh a man'.

IMO Christianity is the peak of religious belief, the way it is written is almost impossible for sinful man to say truly "I am a Christian in all aspects of the Biblical interpretation. This is why I question the works of Christendom as against the word of the Christian Bible as spoken by Jesus and reiterated by the disciples and the apostles.

Is the religious title “father” correct? It is used widely by Roman Catholics and Anglicans. “Padre,” meaning “father,” is also widely used. But Jesus taught his disciples: “You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9, NJB) The New English Bible reads similarly: “Do not call any man on earth ‘father.’” Why do clergymen and their followers disobey this command from the Lord Jesus Christ?

This does not relate to your birth father, of course, but the way the clergy establish ranks of clergy from a Pope down to the poor parishioner is against the Christian teaching of Jesus. About the only acceptable title as far as a Christian is concerned, IMO, is elder, which is not really a title but a position in the congregations.

I am amazed but most thankful that the Great God, the Creator of all things does not hate anyone, this God is love, he has no evil intent, even when he was at war with those that wanted to destroy his chosen people, He did not allow victory to the Israelites out of hate for the opposition.

There are actions that us sinful humans preform that God hates, and we should be always mindful of these things. God hates liars, cowards, and those that practice immoral actions, and even then He does not hate the perpetrators, he hates the behavior. For example, God does not hate homosexuals, he hates the practice of homosexuals.

Am I allowed to put your religious belief to the test, or are you able to see for yourself the inaccuracies that is perpetrated in Christendom.

I don't want to hurt your feelings but I love to ask questions. and maybe learn something beneficial to my own way of thinking.

The Bible speaks of things that wont happen for at least a thousand years. It is not all set down in religious schisms or dogma, there are many things yet to be revealed, do you agree, or are you happy with your set of rites and practices?

I really don't mean to be pragmatic but I would like to find our how you and other religious organizations, that rely of a hierarchy of supposedly pious individuals that have the church permissions to stand above the congregations. Jesus was the most mild mannered and unassuming of those that gave credence to the term Christian. Why did all that change?
 
Last edited:
  • Prayers
Reactions: prodromos
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Jesus was the most mild mannered and unassuming of those that gave credence to the term Christian.

I don't believe Jesus Himself gave credence to the term 'Christian'.

Today it might be assumed , so to speak, as people think and choose to call themselves 'Christian' to be associated with "good" even if they are not good.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
Under all the statements, supported by scripture, I agree with but maybe with a different understanding. So this makes me a Christian. The rule doesn't say I have to be a Catholic, it says that I have to be a Christian.

I'm not a mod, so I'm not trying to do anything here other than inform.

As prodromos quoted, CF (which is the only opinion that matters, since we are playing in CF's yard) defines "Christian" as affirming the Nicene Creed. Part of the Creed is affirming that Christ is "True God of True God." It is also part of the SOP that non-Nicene Christian theology is to be discussed in the Controversial Theology forum.
 
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
By interpretations handed down by the apostles do you mean as written in the Bible?
In regards to Christian truths the Bible says "Call no man Father...." And I post a quotation from another source.

I raise this issue as you have said that your church uses the title "Father", what other titles does it use, and would you agree that there is no indication in the Bible that titles 'do not maketh a man'.

Is the religious title “father” correct? It is used widely by Roman Catholics and Anglicans. “Padre,” meaning “father,” is also widely used. But Jesus taught his disciples: “You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9, NJB) The New English Bible reads similarly: “Do not call any man on earth ‘father.’” Why do clergymen and their followers disobey this command from the Lord Jesus Christ?

Jesus was not speaking literally, but using a literary device called "hyperbole"- to draw emphasis.

1. The Bible itself is full of examples of people calling an elder in the faith “Father”. Eliakim the steward is given a fatherly role of governance: Isaiha 22:20-21 and in 2 Kings 2:12 Elisha calls Elijah, “My Father, My Father!”

2. The New Testament refers to the first priests (the Apostles) as “Father”. In I Corinthians 4 St Paul teaches about the true nature of being an apostle and refers to himself as the “Father” of the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 4:15) and goes on to say that Timothy is his son. In I John 2 the Apostle John writes to his “children” and speaks to his fellow priests as “Fathers”. This follows the tradition of referring to the Jewish elders as “Father” (Acts 7:2; 22:1)

3. Focusing on the prohibition against calling someone ‘Father’ misses the point.
The point of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 23:9 is not to prohibit calling people “Father” but to warn against religious teachers who set themselves up as the sole arbiters of truth. Reading the verse in context makes this clear.

4. Do you eat bacon, like pork barbecue and play football ?
Leviticus 11: “And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.”
If every verse in the Bible is to be taken literally then you can’t eat pork products or play football because a football is made from pigskin…

5.When you say “That is the Old Testament and doesn’t apply” do you prohibit women and girls from wearing gold jewelry, pearls or braiding their hair?
1 Timothy 2:9 – “I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes.
 
Upvote 0

Old Moses

Member
Jun 16, 2017
24
2
85
NSW
✟8,544.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Jesus was not speaking literally, but using a literary device called "hyperbole"- to draw emphasis.

1. The Bible itself is full of examples of people calling an elder in the faith “Father”. Eliakim the steward is given a fatherly role of governance: Isaiha 22:20-21 and in 2 Kings 2:12 Elisha calls Elijah, “My Father, My Father!”

2. The New Testament refers to the first priests (the Apostles) as “Father”. In I Corinthians 4 St Paul teaches about the true nature of being an apostle and refers to himself as the “Father” of the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 4:15) and goes on to say that Timothy is his son. In I John 2 the Apostle John writes to his “children” and speaks to his fellow priests as “Fathers”. This follows the tradition of referring to the Jewish elders as “Father” (Acts 7:2; 22:1)

3. Focusing on the prohibition against calling someone ‘Father’ misses the point.
The point of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 23:9 is not to prohibit calling people “Father” but to warn against religious teachers who set themselves up as the sole arbiters of truth. Reading the verse in context makes this clear.

4. Do you eat bacon, like pork barbecue and play football ?
Leviticus 11: “And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.”
If every verse in the Bible is to be taken literally then you can’t eat pork products or play football because a football is made from pigskin…

5.When you say “That is the Old Testament and doesn’t apply” do you prohibit women and girls from wearing gold jewelry, pearls or braiding their hair?
1 Timothy 2:9 – “I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes.

Some very odd statements herein:
Not necessarily in order: The Jews called the elders Rabbi, meaning Teacher. Jesus was often called Rabbi and accepted this as he was surely a teacher.

There is a couple of word usages of father in the Bible but they are not followed by Reverend or started with Holy as in an assigned position. Paul felt that he was a father to the extent of what a birth father would feel for his own children. Paul did not use father as a title or religious designation.

#3 I agree with your concept. However; you contradict the rest of your comments in this statement.

referring to the Mosaic laws, Jesus said that he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Jesus was a Jew, he referred to the Mosaic Laws many times up until the time that the Israelites proved conclusively that they were not going to serve their God, the Father of Jesus. Jesus started his 3 years of ministering to the people about the new Christian institution (For the want of a better word), and that was the end or the Jewish teachings fro Christians.

By fulfilling the law or contract of the Mosaic Law, the contract was completed and the new Christian ethic was installed. With the Israelites following the Mosaic Law it gave them protection as does following the Christian rules do now. No part of the Mosaic Law is in existence today for the Christian faith; not even tithing, which, naturally enough, is the one law that is held in tight instruction from the churches of Christendom.
PS: Where did I say that the Old Testament does not apply, and in what context?

About eating pork, read the account of Peter when he questioned the food presented to him to eat. But again it was discounted with the fulfillment of the Mosaic Laws.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Some very odd statements herein:
Not necessarily in order: The Jews called the elders Rabbi, meaning Teacher. Jesus was often called Rabbi and accepted this as he was surely a teacher.

There is a couple of word usages of father in the Bible but they are not followed by Reverend or started with Holy as in an assigned position. Paul felt that he was a father to the extent of what a birth father would feel for his own children. Paul did not use father as a title or religious designation.
Paul called himself "father". Not as a title or religious designation but as one who provides spiritual nourishment, and is qualified to do so. That's one reason we call our priests "father".
#3 I agree with your concept. However; you contradict the rest of your comments in this statement.

referring to the Mosaic laws, Jesus said that he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Jesus was a Jew, he referred to the Mosaic Laws many times up until the time that the Israelites proved conclusively that they were not going to serve their God, the Father of Jesus. Jesus started his 3 years of ministering to the people about the new Christian institution (For the want of a better word), and that was the end or the Jewish teachings fro Christians.

By fulfilling the law or contract of the Mosaic Law, the contract was completed and the new Christian ethic was installed. With the Israelites following the Mosaic Law it gave them protection as does following the Christian rules do now. No part of the Mosaic Law is in existence today for the Christian faith; not even tithing, which, naturally enough, is the one law that is held in tight instruction from the churches of Christendom.
PS: Where did I say that the Old Testament does not apply, and in what context?
About eating pork, read the account of Peter when he questioned the food presented to him to eat. But again it was discounted with the fulfillment of the Mosaic Laws.
It wasn't about Mosaic law, it was to demonstrate how strict literal interpretation/application distorts the scriptures. "Call no man father" is a classic example.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,436
11,982
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,763.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
By interpretations handed down by the apostles do you mean as written in the Bible?
No, I mean the proper understanding of what is written in the Bible. The Apostles did not set up churches, hand them a Bible, and leave them to figure it out for themselves. They stayed with them, teaching them face to face, leaving disciples who could then teach others after the Apostles had left. The fact is, the majority of the Apostles didn't write anything. Most of what we have is letters from Paul addressing problems which had cropped up in the churches he had established. He didn't write to correct what they were doing right. Besides the New Testament we have also have the Liturgy of St James which formed the basis of Church worship in all the ancient churches.
In regards to Christian truths the Bible says "Call no man Father...." And I post a quotation from another source.

I raise this issue as you have said that your church uses the title "Father", what other titles does it use, and would you agree that there is no indication in the Bible that titles 'do not maketh a man'.

IMO Christianity is the peak of religious belief, the way it is written is almost impossible for sinful man to say truly "I am a Christian in all aspects of the Biblical interpretation. This is why I question the works of Christendom as against the word of the Christian Bible as spoken by Jesus and reiterated by the disciples and the apostles.

Is the religious title “father” correct? It is used widely by Roman Catholics and Anglicans. “Padre,” meaning “father,” is also widely used. But Jesus taught his disciples: “You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9, NJB) The New English Bible reads similarly: “Do not call any man on earth ‘father.’” Why do clergymen and their followers disobey this command from the Lord Jesus Christ?​
In the very same passage, Jesus also says "call no man Teacher", yet in Paul's epistles he clearly refers to some as being teachers. Obviously as kepha31 posted above, Christ is using hyperbole to make a point, and does not intend us to take it literally. The verses which follow make that abundantly clear.
This does not relate to your birth father, of course
You cannot have it both ways. If you insist that priests cannot be called "father" then the same applies to your birth father, but if it is Ok to call your birth parent "father" then opposition to calling those tasked with spiritual fatherhood evaporates.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Old Moses

Member
Jun 16, 2017
24
2
85
NSW
✟8,544.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
No, I mean the proper understanding of what is written in the Bible. The Apostles did not set up churches, hand them a Bible, and leave them to figure it out for themselves. They stayed with them, teaching them face to face, leaving disciples who could then teach others after the Apostles had left. The fact is, the majority of the Apostles didn't write anything. Most of what we have is letters from Paul addressing problems which had cropped up in the churches he had established. He didn't write to correct what they were doing right. Besides the New Testament we have also have the Liturgy of St James which formed the basis of Church worship in all the ancient churches.

In the very same passage, Jesus also says "call no man Teacher", yet in Paul's epistles he clearly refers to some as being teachers. Obviously as kepha31 posted above, Christ is using hyperbole to make a point, and does not intend us to take it literally. The verses which follow make that abundantly clear.

You cannot have it both ways. If you insist that priests cannot be called "father" then the same applies to your birth father, but if it is Ok to call your birth parent "father" then opposition to calling those tasked with spiritual fatherhood evaporates.

In Matthew 23 Jesus was talking about the Scribes and the Pharisees and how they tried to lord it over others, like the churches do today with the grandeur of the church premises, ad in the recent past masses in Latin, a language not understood by the "lowly congregations".

I think there is good explanation in this quote form JW.org.

Please read and note the context of Matthew 23:1-12. Jesus begins speaking about the Pharisees, who were a prominent sect of Judaism. They were legalists, sticklers for observance of every detail of the Mosaic Law. They liked to dress and act in such a way as to call attention to themselves. Their religion was one of ostentation—their style of clothing, their principal places at meals, their front seats in the synagogues, and their titles of honor. They even claimed greater respect than that which was given parents. They wanted to be called father. However, Jesus shows that all his followers are equal as God’s children. Any title that suggests the opposite is a haughty usurpation of something that belongs to God. Thus, Jesus forbids the use of the word “father” as a title of honor in a religious sense. Jesus insists that his followers have only one Father in the faith, Jehovah.

JW.org quotes many sources to bring all interpretations up fro discussion. It does not just cite some religious dogma,and it always backs its comments with scripture. IMO we should look at all ideas on religion as there are many, and many are offshoots of others.
When the last of the Apostles died out the Christian congregations were either disbanded by the power of Rome or by men that felt that they knew it all. The world went into the Dark Ages as far as the continuation of the truth of Christianity was concerned.

The Roman Church, lorded over by Constantine and his pagan influence, was a very bad era for mankind. Thousands were tortured until they either died or screamed out in pain that they accepted the Church's dogma.

The hypocrisy of the church, in those times is beyond belief in this enlightened day. Joan D' Arc a typical example, the Roman Catholic Church burnt her to death as a heretic and later, when popular opinion kept her in the limelight, what did the church do? it made her a saint, if it wasn't so serious it could be laughable.

There are so many rites and practices of Christendom, as is came out of the dark ages and its practices were revealed and discredited, rites that are still pagan in origin but still practiced in complete opposition to the teachings of the only perfect Christian that man has even known.

What right does mortal man have to give himself such titles as seen in Christendom, none, we are all brothers, and I cite this as my philosophy that we are all citizens of the world, some citizens do things that I do not approve of, but that is my right; however I cannot deny that we are all brothers and one is no greater than the other. Remember when the Disciples discussed who, among them, was closer to Jesus that that others, Jesus told them that they were all equal and disapproved of the bickering.

My words will not change the minds of anyone here but at least you have let me express myself, for that I am thankful.
 
Upvote 0

disciple1

Newbie
Aug 1, 2012
2,168
546
✟61,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There has been a lot of talk on these forums as to who/what constitutes the true Church of Christ... some say the mother Church because of her age and supposed apostolic connection. Others say God's people, wherever they are found. Some say the Protestants, the Orthodox, the Catholic, the Mormons (actually, not many say this).

So, this got me to thinking about what God's church would look like in terms of it's "appearance" or the impression it gives. If Christ's life and the lives of the apostles are our examples, lets see how we measure up...

I know it has bothered me for a while now, ministers that wear expensive business suits with nice watches and other bling.. What does that mode of dress represent to me about Christ's character and ministry? I have noticed that in churches where the pastor is a fashion horse, the congregation seems to be concerned with their appearance as well. Is this the message that should be conveyed?

Then there is the robes/gowns/collars etc, worn by some denom's clergy... while this better differentiates the laity from the officers of the church, is this what Jesus and the disciples gave by way of example? Is this an attempt to copy the religious garments that the Jewish priests were commanded to wear? The garments that Christ now wears as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary? Are we saying that Christ's priesthood is not sufficient and must be replicated on earth. What about the admonition that we (men) are priests of our homes? Are we expected to wear special clothing for this role? Where does the pomp and pageantry of some churches come from? Did Jesus teach us these things?

What are some of your thoughts on the way we present our "men of God" and our method of worship? Is it acceptable to wear everyday clothes to worship God or do we have to participate in the fashion show at church?
ministers that wear expensive business suits with nice watches

or do we have to participate in the fashion show at church?
I think these things just make people with nothing feel bad, and lesser than.
 
Upvote 0

geneh43

Member
Oct 17, 2017
6
1
80
amite
✟7,716.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
There has been a lot of talk on these forums as to who/what constitutes the true Church of Christ... some say the mother Church because of her age and supposed apostolic connection. Others say God's people, wherever they are found. Some say the Protestants, the Orthodox, the Catholic, the Mormons (actually, not many say this).

So, this got me to thinking about what God's church would look like in terms of it's "appearance" or the impression it gives. If Christ's life and the lives of the apostles are our examples, lets see how we measure up...

I know it has bothered me for a while now, ministers that wear expensive business suits with nice watches and other bling.. What does that mode of dress represent to me about Christ's character and ministry? I have noticed that in churches where the pastor is a fashion horse, the congregation seems to be concerned with their appearance as well. Is this the message that should be conveyed?

Then there is the robes/gowns/collars etc, worn by some denom's clergy... while this better differentiates the laity from the officers of the church, is this what Jesus and the disciples gave by way of example? Is this an attempt to copy the religious garments that the Jewish priests were commanded to wear? The garments that Christ now wears as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary? Are we saying that Christ's priesthood is not sufficient and must be replicated on earth. What about the admonition that we (men) are priests of our homes? Are we expected to wear special clothing for this role? Where does the pomp and pageantry of some churches come from? Did Jesus teach us these things?

What are some of your thoughts on the way we present our "men of God" and our method of worship? Is it acceptable to wear everyday clothes to worship God or do we have to participate in the fashion show at church?


Rev 12 :17 describes the true church. The remnant, which keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus, which is said the be the spirit of prophecy.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
I think these things just make people with nothing feel bad, and lesser than.
Yes, and if and when you /anyone speaks the truth, it is dismissed as if not true, not adding to the conversating (of those who are guilty, of course, and not speaking truth).
Thus, also, as Scripture clearly describes >>>
Rev 12 :17 describes the true church. The remnant, which keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus, which is said the be the spirit of prophecy.
Amen.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Frosty Cook

Active Member
Aug 27, 2019
92
32
89
Comanche
✟21,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
There has been a lot of talk on these forums as to who/what constitutes the true Church of Christ... some say the mother Church because of her age and supposed apostolic connection. Others say God's people, wherever they are found. Some say the Protestants, the Orthodox, the Catholic, the Mormons (actually, not many say this).

So, this got me to thinking about what God's church would look like in terms of it's "appearance" or the impression it gives. If Christ's life and the lives of the apostles are our examples, lets see how we measure up...

I know it has bothered me for a while now, ministers that wear expensive business suits with nice watches and other bling.. What does that mode of dress represent to me about Christ's character and ministry? I have noticed that in churches where the pastor is a fashion horse, the congregation seems to be concerned with their appearance as well. Is this the message that should be conveyed?

Then there is the robes/gowns/collars etc, worn by some denom's clergy... while this better differentiates the laity from the officers of the church, is this what Jesus and the disciples gave by way of example? Is this an attempt to copy the religious garments that the Jewish priests were commanded to wear? The garments that Christ now wears as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary? Are we saying that Christ's priesthood is not sufficient and must be replicated on earth. What about the admonition that we (men) are priests of our homes? Are we expected to wear special clothing for this role? Where does the pomp and pageantry of some churches come from? Did Jesus teach us these things?

What are some of your thoughts on the way we present our "men of God" and our method of worship? Is it acceptable to wear everyday clothes to worship God or do we have to participate in the fashion show at church?
The scriptures say that cleanness is next to Godliness, so, we should dress clean. The scriptures are silent on how we should dress to attend a service that is to worship him, but personally, I believe we should wear the best clothing that we have to show reverence to God, even if the best we have is a pair of jeans and a T-shirt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Albion
Upvote 0