churches do not own Jesus and salvation!

That "personal relationship with him" requires participation in His Body on earth -- the church.

 

Is this another "requirement" for salvation?

BY grace are ye saved, through faith, and this not of yourselves.

:jesus:

 

churches do not own Jesus and salvation!

No one on this board would every say anything remotely like that. All on this board agree that Jesus saves, and him alone.

 

No kidding. But we "work out our salvation" in a variety of ways that bear fruit.

Are you suggesting one can be "saved" and never participate in any church?

 

FlyForFun,

You said...

No it doesnt. Not in the least. We are saved (justified forever in Gods sight) by embracing Jesus Christ by faith alone.

Born again people should find a place to gather and worship with a body of believers. It is Gods will that we all do that, if possible. But its not at all a requirement for salvation.

Absolutely. We are not saved by "Church". We are saved by the Lord Jesus Christ, and Him alone.

 

Did I say we were "saved" by the church?

No.

When we are saved, we bear fruit -- this is evidence of our salvation to ourselves and to others.

You're intentionally muddling "salvation" and "sanctification."

 

I see a lot of stupid threads on "theology" and stay out of them for the most part as a result. But this one rises above them all thus far.

1. The title fails to relate to the op
2. You accused churches of holding to trivial issues as a requirement for salvation but failed to provide any evidence or examples
3. You seem to excuse not going to church which is grevious

I would suggest you rethink your op and reword it in a coherent manner.

 

Hi Nodak: this thread goes to show just how much so many people like arguments.

Before this post, there were only 8 posts after your opening post -- and already, we have people
a) looking for things to criticize, and if necessary, making stuff up,
b) trying to start arguments.

I read your post, and I know what you were trying to say and what you were not trying to say. You posted something very gracious. I cannot believe anyone would insult you so rudely for it.

 

This is a debate forum. If you don't like that then stay in the fellowship forums. Otherwise your own words fulfill your own complaint.

 

. . . but they are owned by Jesus, and are the pillar and ground of the truth.

 

Exactly right.

 

Oh, I am aware that this is a debate forum. I have no problem with that.

I thought it was interesting far some people have gone to find something to argue about. As I said, within just 8 posts, a few posters were
a) looking for things to criticize, and if necessary, making stuff up,
b) trying to start arguments.
I thought it says a lot about a big problem we have in the church.

I was troubled that when there was nothing obvious to argue about, one of you insulted the poster for even posting the opening post. Never mind that she has said she is getting over an illness, and never mind that she said she is elderly. Never mind that we can ignore threads that do not interest us.

You and a few other posters have to have something to argue about. It looks like your attitude was `How dare she post something where an argument is not obvious,' and in retaliation, you insulted her:

I will give you something to argue with:

• 1 Timothy 5:1 "Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers,
  1Ti 5:2a older women as mothers," (ESV).

• 2 Timothy 2:24a "And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel! He must be kind to everyone" (ICB).

• 1 Timothy 6:4 warns against "an unhealthy craving for controversy" (ESV) or "a morbid interest" (NASB) in such.

She `dared' to post something here that did not `offer' you something definite to argue about -- `How dare she.' Next time someone posts a thread that does not interest you because nothing arguable easily presents itself, try ignoring it -- rather than insult an elderly lady getting over an illness, or insult anyone for that matter.

 

Don't read into my motives you don't know what your doing. It is a rare occasion that anyone knows how old someone is even if that were a valid argument here, Showing up here and falsely bashing churches based on absolutely nothing and presenting no information to coincide with the title is childish. Feigning indignation does not impress me. And if you do not want opposing views stay our of the debate area. Finally I insulted no one I addressed the inane info in the op.

 

Wnoever told you this is wrong. First of all, baptising someone doesn't save them. Second, most mainline Christian churches recognize "alien" baptim, that is, baptism performed by churches of another Cristian fellowship or denomination.

Never heard that anywhere from any churh. Anyone who espouses it is wrong.

Tithing/giving is scripturally required, but anyone who claims it's a requisite for salvation is wrong. I've never heard a church say it is.

That would be wrong. There have been namy debates about music styles, but never one about salvation based on one's music style.

Never heard that either.

Never heard that either.

Frankly, I question your sincerity. I've examined a lot of different churches, and never heard any of the claims you noted above. I suspect you've fabricared the OP for the debating's sake.

 

You did not post in the wrong forum.

Revmitchell was just disappointed that this thread did not have what he was looking for: something readily available to argue about.

If you had posted this in the Fellowship area, I think the subject would have been out of place. You owe no one an apology.

Further, what you posted was gracious and involved praise of the Lord. The Christian quality of graciousness is never out of place anywhere, and I dare say that there is nowhere on this board where praising the Lord is genuinely out of place.

This was a good place to put this thread. You are exactly right in what you said, too.