Can you only be saved in the right denomination?

[keith.soul7]

Can you only be saved if you pick the right denomination? Or can be people be saved in any Christian denomination, as long as they believe in Jesus?

Once someone told me that everyone in a denomination of Christianity was going to Hell, unless they went to the original Church of Christ? But which one is that? Is it even still here today?

What do you think?

I think we must be clear about our terms. What do you mean by denomination and church? Moreover, where in the Bible does it teach that belonging to a church saves you?

 

[ladodgers6]

Can you only be saved if you pick the right denomination? Or can be people be saved in any Christian denomination, as long as they believe in Jesus?

Once someone told me that everyone in a denomination of Christianity was going to Hell, unless they went to the original Church of Christ? But which one is that? Is it even still here today?

What do you think?

This is a trick question. Because the options you have to offer are not a fair assessment. Yes we are saved by Christ. But we also need God's word; Scripture. Then after that, you need to understand Doctrine, what God's word teaches. To think about our Faith. I have always said, read everything you can get your hands. Then challenge it with Scripture. Do your own homework, and challenge everything you hear and read by researching it for yourself.

 

[Meowzltov]

Can you only be saved if you pick the right denomination? Or can be people be saved in any Christian denomination, as long as they believe in Jesus?

Once someone told me that everyone in a denomination of Christianity was going to Hell, unless they went to the original Church of Christ? But which one is that? Is it even still here today?

What do you think?

Heck, I'm Roman Catholic. We absolutely believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church that Jesus Christ founded. But although we believe other Protestant churches are heretical, we still think they can bring individuals to salvation in a basic way. They teach that we are sinners in need of a savior, that Christ died for our sins, that he has risen from the dead, and that he is coming again. They baptize new believers in the name of the Father, the Son, and the HS. But we believe these new believers have become Christians in spite of the poor teachings of these churches. We believe they have a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church via their Christian baptism.

 

[Meowzltov]

I think we must be clear about our terms. What do you mean by denomination and church? Moreover, where in the Bible does it teach that belonging to a church saves you?

In the Bible, baptism initiated you into belonging to a local church, part of the Church. Salvation simply included being a member of the church. It began with the Church sharing the gospel with you. It continued with the Church baptizing you. And you grew with the church nourishing and feeding you so that you would grow in your salvation--good teaching, the word, prayer, worship, and breaking bread. From the beginning to the end, God brought you the message of salvation through the Church.

 

[Meowzltov]

I totally agree with the words above.

There are so many denominations.. why can't we all come together as one in the name of Christ, the name above all names.

Because it means COMING TO AN AGREEMENT on important doctrines. And I mean more than just a superficial unity. The early church didn't disagree over faith and works, or OSAS, or Real Presence v. symbol only. And that sort of unity comes with a lot of humility and a LOT of work. You have to really desire unity, and truly be ashamed and repentant of the sinful state of the church to be capable of this sort of change.

 

[Jesus4Ever]

Listen, no one is SAVED until they get to heaven. The Bible says

''work out your salvation with fear and trembling''
''many are called, few are chosen,''
''always pray that you are counted worthy to stand before the Lamb,''
''seek with diligence that your calling and election is sure''
''The road that leads to life is VERY NARROW, and the road to destruction is very broad for the many who choose that path''

We are to seek to be counted worthy, not pray a prayer and your saved... it doesn't work like that. I don't know about you but those verses SCARE me. The devil wants you to think you are always saved so that you sear your conscience and no longer fear the Lord and no longer pursue absolute righteousness and holiness which is what we are supposed to do. Churches today are leading people astray because they aren't telling people these hard truths. REAL Christianity is TOUGH and the truths in the scriptures are VERY hard. When I read the scriptures I start to tremble because it frightens me so bad sometimes.




edit- also, in that verse, they are saying ''Lord didn't we do all these mighty things in your name?''- he's talking about Christians who THINK they are saved but never really were. Can we heal people and cast out demons and not be saved? Oh yea, and churches today aren't even doing that.

We have to become a ''good tree.'' We are not saved by WORKS per-se but if we are born of God we WILL eventually do good works. Cold religion works are what the catholic church does and are exactly the opposite of doing works out of real love from God- we are supposed to be a ''joyful giver'' and do works led by the Spirit... not with our own strength, with His strength... The good works are a by-product of BEING a good tree, walking in righteousness, and following the leading of the Holy Spirit.

I'm not perfect yet but I press on toward the prize

So how do you become a good tree? I know believing in Jesus, in loving Him and loving God is part of it but what else?

 

[Jesus4Ever]

Cause they take it literally...

Um...I was under the impression that it was. In that case, is that where we're going until Judgement Day? Is it still a fiery torture then or something else?

 

[HereIStand]

It really comes down to having faith in Christ as an individual. A person can have this faith and be in a denomination rife with erroneous doctrine. The opposite can be true. A person can be in a determination holding mostly true doctrine, yet not have faith. It has to be based on individual faith, not cultural heritage, religious observance, charity, or knowledge of the Bible or theology. All of these can be present with faith but can never establish it.

 

[Jesus4Ever]

It really comes down to having faith in Christ as an individual. A person can have this faith and be in a denomination rife with erroneous doctrine. The opposite can be true. A person can be in a determination holding mostly true doctrine, yet not have faith. It has to be based on individual faith, not cultural heritage, religious observance, charity, or knowledge of the Bible or theology. All of these can be present with faith but can never establish it.

Well many Christians don't believe in celebrating Passover or not eating pork...so you can still be saved regardless if you do those things or not?

 

[HereIStand]

Well many Christians don't believe in celebrating Passover or not eating pork...so you can still be saved regardless if you do those things or not?

Sure. Abstaining or eating certain foods or observing certain days would fall into the category of adiaphora -- things neither commanded nor forbidden.

 

[Jesus4Ever]

Sure. Abstaining or eating certain foods or observing certain days would fall into the category of adiaphora -- things neither commanded nor forbidden.

But wasn't it written that pork was unclean and should not be eaten?

 

[HereIStand]

But wasn't it written that pork was unclean and should not be eaten?

Yes. However, those were part of the Old Testament dietary restrictions. Under Christ, it is not what goes into the mouth, but what comes out it of that defiles a person (Matthew 15:11).

 

[Jesus4Ever]

Yes. However, those were part of the Old Testament dietary restrictions. Under Christ, it is not what goes into the mouth, but what comes out it of that defiles a person (Matthew 15:11).

Some people say He was talking about something else though.

 

[twinserk]

Yes. However, those were part of the Old Testament dietary restrictions. Under Christ, it is not what goes into the mouth, but what comes out it of that defiles a person (Matthew 15:11).

The verse you quoted is only half the story. If one reads the whole chapter, you get a better picture of what the Messiah meant.

The Pharisees were taking their man-made tradition of hand-washing, and claiming it was law. They were saying it was unlawful to eat without washing your hands. So they approached the Messiah, and asked Him why His disciples were violating their traditions:

Matthew 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread.​

He then gives the answer you quoted:

Matthew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.​

But, when questioned about this statement by His disciples, He clarified and said thus:

Matthew 15:15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. 16 And the Messiah said, Are ye also yet without understanding? 17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
​

The Messiah states that He was not addressing unclean meats, He was addressing the topic brought to Him by the Pharisees in the beginning of the chapter - the washing of hands.

 

[HereIStand]

Christians may want to abstain from pork, pursue a vegan diet, or eat fish on Friday. Doing so will neither contribute to or hinder their salvation.

 

[JoeP222w]

Denomination has absolutely nothing to do with salvation.

 

[HereIStand]

The verse you quoted is only half the story. If one reads the whole chapter, you get a better picture of what the Messiah meant.

The Pharisees were taking their man-made tradition of hand-washing, and claiming it was law. They were saying it was unlawful to eat without washing your hands. So they approached the Messiah, and asked Him why His disciples were violating their traditions:

Matthew 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread.​

He then gives the answer you quoted:

Matthew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.​

But, when questioned about this statement by His disciples, He clarified and said thus:

Matthew 15:15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. 16 And the Messiah said, Are ye also yet without understanding? 17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
​

The Messiah states that He was not addressing unclean meats, He was addressing the topic brought to Him by the Pharisees in the beginning of the chapter - the washing of hands.

The verse you quoted is only half the story. If one reads the whole chapter, you get a better picture of what the Messiah meant.

The Pharisees were taking their man-made tradition of hand-washing, and claiming it was law. They were saying it was unlawful to eat without washing your hands. So they approached the Messiah, and asked Him why His disciples were violating their traditions:

Matthew 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread.​

He then gives the answer you quoted:

Matthew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.​

But, when questioned about this statement by His disciples, He clarified and said thus:

Matthew 15:15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. 16 And the Messiah said, Are ye also yet without understanding? 17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
​

The Messiah states that He was not addressing unclean meats, He was addressing the topic brought to Him by the Pharisees in the beginning of the chapter - the washing of hands.

However, Mark's interpretation of passage points to food entering the stomach, not germs. And with Christ words, "he declared all foods clean" (Mark 7:19).

 

[twinserk]

However, Mark's interpretation of passage points to food entering the stomach, not germs. And with Christ words, "he declared all foods clean" (Mark 7:19).

If your statement is true, then Peter wouldn't have raised any fuss over eating the unclean animals during his vision in Acts:

Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.​

I know, you're about to use that story to cleanse pork. But lets read it from beginning to end. Peter has a vision:

Acts 10:10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.​

So, Peter is thinking on the vision when men come and bring him to Cornelius' house. Where he says this:

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.​

Peter tells us what his vision meant. It had nothing to do with pork, or unclean meat. Just like in the book of Daniel, he referred to the gentile powers as beasts, using the lion, bear, and leopard (Daniel 7:3). Daniel wasn’t saying that an lion, bear, and leopard would actually rule. They were metaphors. Same thing here in Acts.

All the facts thus support what I'm presenting - that the law is still in effect.

 

[HereIStand]

If your statement is true, then Peter wouldn't have raised any fuss over eating the unclean animals during his vision in Acts:

Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.​

I know, you're about to use that story to cleanse pork. But lets read it from beginning to end. Peter has a vision:

Acts 10:10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.​

So, Peter is thinking on the vision when men come and bring him to Cornelius' house. Where he says this:

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.​

Peter tells us what his vision meant. It had nothing to do with pork, or unclean meat. Just like in the book of Daniel, he referred to the gentile powers as beasts, using the lion, bear, and leopard (Daniel 7:3). Daniel wasn’t saying that an lion, bear, and leopard would actually rule. They were metaphors. Same thing here in Acts.

All the facts thus support what I'm presenting - that the law is still in effect.

If Christ declared all food clean, then we shouldn't argue that certain foods are still unclean. Peter is commanded to "kill and eat" literal meat, not metaphorical meat. It really doesn't compare Daniel's vision.

 

[twinserk]

If Christ declared all food clean, then we shouldn't argue that certain foods are still unclean. Peter is commanded to "kill and eat" literal meat, not metaphorical meat. It really doesn't compare Daniel's vision.

I already demonstrated that he was speaking about the washing of hands. You countered, by saying that Mark doesn't have that in it, so unclean food must be clean. To which I countered, and said that if the Messiah taught that all food is clean, then Peter wouldn't have refused to eat the unclean animals in the vision.

But he did refuse, which means that the Messiah did not teach that all food is clean. Because as I pointed out, He was talking about the washing of hands.

Peter, after thinking on the vision, realized it wasn't about meat, but about men. We know this because Peter interpreted the vision, and told us what it meant. He said the vision was referring to men, not animals. Your statement that it's literal meat is entirely unsupported.

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any ***man*** common or unclean.​