How would you greet a bishop?

[His student]

From where I sit I think many evangelicals are clueless. Easy come, easy go.

I absolutely agree.

One is not saved by subscribing to the evangelical Christian camp.

One is save by a personal trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ at Calvary for salvation.

Many of the religious folks I am speaking about have not done so. In fact they often deny it outright or in the dogma they subscribe to.

 

[dzheremi]

If you don't understand the truth of what I said about many people in this forum misunderstanding the gospel - perhaps you need to pay more attention.

So because someone posts on this forum that others misunderstand the gospel, their points are automatically valid and should be listened to? Why?

We have atheists, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics and every manor of religious people posting here in the forum and many or most misunderstand how to get saved and keep saved.

What I called sacramental religious folks are quite often among the most clueless.

Again, why? Because they don't all agree with you about "how to get saved and keep saved"? Why are they the ones who are wrong, and not you and others who see things as you do?

I don't "hate the Christian religion".

Coulda fooled me with the anti-sacrament talk, but maybe you have a different definition of 'love', just like you apparently have a different definition of 'religion'.

I love it so much I want to give the gospel to everyone I think might not have heard it or had misunderstood it.

Yes, but you're presuming that this includes bishops, for some reason. That's highly disrespectful and weird. I don't even know what it would take to presume to give a bishop the gospel. What do you think they're about if not that?

 

[GenemZ]

Christianity is a Religion weather you all like it or not. How dare you presume to act like you know who is a Christian or not. On these forums if someone agrees with the Nicene Creed than for all intents and purpose they are Christian and is against the rules to say, imply they are not as a few of you evangelicals have. I should report you lot

The Bible only recognizes one kind of religion... It specifies what religion is acceptable.

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this:
to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself
from being polluted by the world." Ja 1:27​

That is not Christianity per se.

The following is Christianity. (Its not about following rituals and traditions.)

"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” Jn 4:23-24​

Religion does not require walking in the Spirit. Any unbeliever so inclined can follow a religion. Many religious types do walk in their emotions. They confuse being moved in their emotions for being filled with the Spirit. The Spirit does not have to impart some emotional effect. The Spirit enables the mind to think with Truth... which will (at times) motivate an emotional response.

 

[GenemZ]

From where I sit I think many evangelicals are clueless. Easy come, easy go.

Remember... the highly religious pharisees thought the followers of Jesus were clueless. The pharisees thought they were deceived and not knowing God. They even thought Jesus was a deceiver...

So much for religion. The ones who "know God."

 

[charsan]

I would never imply such a thing

And yet...

When we come to a Christian forum we should understand that people say they are Christians then they are, period. One should never assume because someone is Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, etc that they nor anyone associated with their Church is not a Christian. It is highly insulting to be told that a Bishop needs the gospel, it is highly insulting to have implied that Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, etc needs an evangelical gospel because they don't believe like evangelicals do. Just because we do not for one minute believe in the Bible alone does not mean we don't believe in the Bible. This stuff that some you are doing is enough to make one not want to be on forums. If we can't be seen as Christians which we are than why stay here. It's no use being here if you have to be a certain type of "Christian" and if you aren't your going to hell.

 

[charsan]

The Bible only recognizes one kind of religion... It specifies what religion is acceptable.

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this:
to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself
from being polluted by the world." Ja 1:27​

That is not Christianity per se.

The following is Christianity. (Its not about following rituals and traditions.)

"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” Jn 4:23-24​

Religion does not require walking in the Spirit. Any unbeliever so inclined can follow a religion. Many religious types do walk in their emotions. They confuse being moved in their emotions for being filled with the Spirit. The Spirit does not have to impart some emotional effect. The Spirit enables the mind to think with Truth... which will (at times) motivate an emotional response.

No it's just your idea

 

[His student]

So because someone posts on this forum that others misunderstand the gospel, their points are automatically valid and should be listened to?

I have neither said nor implied any such thing.

Again, why? Because they don't all agree with you about "how to get saved and keep saved"? Why are they the ones who are wrong, and not you and others who see things as you do?

Because in many cases my version of how to "get saved and keep saved" lines up with the scriptures better than theirs does.

Coulda fooled me with the anti-sacrament talk, but maybe you have a different definition of 'love', just like you apparently have a different definition of 'religion'.

I have given forth absolute zero "anti-sacramental" talk.

Yes, but you're presuming that this includes bishops, for some reason. That's highly disrespectful and weird. I don't even know what it would take to presume to give a bishop the gospel. What do you think they're about if not that?

I have presumed no such thing. I have merely stated that they may well be people who misunderstand the simple demands of the gospel and can be good candidates to be told about it in my experience.

Many bishops are about a religious career and obviously sometimes (sadly) about power over others and even debauchery.

 

[dzheremi]

The following is Christianity. (Its not about following rituals and traditions.)

What is our father St. Paul the Apostle's second epistle to the Corinthians, then? Chopped liver?

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

 

[dzheremi]

I have neither said nor implied any such thing.

Well then I am at a loss as to what that section of your reply was intended to convey, as you had written "If you don't understand the truth of what I said about many people in this forum misunderstanding the gospel - perhaps you need to pay more attention." It certainly sounds like you think I should pay attention to you, based on (as far as you've actually shown) nothing more than the fact that you are saying things.

Because in many cases my version of how to "get saved and keep saved" lines up with the scriptures better than theirs does.

Based on what? More of an appeal to your own authority?

I have given forth absolute zero "anti-sacramental" talk.

Didn't you just write "What I called sacramental religious folks are quite often among the most clueless"? How is that meant to be understood, then?

I have presumed no such thing. I have merely stated that they may well be people who misunderstand the simple demands of the gospel and can be good candidates to be told about it in my experience.

By you. Even if they are bishops and you're just some guy/gal. Because clearly you know better, because...you just do.

Many bishops are about a religious career and obviously sometimes (sadly) about power over others and even debauchery.

So are many dentists, heart surgeons, military commanders, and so on. Are you going to start telling all of these people their business as well?

 

[ripple the car]

Not every body. Only those who exhibit a certain mechanical type religious expression. I have seen rabbis act the same way.

Very religious. But saved? Why be religious then?

Because as Christ saves us, we live out our trust in Him, love for Him, faith in Him, and obedience to Him by living out the Christian life through the Church that He gave us.

Many, many Christians like to begin the day with prayer and Bible study. They do this not to be mechanical, but out of genuine love of God. In the same way, many of us make the sign of the Cross, bow, prostrate, venerate, pray, fast, and light candles and insense not to be mechanical, but out of love for God, living out our faith through actions.

 

[His student]

One should never assume because someone is Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, etc that they nor anyone associated with their Church is not a Christian.

I would never assume that. Nor did I even insinuate that.

It is highly insulting to be told that a Bishop needs the gospel,

I have never said that bishops need the gospel. I have said that they are good candidates for preaching the simple gospel to because so many apparently misunderstand the basics of salvation by grace through simple faith.

.....if you have to be a certain type of "Christian" and if you aren't your going to hell.

I have never said that.

However I have seconded what the Lord taught us about a great many religious folks who have misunderstood the basics of salvation by grace through faith and trusted in their religious activities to recommend them for salvation when they meet him face to face..

"Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly. 'I never knew you depart from me." Matthew 7:22 & 23

 

[charsan]

Again, why? Because they don't all agree with you about "how to get saved and keep saved"?

Exactly, quite insulting and clueless to imply such a thing

 

[charsan]

I would never assume that. Nor did I even insinuate that.

You sure did quite a number of times and even @dzheremi has pointed it out even though you deny the obvious

I have never said that bishops need the gospel. I have said that they are good candidates for preaching the simple gospel to because so many apparently misunderstand the basics of salvation by grace through simple faith.

You implied that Bishops were not Christians.

I have never said that.

You implied it.

However I have seconded what the Lord taught us about a great many religious folks who have misunderstood the basics of salvation by grace through faith and trusted in their religious activities to recommend them for salvation when they meet him face to face..

Onl your twisted ideas not what Christ taught at all.

"Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly. 'I never knew you depart from me." Matthew 7:22 & 23

Yes many evangelicals will, like the ones in this thread.

Your great at saying "I never said" but your always implying things. You love the sly coment that does not say but gives much insult through implication.

 

[His student]

Well then I am at a loss as to what that section of your reply was intended to convey, as you had written "If you don't understand the truth of what I said about many people in this forum misunderstanding the gospel - perhaps you need to pay more attention." It certainly sounds like you think I should pay attention to you, based on (as far as you've actually shown) nothing more than the fact that you are saying things.

I clearly was talking about paying more attention to the various aberrant views of the mechanics of salvation we find here in the forum. I said nothing about paying more attention to me.

Based on what? More of an appeal to your own authority?

No - the authority of the Holy Spirit Who wrote the scriptures and has been given to us to teach us so we have no need for religious authorities to tell us what they say.

Didn't you just write "What I called sacramental religious folks are quite often among the most clueless"? How is that meant to be understood, then?

Simply what it says. Sometimes religious Christian folks are as clueless as those from agnosticism or other religions as to the demand of the gospel in the most basic sense.

By you. Even if they are bishops and you're just some guy/gal. Because clearly you know better, because...you just do

Being unencumbered by non biblical religious traditions I have a better ability to hear what the author of the scriptures has to say about many things that are often misunderstood by some folks of a more traditional and man made authority based experience.

So are many dentists, heart surgeons, military commanders, and so on. Are you going to start telling all of these people their business as well?

No - my business is preaching the gospel to the world not telling them their business.

To the extent that their business is religious in nature, preaching the gospel will inform them about whether their business activity aligns with the scripture picture of what it takes to be save.

 

[His student]

You implied that Bishops were not Christians.

No I did not. Nor have I left my opinion on the matter to be figured by implication. I have spoken quite plainly on the subject.

Onl your twisted ideas not what Christ taught at all.

My interpretation of the passage is exactly what it says. Many will point to their religious works for salvation and the Lord will say that He has never known them in spite of their religious activities. The reason He hasn't known them is apparently that they have trusted in their religious activities for salvation rather than a personal trust in the finished work of the Lord on their behalf.

For an example - I will point to a woman who at the time was called a "living saint". In an interview with a major news magazine she was asked why she would give her entire life to caring for the poor of India. Her answer was something to the effect that "God has placed many good works on this earth in order that we can earn our salvation".

Not only is that incorrect but it is the exact opposite of the gospel of Jesus Christ and His work at Calvary for our sins. So it often is with the most religious of folks in organized Christianity.

I suppose if I said that she was a very good candidate for me to preach the gospel to you'd all tell me that I was being insulting to her and other religious folks who believed like she did.

I would be told that I was arrogant by claiming that my view of basic salvation was head and shoulders more accurate and essential than was hers.

I sincerely hope that someone explained the gospel to her and lead her to salvation before she passed on. But unfortunately I have to say that I have my doubts that it happened. She had such a long lifetime of wrong headed traditions and sacramental religion behind her that she would be very hard to convert simply by preaching the evangel to her even though she was by most accounts living her later years in mortal fear of what awaited her on the other side of this life.

Often times people, like many here perhaps, are so involved in organized and formalized religion that they haven't noticed the forest for the trees concerning many of the leaders of their group's need of the gospel just like the people in the 10/40 window.

Yes many evangelicals will, like the ones in this thread

Quite possibly. But it won't be as likely that they will point to their works for salvation as religious folks might.

 

[charsan]

No I did not. Nor have I left my opinion on the matter to be figured by implication. I have spoken quite plainly on the subject.

My interpretation of the passage is exactly what it says. Many will point to their religious works for salvation and the Lord will say that He has never known them in spite of their religious activities. The reason He hasn't known them is apparently that they have trusted in their religious activities for salvation rather than a personal trust in the finished work of the Lord on their behalf.

For an example - I will point to a woman who at the time was called a "living saint". In an interview with a major news magazine she was asked why she would give her entire life to caring for the poor of India. Her answer was something to the effect that "God has placed many good works on this earth in order that we can earn our salvation".

Not only is that incorrect but it is the exact opposite of the gospel of Jesus Christ and His work at Calvary for our sins. So it often is with the most religious of folks in organized Christianity.

I suppose if I said that she was a very good candidate for me to preach the gospel to you'd all tell me that I was being insulting to her and other religious folks who believed like she did.

I would be told that I was arrogant by claiming that my view of basic salvation was head and shoulders more accurate and essential than was hers.

Often times people like many here are so involved in organized and formalized religion that they haven't noticed the forrest for the trees concerning many of the leaders of their group's need of the gospel just like the people in the 10/40 window.

Quite possibly. But it won't be as likely that they will point to their works for salvation as religious folks.

You can deny all you want it will not change that you love saying we Traditional Christians are not Christians. My last sentence (Yes many evangelicals will, like the ones in this thread) was directed toward you and the other one in this thread. You now will be on ignore.

 

[His student]

Have a good day folks.

Remember to always be ready to preach the gospel even when you least expect to have the opportunity to do so

P.S.

None of this discussion has touched on my own Christian traditions which I highly cherish. I have many.

My religious activities also involve along with those traditions most if not all of the sacraments that most of those critiquing my posts here are involved in. They include but are not limited to baptism, partaking of the elements of the last supper, foot washing, confession of sins, veneration of Christian religious sites and items used in worship and study, and even forms of use of icons.

But I don't for one minute claim that these traditional and sacramental activities are efficacious for salvation in the basic sense. The Holy Spirit has certainly used them in my sanctification. But they in no way are held to play a part in my basic salvation.

The difference is that leaders of organized traditional and sacramental groups (such as the bishops, popes and the like we have been discussing) would disagree with me about that. In fact in times past I would have been severely persecuted if not killed for teaching what I believe about the simple gospel vis a vis the traditions and sacraments of the organized church.

How could I not yield to the Spirit's leading by presenting the gospel to those who believe that their religious activities are not only part of the gospel message but have a part in their basic salvation as well - thereby denying the unselfish work of the Lord Who bought their salvation at such a great price?

 

[ripple the car]

And yet...

When we come to a Christian forum we should understand that people say they are Christians then they are, period. One should never assume because someone is Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, etc that they nor anyone associated with their Church is not a Christian. It is highly insulting to be told that a Bishop needs the gospel, it is highly insulting to have implied that Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, etc needs an evangelical gospel because they don't believe like evangelicals do. Just because we do not for one minute believe in the Bible alone does not mean we don't believe in the Bible. This stuff that some you are doing is enough to make one not want to be on forums. If we can't be seen as Christians which we are than why stay here. It's no use being here if you have to be a certain type of "Christian" and if you aren't your going to hell.

Keep at it. Be patient. Eventually, some folks come to understand that the first Christians were not what they presume.

This is part of why I gave up debating on here. It's kind of useless. If and when folks have genuine questions, we have Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Anglican subforums.

 

[Not David]

Keep at it. Be patient. Eventually, some folks come to understand that the first Christians were not what they presume.

This is part of why I gave up debating on here. It's kind of useless. If and when folks have genuine questions, we have Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Anglican subforums.

Yes, I try to make friendly posts yet a lot of adversaries come here to ruin the peace.

 

[ripple the car]

Yes, I try to make friendly posts yet a lot of adversaries come here to ruin the peace.

I hear you. That's nearly inevitable. The lies and nonsense that some Christians have been taught about what is right and wrong, about what it means to be "Biblical", etc., are huge. It can take years to slowly wander out of those lies. It's tough. It took me a decade to begin to wonder if a Sola Scriptura, Baptistic frame work might be missing vital stuff. Still, while a Baptist, I did the best I could, learned, grew, fellowshipped.

Don't give up. Keep fellowshipping. I am seeing a very cool, very inspiring shift. More and more Christians who are not CC / EO / OO rejecting Sola Fide, questioning the canon, and generally backing off *on their own* from the pilars of Reformation theology. It is pretty awesome.