What are the Basic Differences Between Religion and the Gospel

[Rainbow Dash]

Good points but we must not forget the most important part of our walk with God and that is to abide in Christ. It does not matter how religous and holy we appear.

There are religious leaders and people who are not connected to God but they have the appearance of godliness. God has rejected their works. Read about the seven churchs in Revelation.

Reminds me of Saul in the Old Testament. Saul was still King even though he was rejected by God. God had already stripped him of the Kingdom but in the natural he was still King.

Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. John 15:4

Think about Matthew 7:22-24

They must have had the appearance of being godly or they thought they were okay but they were rejected. They did not abide in the Vine. Which is Christ.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
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. Away from me, you evildoers!’

These are just my thoughts.


Jesus said " Let no man deceive you.." We as individuals have to become like the bereans. Study and show yourself approved unto God.


Christ all the way!! We are not to rely on our own ways, vices, traditions, organizations, pastors, leaders, but Christ. They can be tools but they are NOT our source.

 

[auparavant]

"you catholics"


I hope my questions on salvation and who receives (non-predestination as are most protestants) it are not construed as "pushing." I fail to see how christianity is not a religion if one compares the basic definition of what that is. I have not pushed anyone to my side of the christian fence at all nor have I derailed this thread.

 

[Galadriel]

Girl I dont even know who you're disagreeing with but Ive been waiting to see if anyone would post this scripture!!!!

Why wait??? You should've posted it

1. God shows us what true and pure religion would produce. But we must not confuse the fruit with the cause. An inner change (accepting Christ) is what causes us to bear good fruit. Not the church, doctrines, traditions etc...those are erected by God as necessary in helping cultivate our fruit.

I agree that our actions reveal what's in our hearts, and so those who are converted, who are cooperating with God's grace, will obviously live holy lives . The Church, it doctrines and traditions are Christ's means of converting us, giving us grace, and knowing true beliefs from false ones.

2. The fact that pure and undefiled are there in the scripture means that people can, in fact, make religion something it should not be (Jesus emphasized this with the Pharisees).

I agree with your statement. The disagreement I had with the article was that it suggested that the mere existence of a Church, doctrine, etc. is evidence of false/defiled religion, or that they are synonymous with false religion.

3. As Christians I think we have to be careful because there is a movement against religion and for being "spiritual" and though we may know what we mean when we talk about defiled religion...the world only sees it as one big conglomerate. Kinda like...even though I know our AA culture has some serious issues...I will not bash them to a European American...because I know they may put them down with the intent to obliterate...while I may point out flaws with the intent to find solutions.

I've come across people IRL who have made the same claim about "not being religious, but spiritual."

 

[Shimmie]

You know what, some of you are doing the same thing in this thread that you said you did not want done to you in a catholic thread. That is exactly what I am getting out of reading the responses.

The original poster posted something that she felt was on her heart from something she read she posted it, and she had every right to do it. There were responses to what she said that felt that what she said wasn't fully correct as far as you were concerned....FROM A CATHOLIC POINT OF VIEW! That's fine, but...don't make her out to feel as though she is wrong for posting it. I happened to be blessed by what she wrote and if I had issue with something, I can pm her about it instead of doing what is being done in this thread.

At some point....there must be PEACE! SHALOM! in this forum. I don't care how you may say that you are only giving your opinions and the rights to it, etc. but I see something different here...I see a stirring up that isn't of God and I'm not going to sit, read, and allow this to continue.

If it is not aligning up with what you believe....that's OK. After this past week we should have learned that togetherness is what is needed...not a bickering back and forth. It's not healthy for the Body of Christ and its not healthy for those who may be watching and may have an opportunity to come to Christ but won't because confusion is certainly present.

We must come together in this forum...this is a Christian Forum, not a religious forum. Some may believe that Christianity is a religion and I don't. So? What's wrong with that. There are many things that we are not going to, let's say understand, about one another and what we believe. That's OK. We must learn to stop trying to fight each other with what we feel is right and just be.................a Christian!

Thank you and good night!

N&W

I'm just reading this thread and I totally agree with you Nice & Wavy. As soon as I started reading I 'saw' derailment.

To those opposing this thread:

Did I not ask that the Catholic thread not be derailed by non-Catholics? So why is this one any different?

So why is this thread being derailed? What's the point?

Bottomline, no matter what 'religion' one has it's not a theory that 'you' created, but one that you've chosen to believe. If God doesn't own it, neither should anyone, so stop the maddness. None of us are owned, bought nor paid for by a denomination. The Blood of Jesus isn't there.

All of this is reactionary and it's very telling.

Just go to your corners and be still !

 

[auparavant]

Asking about whether salvation is offered to all men ... I keep seeing "you" (pl.) and how that relates to me, I dunno because I have not derailed anybody. Please stop lumping folks or talking in "you people-isms." There's all manner of hypocrisy up in this thread. Stop it or take it outside! All of youz. And that isn't you people-ism, that's to all of youz in Christ. Knock it off!

 

[CoilyFields]

Why wait??? You should've posted it



I agree that our actions reveal what's in our hearts, and so those who are converted, who are cooperating with God's grace, will obviously live holy lives . The Church, it doctrines and traditions are Christ's means of converting us, giving us grace, and knowing true beliefs from false ones.



I agree with your statement. The disagreement I had with the article was that it suggested that the mere existence of a Church, doctrine, etc. is evidence of false/defiled religion, or that they are synonymous with false religion.



I've come across people IRL who have made the same claim about "not being religious, but spiritual."

We are in complete agreement! It seems as though several of us took the article to mean different things. Its amazing how we filter things through our own experiences/knowledge.

 

[makeupgirl]

Asking about whether salvation is offered to all men ... I keep seeing "you" (pl.) and how that relates to me, I dunno because I have not derailed anybody. Please stop lumping folks or talking in "you people-isms." There's all manner of hypocrisy up in this thread. Stop it or take it outside! All of youz. And that isn't you people-ism, that's to all of youz in Christ. Knock it off!

Did you read what you wrote before posting? Because the exact same thing you have accused others of, you're doing it right now. "and that isn't you people-ism, that's to all of you in Christ" Well have you admitted to be a Christian or not? Are you saying that you're not? Because if your in Christ, you're speaking to yourself as well.

Christianity isn't about any of us. It's about Christ and having a relationship with him and he tells us point blank in the bible about how to go about that. He also says we got to deny ourselves and follow him.

See, Satan is up in here having a field day and we're just giving dude a free ride. I guess he's saying, "who needs south park when this is so much interesting"

Ugh...

 

[aribell]

The Church, it doctrines and traditions are Christ's means of converting us, giving us grace, and knowing true beliefs from false ones.

I don't know if we've hit a fundamental disagreement or a misunderstanding, but I do not believe that at all. The Church.is composed of those who are already converted only. It's doctrines and traditions are of no relevance to the unconverted soul. The only help for the unconverted is the message of repentance and faith in Christ. Until and unless a person crosses that divide spiritually, the Church is of no use to them...aside from someone sharing the Gospel with them.

ETA: To clarify, when I hear "convert" I associate it with justification, and I think rightly so. What I read in that quote sounded something like "Church doctrine and the sacraments are God's way of justifying us," meaning that we could be justified through adherence to traditions, proper doctrine, the sacraments, etc.

(please let me know if I've misread)

1. God shows us what true and pure religion would produce. But we must not confuse the fruit with the cause. An inner change (accepting Christ) is what causes us to bear good fruit. Not the church, doctrines, traditions etc...those are erected by God as necessary in helping cultivate our fruit.

Yes, this.

Christians have to keep preaching this point over and over because if you miss this, you miss the Gospel.

And regarding sacraments generally, like everything else, the outward sign is absolutely meaningless if that inward grace is not there. Simply doing the actions does not produce the grace. Looking to actions to produce grace is not the power of God manifest through faith.

 

[auparavant]

Did you read what you wrote before posting? Because the exact same thing you have accused others of, you're doing it right now. "and that isn't you people-ism, that's to all of you in Christ" Well have you admitted to be a Christian or not? Are you saying that you're not? Because if your in Christ, you're speaking to yourself as well.

Christianity isn't about any of us. It's about Christ and having a relationship with him and he tells us point blank in the bible about how to go about that. He also says we got to deny ourselves and follow him.

See, Satan is up in here having a field day and we're just giving dude a free ride. I guess he's saying, "who needs south park when this is so much interesting"

Ugh...

No ma'am, it's admonition. I read it, thought about it. People are fighting and name calling, accusing folks...but it's evident. I wish for them to stop fighting. I'm not giving him a field day...I'm arresting him. We can love each other and discuss the issues. If people would not say "you all" this/that because I, for one, am not doing anything derailing in this thread as I had a sincere question....and the charge lumped individuals in it. Let's be civil, please, either way the door swings because there is hypocrisy up in here and it's evident...and that is admonition.


Might I offer my question for reconsideration again to someone other than who I communicated with as I fully comprehend her stance and she offered scripture? I am asking if G-d offers salvation to all. Is it predestination to consider that He chooses/calls some and not others? Is there a deeper meaning there? Is there something any of us is missing in that? Doesn't G-d wish to save all humans or is He only saving His favorited ones? That's my issue and something I'd like to understand more completely. That is not thread derailment. I don't particularly appreciate the "you-people-ism" cuz I don't sit in corners. I sit at the table equally with everyone else. I know we are all getting defensive..but for the sake of those trying to get understanding on something...can that question be answered by several without the blanket statements? Sheesh!

 

[CoilyFields]

This is how I understand predestination... God has given us free will to choose him or reject him. But since he already knows the end and he already knows our hearts he knows who his chosen people are. So it's a destiny that is already known to him.

God gives everybody multiple opportunities to draw closer to/accept him. But only he knows how much pressure to exert before it has violated our free will. So those of us who accept him were drawn by his holy spirit. And he knows our final destination before we do.

It's probably much more complicated than that but that's how I see it.

 

[aribell]

**********************
Oops, meant to post above...

 

[Galadriel]

I don't know if we've hit a fundamental disagreement or a misunderstanding, but I do not believe that at all. The Church.is composed of those who are already converted only. It's doctrines and traditions are of no relevance to the unconverted soul. The only help for the unconverted is the message of repentance and faith in Christ. Until and unless a person crosses that divide spiritually, the Church is of no use to them...aside from someone sharing the Gospel with them.

ETA: To clarify, when I hear "convert" I associate it with justification, and I think rightly so. What I read in that quote sounded something like "Church doctrine and the sacraments are God's way of justifying us," meaning that we could be justified through adherence to traditions, proper doctrine, the sacraments, etc.

(please let me know if I've misread)

I meant conversion as in conversion of heart, repentance .

 

[Sharpened]

Yes it is, and so far you've not offered any evidence to back up your claim, and now you say "I'm not going into details."

I am not playing this game. Wasting words on those locked in dogma is pointless. Read the New Testament. There are plenty of books on the subject as well.

Church is not a misnomer.

We are the Church (the Ekklesia), the Temple of God made without human hands—not a set of beliefs or building. We need to be His Temple, not go to one.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit occurred at Pentecost in the book of Acts.

...and throughout the letters after it. Everyone knows this.

You say you are directed by the Holy Spirit in your beliefs, but so do people who claim that Jesus Christ isn't God, or that there is no Trinity, or no such thing as free will.

Evaluate me by my words, not what others say, thank you.

You claim your subjective interpretation of Scriptures is the Holy Spirit teaching you or guiding you.

All believers are suppose to have this.

John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth, for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak, and He will declare to you the things that are to come.

John 14:16-17 And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. You know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.

Why would God want someone outside of or lead someone away from His Church?

For the same reason He has done it throughout the Bible: apostasy. History repeats.

This does not prove your position. This only condemns hypocrisy, specifically the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and scribes who did things like fasting in public to gain sympathy or praise, and not because they were repentant; they judged harshly other Jews but then failed to live up to the very standard by which they judged (or even lived in opposite of it). This is not a condemnation of religion or tradition--this is a condemnation of hypocrisy.

You are intentionally ignoring the explanation Jesus gave:

Mark 7:10-13 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)—then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

The Pharisees were looking for the Messiah who would overthrow the Roman Empire's rule and establish an earthly kingdom from Jerusalem. Jesus told them they were mistaken, because He is the Messiah and the Kingdom of God had arrived and was among them.

I know this, but His description still applies today. The Kingdom is spiritual, therefore so should be our focus.

This contradicts Scripture. Matthew 16:17-19 says Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom, and the authority to permit or forbid moral and religious beliefs/practices.

Peter was mortal and flawed, as Paul had to point out once (Galatians 2:11-21). The Holy Spirit is eternal and works in all obedient to His will. Those in which the Spirit of the Most High dwells have that ability.

1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

I believe the Apostles were indwelt by the Holy Spirit and cooperated with the Holy Spirit's graces, but the Apostles (especially Peter) were given a specific task and authority in regards to the Church. They passed this authority and leadership to their Bishops (Episkopos) and Priests (Presbyters).

2 Timothy 2:19-21 But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.” Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.

The Apostles were following Christ and baptizing even during Christ's ministry. In fact, John the Baptists's disciples pointed this out (Gospel of John). They obviously didn't go out preaching Christ rose from the dead until He had actually died and rose from the dead.

I meant after Jesus left. He told them to wait for the Gift before preaching the Evangel. The Father is not pleased right now that His Holy Spirit is being relegated to second place.

I think we have division because of people saying the Holy Spirit is directly telling them to believe their own personal interpretations of Scripture.

Yes and no. Most times, the Holy Spirit was never consulted, which includes when changes are made. This is why it is imperative to seek Him continuously and to pray to not be deceived.

 

[Sharpened]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpened
Without the Holy Spirit’s power, the Evangel has no saving effect. The Holy Spirit is greater than the Body, for without Him, there would be no Body.

The Body is the Body of Christ.

That was unnecessary.

While the Holy Spirit dispenses graces to the Body of Christ, He does not take or replace the role of the Church, or of Apostolic authority.

So, you are saying the part of the Father connected to us is lesser than your Church. Who causes the separation of the man from the world? Who knows what the Father likes? Does flesh have the power to regenerate someone spiritually? From what Jesus taught, He gets the last word.

By saying Cephas (Peter) was the Cephas, and upon that Cephas Christ built His Church, I am merely quoting Christ's own words in the Gospel of Matthew.

Bottom line, either the Greek or the Aramaic are wrong, but Paul called Christ the Rock in both the Greek and Aramaic.

I never said Christ was not our cornerstone, I simply quoted Matthew 16:17-19 to demonstrate that:

1. Christ founded a Church, a visible institution on Earth
2. Peter the Apostle was given the Keys to the Church, and the authority to permit or forbid beliefs and practices (this is what "bind and loose" mean)
3. Christ said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, which means Christ promises His protection of the Church always

1. The Kingdom is spiritual; therefore His Ekklesia is the same, not a tangible institution. The leadership displayed in the NT was understated and humble.
2. All the apostles had that authority (Matthew 18:18), including Paul.
3. I know that already. Throughout the Bible we see Him pull out a remnant to protect His promise.

This contradicts Scripture. Nowhere does Christ states, implies, or gives the authority given to Peter to anyone else.

Jesus addressed this to all of the apostles (Matthew 18:18). You choose to ignore the passages I quoted from 1 Peter. God Himself still chooses who instruct His children, despite of man’s flaws.

Again, this contradicts Scripture. The Bride of Christ is the Church. If you are a member of the Church, you are part of the Bride of Christ. You don't have to "wait to become the Bride."

The symbolism of the Bride is to become a perfected one to be worth to join with Christ at the end.

Are you saying there is a "church" within the Church? Are you saying a person must go through some second type of initiation or step in order to be considered part of the Bride of Christ?

Sanctification by the guidance of the Holy Spirit individually and/or within a group. If the congregation does not do what He said and ignores His warnings, He will remove the Holy Spirit from among them (Revelation 2).

The Church is holy, because her Spouse (Christ) is Holy. The Holy Spirit dispenses graces and works through her to bring about the sanctification of her individual members, the most perfect and holy of course being the Church members in Heaven. The individual imperfections of Church members here on Earth does not mean the Bride of Christ is not holy and pure, but our sanctification is a process.

Christ is the Bridegroom; at the end of the age, He becomes the Spouse. The symbolism of the Bride points to the end of the age, when all in Christ will be united. This has nothing to do with salvation, so I am done with it.

Baptism of water = what John the Baptist did

Baptism of water and the Spirit = what the Church does

Again, I proved by Scripture they are two separate events.

Baptism of Desire

No such thing is in the Bible. By the inspiration of the Holy Spirit did the thief speak, therefore received Him, as the Apostles did.

Yet clearly you deny the meaning and purpose of a Bishop. If a Bishop is a shepherd, pastor, guardian, what is he guarding? He is guarding the flock and the teachings given him by the Apostles (Scripture + Apostolic Tradition).

Spiritual babies and those struggling do need them, but I have outgrown them. I never said they did not. What I am saying is that these places have become either spiritually corrupt (i.e. using a position to abuse people) or stagnating (i.e keeping people spiritually dependent instead of reaching maturity). People are getting tired of the statue quo.

Apostolic tradition is not in Scripture.

However if individual members feel the Holy Spirit is directly leading them, then this makes a Bishop (in their view) superfluous.

No, it created more bishops, evangelical, teachers, etc. so the Evangel is spread, leaving more time and resources to handle the new in Christ so they become as them. This is what they did in the NT.

We are to become mature in Christ and fulfill the purpose He created each of us for, not dependent on a system for the rest of our lives. We are to seek fellowship as we spread the Good News.

Priest is the English word for presbyter. I said nothing about OT Levitical priests. The Presbyters (whom we call priests in English) worked alongside the Bishops in the early Church. When Bishops had charge of entire areas or communities, the presbyter would minister to individual communities as a direct representative of the Bishop.

Presbyter comes from the Greek word presbyteroi (old man, elder). There were no priests among the early believers. Do some research; the Lord will guide you.

If you don't understand it, and if you're prejudiced against it, I can see why a person may come to the conclusion you have. While we do honor Mary as a great saint and the Mother of God, we do not believe she is divine or to be adored.

I do understand it; I am not ignorant of your religion. It is not in the Bible to do such a thing for anyone. All honor goes to Jesus and, while on Earth, He gave honor to the Father alone.

God is not against statues. He commands Moses to make a bronze serpent through which He worked a miracle of healing for the Israelites. Also, the Ark of the Covenant (by God's command) was adorned with statues of angels.

Hezekiah had that “hunk of metal” (which some say that was what Nehushtan meant) destroyed because people were worshiping it (2 Kings 18:4). The Temple was ruined during the Babylonian Captivity because of the Israelites’ worship of images in it. Also Moses was given specific instruction for the Tabernacle:

Hebrews 8:5 They (Levitical priests) serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."

Jesus made that all moot when He said for us to worship in spirit and in truth. The spirit is intangible.

I didn't say anyone in this forum did, but the article committed a theological error by saying "Mary was just the mother of Jesus' humanity/human nature."

Yes, she was an imperfect human, a vessel of honor (fit for use by God) as we all are called to be. One’s viewpoint does not degrade Yeshua in any way.

Apparently you do care about theological errors if you are taking the time to debate my opposing views.

Theology is the study of religion, what man thinks of God within a Greco-Roman construct (the modern man’s mindset). I care about the truth, not what men think.

Who are you to judge that a person saying the Sinner's Prayer with sincerity doesn't have true conversion and doesn't receive God's grace? While the Sinner's Prayer is not a Catholic prayer, I think it is a good prayer and many have used it to express to Christ what is in their hearts.

So, we should just error flourish? We are required to point out these things in light of Scripture. Faith is obedience to God’s will and His desires have to be sought after and done daily. That is the narrow path few will find.

it's almost as if you're creating a two-tier system of believers where a person is spiritually inferior or not saved unless they have experienced your (personal interpretation of) "baptism of the Holy Spirit."

No, it is an error that needs to be fixed. Scripture said they were two different things, not me. You choose not to see it.

I understand it perfectly. I just happen to disagree.

So? Those who needed to see it, have and I pray they will seek Him on the issue.