ARE ONLY SMART PEOPLE SAVED?

[Grailhunter]

Are only smart people saved?

That is a resounding NO!
Hang on to your hats! This is going to be an adventure in perceptions.
Some might think that you need to be knowledgeable to be saved?
Some might say that you have to understand the scriptures to be saved?
I could say that I have heard it all, but I am sure that I have not.

From the other end of this perception I have had people say to me that you cannot be spiritual if you are educated or knowledgeable of the scriptures ….How does that work?

Are Christian colleges anti-spiritual, so if you know the scriptures, the ancient languages, cultures, and history, you cannot understand the spiritual?

Most of this is about people that are not knowledgeable and are self conscience about their lack of understanding, trying to edify themselves….A lot of times unnecessarily.

I was a gifted child and spent my life in formal schooling of one sort or another researching Christianity and as a child I decided to make it my purpose to find the truth about Christianity. I believe God gave me my talents and skills and opportunities to find the truth….but my mom being Catholic and my dad being Southern Baptist and the ensuing debates might have been a factor. LOL

I don’t think that I was even a teenager before I realized that most had missed the point.

SALVATION IS NOT ABOUT HIGH EDUCATION, OR EVEN DEEP BIBLICAL STUDY OR UNDERSTANDING!!! IT IS NOT EVEN ABOUT BEING RIGHT!!! AND SURPRISINGLY ENOUGH IT IS NOT ABOUT THE BIBLE. YOU MAY FIND THIS SHOCKING?!

As it is the details of the scriptures are why the church fractured into thousands of pieces. Not that the scriptures are at fault but because, for various reasons, a lot of people could not agree on the meaning of them. And the insistence on being right caused strife and animosity within Christianity.

At this point we have become so use to people believing different things that the evil beliefs are tolerated. Can you imagine some one coming up to Peter or Paul and telling them that Christ was not a God or the Son of God and that Hell did not exist? What do you think they would say? Then you have the whole robot Christian thing!

So anyway, how much do you need to know to be saved or to be a “good Christian?” Do you need to read the Bible to be saved? Do you need to study the Bible to be saved? Do you need the Bible at all to be saved? The answer to these questions is absolutely not. And I can prove it!

The truth is, in the beginning the scriptures were not available and then went on to be withheld from Christians… For the Protestants the Bible became a great focus…you know the terms….Bible only, sola scriptura, fundamentalists. They are actually concepts that are misleading. But still after being feed so many false beliefs from the Catholic Church, Christians were hungry for God’s Word….the scriptures….a chance to determine the truth for themselves. Almost like a defense mechanism the Protestants tried to rely only on the Bible, and by doing so cut out most of Christian history.

You cannot blame them! Centuries of corruption and abuse and false beliefs generated by the Catholic Church! Ironically even though they were looking for the truth, the Protestants accepted some of the false beliefs of the Catholics like…. the one God formula for the Trinity and Original Sin and that females were not equal members in Christianity….these false beliefs went on to cause other false beliefs, false theological clichés that skewed the meaning of the scriptures, caused inaccurate perceptions, and wrongful applications of Christianity which went on to cause a lot of misery and suffering and even deaths.

So we have the Bible, and it is a good thing to read, a good thing to study, but still the truth is, it is not a requirement for salvation. And one should always keep in mind that you are reading an ancient text from a modern perspective and most have a head full of false beliefs that filter and skew the meaning of the scriptures as they read them. What good is the Bible if you are trying to teach it?

So as it was, the first bound book….the first bound Bibles are known as the 50 Bibles of Constantine, circa 350~ AD. Hand written in Latin and illustrated and decorated and the Catholic Church took them and chained most of them to the pulpit(s). Physically and figuratively. The Catholic Church did not want the public to have Bibles of their own and persecuted anyone that tried to translate them into the native languages and get them out to the public. The Catholic Church wanted people to believe what the Catholic Church told them to believe….

The primary false belief being that the Catholic Church was the only Christian authority on earth and it controlled salvation and anyone that preach something different than what the Catholic Church preached were heretics. Of course that means that the Catholic Church believed that all Protestants were heretics! LOL

So at this point Christians are not being told the truth, so in general there are no knowledgeable Christians because the truth is not available to them. I am saying this as a whole….Regional churches had copies of some of the New Testament texts and may have read them to there congregations…but if they preached something different than the Catholic Church, they were labeled heretics and persecuted. But still people were being saved, even if they had never seen a Bible.

So now I am going back to the biblical era…..Christ and the Apostles preached the good news…the Gospels ….how to be saved, people were being baptized and being saved, but they were not handing out Bibles or texts, people are believing and learning how to be saved by word of mouth.

Of course the New Testament had not been written yet, so no one is studying the New Testament scriptures…. But thousands are being saved without ever seeing New Testament writings. They are being told to believe in Christ as Lord and Savior and to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20). And this was enough to save them, tens of thousands of them. Were they knowledgeable Christians by our modern standards? No. Were the scriptures available for them to read and study at home? No.

As time went on some of the Apostles wrote the Gospels and letters and epistles to the churches and they could read them to their congregations, but they were not handing out texts either. But some were writing down what they heard, maybe favorite scriptures or something they heard….I saw a small pamphlet in a museum that was a few small pages bound by a single metal ring. Just rough wording, no chapters or verse numbers….that does not occur until much later. But people were being saved, by tens of thousands.

And moving forward, this was the way it was….Not all churches had the same texts and they were preaching from them and reading them to their congregations. Some of these texts did not make it into the Canon. Knowledgeable Christian and literate Christians being few and far in between….but still Christianity went on for centuries and for centuries people were being saved….without Bibles.

So the bottom line from all this is that being saved is one thing and it only takes that basic truth. That truth is believing in Christ as Lord and Savior and being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As the umpire would say SAFE! Also the old Apostle’s Creed is a good guideline.

From there what else is to know about Christ and the Apostles and Christianity … well that is where the Bible comes in ….but even with that people are taught false beliefs that skew the meaning of the scriptures but usually they are still saved ….they may get the details wrong….but the truth they did receive saves them. But if you seek Christian knowledge and understanding, that is all up to you….But you were saved from the start. So you do not have to be smart, or educated, or knowledgeable to be saved or a good Christian. Love God and each other and be good and do good…..the Johnny Appleseed of Truth.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Are only smart people saved?

I'll have to say the obvious, that stupid people reject Salvation, and that smart people accept it! But yes, IQ is not the basis of Salvation. The Creeds were not written to provide Salvation, but to prevent false Gospels from confusing Salvation.

As it is the details of the scriptures are why the church fractured into thousands of pieces. Not that the scriptures are at fault but because, for various reasons, a lot of people could not agree on the meaning of them. And the insistence on being right caused strife and animosity within Christianity.

One cause of division the Bible says is legitimate, to separate those who believe in truth from those who wish to confuse it and reject it. Another cause of division is simply the carnal nature we were all born with. There is a tendency towards things like pride, losing patience, unhealthy competition, etc.

But this is not the exclusive reason for many denominations. Those are not also a negative "fragmentation." Once imperial authority was viewed as corrupt, in both State and Church, the Scriptures were used to give authority toa more localized or representative government. Then religion adapted to the politics of States, as opposed to the Empire. Denominationalism roughly follows this reform from imperial authority to state authority, based on biblical principles of justice.

Of course, there are good and bad denominations. Some follow a more conservative, reform-minded course, while others abandon Scriptural values along the way.

At this point we have become so use to people believing different things that the evil beliefs are tolerated. Can you imagine some one coming up to Peter or Paul and telling them that Christ was not a God or the Son of God and that Hell did not exist? What do you think they would say? Then you have the whole robot Christian thing!

It is essential to believe Jesus was Divine, or there would be no model to follow for our spiritual values. The nature we are to adapt to is based on a divine Christ, who was sinless and the source of our spirituality if we choose him and abide in him. "Hell" need not be defined as anything more than eternal separation from the Kingdom of God. This is what we *don't want* when we accept Salvation.

The truth is, in the beginning the scriptures were not available and then went on to be withheld from Christians… For the Protestants the Bible became a great focus…you know the terms….Bible only, sola scriptura, fundamentalists. They are actually concepts that are misleading. But still after being feed so many false beliefs from the Catholic Church, Christians were hungry for God’s Word….the scriptures….a chance to determine the truth for themselves. Almost like a defense mechanism the Protestants tried to rely only on the Bible, and by doing so cut out most of Christian history.

Yes, throughout history, the Bible has been handled largely by scholars and priests who have endeavored to communicate its values to the people. Making the Bible more available to the laity was the necessary process in encouraging widespread reform. It was not so much a tool of Salvation as a tool to keep the truths of Salvation from being obscured by repressive Christian rulers, both secular and religious.

You cannot blame them! Centuries of corruption and abuse and false beliefs generated by the Catholic Church! Ironically even though they were looking for the truth the Protestants accepted some of the false beliefs of the Catholics like…. the one God formula for the Trinity and Original Sin and that females were not equal members in Christianity….these false beliefs went on to cause other false beliefs, false theological clichés that skewed the meaning of the scriptures, caused inaccurate perceptions, and wrongful applications of Christianity which went on to cause a lot of misery and suffering and even deaths.

Now I'm really confused! You're calling the Trinitarian formula and belief in Original Sin "false Catholic beliefs?" You don't believe in the historic Christian creeds?

 

[Enoch111]

Ironically even though they were looking for the truth the Protestants accepted some of the false beliefs of the Catholics like…. the one God formula for the Trinity and Original Sin and that females were not equal members in Christianity…

Those are not simply teachings of the Catholic Church but Bible doctrines.
1. The Bible doctrine is that there is ONE God eternally existent as three Persons -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (1 John 5:7 KJV).
2. "Original sin" means that because of Adam sin and death came upon all men (Rom 5:12). This is another Bible doctrine.
3. The roles of men and women in the home and in the church are in fact different. That does not mean that all are not equal in Christ. This is all clearly spelled out in the Bible.

 

[Grailhunter]

I'll have to say the obvious, that stupid people reject Salvation, and that smart people accept it! But yes, IQ is not the basis of Salvation. The Creeds were not written to provide Salvation, but to prevent false Gospels from confusing Salvation.

One cause of division the Bible says is legitimate, to separate those who believe in truth from those who wish to confuse it and reject it. Another cause of division is simply the carnal nature we were all born with. There is a tendency towards things like pride, losing patience, unhealthy competition, etc.

But this is not the exclusive reason for many denominations. Those are not also a negative "fragmentation." Once imperial authority was viewed as corrupt, in both State and Church, the Scriptures were used to give authority toa more localized or representative government. Then religion adapted to the politics of States, as opposed to the Empire. Denominationalism roughly follows this reform from imperial authority to state authority, based on biblical principles of justice.

Of course, there are good and bad denominations. Some follow a more conservative, reform-minded course, while others abandon Scriptural values along the way.

It is essential to believe Jesus was Divine, or there would be no model to follow for our spiritual values. The nature we are to adapt to is based on a divine Christ, who was sinless and the source of our spirituality if we choose him and abide in him. "Hell" need not be defined as anything more than eternal separation from the Kingdom of God. This is what we *don't want* when we accept Salvation.

Yes, throughout history, the Bible has been handled largely by scholars and priests who have endeavored to communicate its values to the people. Making the Bible more available to the laity was the necessary process in encouraging widespread reform. It was not so much a tool of Salvation as a tool to keep the truths of Salvation from being obscured by repressive Christian rulers, both secular and religious.

Now I'm really confused! You're calling the Trinitarian formula and belief in Original Sin "false Catholic beliefs?" You don't believe in the historic Christian creeds?

Beliefs, Truths, Facts.
Beliefs are represented in thousands of denominations.
If your interested in Christian study....you are looking for as many facts as you can nail down.
The older creeds are good.....

Old Roman Creed​

I believe in God the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord,
Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,
on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father,
whence He will come to judge the living and the dead,
and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh
(the life everlasting).

Origin and Significance in the Churches​

The Old Roman Creed (Romanum) is one of the first known statements of faith of Christianity, based on which later the Apostles' Creed developed. It was originally written in the Greek language, and was translated into Latin by Rufinus of Aquileia. Whether the Romanum came into existence between the years 125 and 135 is contended.

Anytime you run into theological words or phrases that are not in the scriptures it is a red flag. It just like advertising, catchy words or phrases that are designed to remember and catch on....Words and phrases like Trinity, Original Sin, Virgin Mary, and fornication are not in the scriptures. So you have to look into them to see if they correct.

The Trinity exist, the question is about the oneness vs the unity....tri-une as opposed to tri-one.
I have over a hundred scriptural examples of why the one God formula is false.
Boils down to different presence and different minds, and different positions.
Give and receives.
God the Father loves His Son....God the Son loves His Father.
Christ ascended to the Father.
Most of it is pretty simple.
Does the scripture say, God so loved the word that He gave Himself.....
How about....and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is beloved Me, in whom I am well-pleased.”
Christ says that the Father is greater than I....
Were Father, Son, and Holy Spirit crucified?
Christ says the Father knew the time of the end.....but He did not.
Christ says He did not have the authority to promise positions in Heaven.
God describes things so we can relate....father and Son are two positions.
and a hundred other reasons. The unity should be the discussion....not the singularity.

The doctrine of the Original Sin was formulated by a mad man! That hated sex and women because he could not control himself. So he thought it was inherit to all humans....Contagious sin though dirty sex with nasty women
You have to study Augustine to understand that.

 

[Grailhunter]

Those are not simply teachings of the Catholic Church but Bible doctrines.
1. The Bible doctrine is that there is ONE God eternally existent as three Persons -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (1 John 5:7 KJV).
2. "Original sin" means that because of Adam sin and death came upon all men (Rom 5:12). This is another Bible doctrine.
3. The roles of men and women in the home and in the church are in fact different. That does not mean that all are not equal in Christ. This is all clearly spelled out in the Bible.

I disagree.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Beliefs, Truths, Facts.
Beliefs are represented in thousands of denominations.
If your interested in Christian study....you are looking for as many facts as you can nail down.
The older creeds are good.....

I don't see "thousands" of denominations. But quite frankly, the more church denominations, the better. The creeds unite the best of them. Those who don't agree with the creeds hold to liberal theology, and don't understand Salvation.

Anytime you run into theological words or phrases that are not in the scriptures it is a red flag.

When Greek Scriptures are translated into Latin or into other languages, what this means is that theology is being communicated into other cultures. That is *not* a red flag. That is called obedience to the Great Commission.

Obviously, I'm not just referring to translation work. When something gets communicated from the Hebrew culture under the Mosaic Law into Roman society replete with Greek philosophy and all kinds of pagan beliefs, there has to be explanation along with the translation. And that involves theological language, which again is *not* a red flag. It is in fact necessary!

It just like advertising, catchy words or phrases that are designed to remember and catch on....Words and phrases like Trinity, Original Sin, Virgin Mary, and fornication are not in the scriptures. So you have to look into them to see if they correct.

The original concepts within the Hebrew culture may not have been as controversial with a religion accepting such things as theophanies. But within Greek philosophy there was a wall between the impassable God and our material world. So Christology had to explain how God could be both Father and Son, as well as the omnipresent Spirit. And once Deity and Humanity are distinguished, the Trinity has to come into play, or the revelation of God as Man is more like a phantom than reality.

The Trinity exist, the question is about the oneness vs the unity....tri-une as opposed to tri-one.
I have over a hundred scriptural examples of why the one God formula is false.

2000 years of Christian history says you're into heresy for saying that!

Boils down to different presence and different minds, and different positions.
Give and receives.
God the Father loves His Son....God the Son loves His Father.
Christ ascended to the Father.
Most of it is pretty simple.
Does the scripture say, God so loved the word that He gave Himself.....

You are confusing identities of Father, Son, and Spirit, which is, in fact, biblical. God the Father has an identity that is transcendent and a revelation of His Being outside of creation. The Son has an identity as God, but one that is specifically revealed in human form. As such he has a transcendent identity united with a specific finite human identity, as well.

The doctrine of the Original Sin was formulated by a mad man! That hated sex and women because he could not control himself. So he thought it was inherit to all humans....Contagious sin though dirty sex with nasty women
You have to study Augustine to understand that.

Augustine formulated what was already understood in Christianity based on "in sin I was conceived." Paul wrote, "I do what I don't want to do. It is sin within me that is doing it."

Paul wrote that hundreds of years before Augustine tried to formulate it into a doctrine. Augustine was not a "madman." He was one of the most brilliant and influential Christians in history, drawn upon by both Catholics and Protestants for various reason.

 

[Grailhunter]

I don't see "thousands" of denominations. But quite frankly, the more church denominations, the better. The creeds unite the best of them. Those who don't agree with the creeds hold to liberal theology, and don't understand Salvation.

This one is easy....
I have only counted 30,000 named Protestant denominations worldwide but if you look into it some say over 50,000. In most countries denominations have to be registered for different reasons...so those are the ones that count. Now are there duplicates? ....sure.

When Greek Scriptures are translated into Latin or into other languages, what this means is that theology is being communicated into other cultures. That is *not* a red flag. That is called obedience to the Great Commission.

No..... Translations are not a red flag.

v

Obviously, I'm not just referring to translation work. When something gets communicated from the Hebrew culture under the Mosaic Law into Roman society replete with Greek philosophy and all kinds of pagan beliefs, there has to be explanation along with the translation. And that involves theological language, which again is *not* a red flag. It is in fact necessary!

What I am talking about has nothing to do with this.

The original concepts within the Hebrew culture may not have been as controversial with a religion accepting such things as theophanies. But within Greek philosophy there was a wall between the impassable God and our material world. So Christology had to explain how God could be both Father and Son, as well as the omnipresent Spirit. And once Deity and Humanity are distinguished, the Trinity has to come into play, or the revelation of God as Man is more like a phantom than reality.

Again there is no reason to try to explain why God is both Father and Son since the storyline of the Gospels describes two Gods, Father and Son working together to save humanity. The one God with three aspects thing is very common in Pagan mythology.

2000 years of Christian history says you're into heresy for saying that!

No, the one God formula comes out of the Catholic Ecumenical Councils....its function was to settle arguments that could not be settled any other way....and it came with a death threat if anyone spoke against it.

You are confusing identities of Father, Son, and Spirit, which is, in fact, biblical. God the Father has an identity that is transcendent and a revelation of His Being outside of creation. The Son has an identity as God, but one that is specifically revealed in human form. As such he has a transcendent identity united with a specific finite human identity, as well.

Do you think the word transcendent appears in the scriptures? This is part of promoting false beliefs. Terms that are not in the scriptures.
It goes a long with the idea that if it makes no sense........it is of God....because people don't think you can understand God....if you are going to read such klondike ideas into the scriptures, at least make them more interesting.

Augustine formulated what was already understood in Christianity based on "in sin I was conceived."

This is psalms 51:5 referring to his mother not humanity. Again Augustine was nuts....Him and John Calvin believed that babies go to Hell. You can only expect nutty theologies from those two.

Lets put it in motion....a baby dies, and because it has sin on its soul it goes to Hell to be fried for eternity. Sounds like a heck of a plan!

So Randy here is a cup of sin, do you want that with crushed ice? Sin is an action....wrong doing.....transgression of God. Babies have no action, so no sin.
For people that believe that sex and women are dirty, nasty, and sinful, these guys had to come up with a theology for that and a catchy phrase.
Humanity has a sin nature, and that we may have gotten from Adam and Eve....so at birth we are innocent with no sin, but odds are good we will sin, but not born with it. In theological circles this is a fun debate to watch.....based on the concept that sin is a nature....and God made Adam and Eve with a sin nature. And I am sure this makes sense to you?

Adam and Eve sinned.....because they were being tempted by an old crafty creature.....They sinned because they had the free-will to do so.
We sin but we cannot blame it on Adam and Eve and babies do not go to Hell.

 

[dev553344]

Are only smart people saved?

That is a resounding NO!
Hang on to your hats! This is going to be an adventure in perceptions.
Some might think that you need to be knowledgeable to be saved?
Some might say that you have to understand the scriptures to be saved?
I could say that I have heard it all, but I am sure that I have not.

From the other end of this perception I have had people say to me that you cannot be spiritual if you are educated or knowledgeable of the scriptures ….How does that work?

Are Christian colleges anti-spiritual, so if you know the scriptures, the ancient languages, cultures, and history, you cannot understand the spiritual?

Most of this is about people that are not knowledgeable and are self conscience about their lack of understanding, trying to edify themselves….A lot of times unnecessarily.

I was a gifted child and spent my life in formal schooling of one sort or another researching Christianity and as a child I decided to make it my purpose to find the truth about Christianity. I believe God gave me my talents and skills and opportunities to find the truth….but my mom being Catholic and my dad being Southern Baptist and the ensuing debates might have been a factor. LOL

I don’t think that I was even a teenager before I realized that most had missed the point.

SALVATION IS NOT ABOUT HIGH EDUCATION, OR EVEN DEEP BIBLICAL STUDY OR UNDERSTANDING!!! IT IS NOT EVEN ABOUT BEING RIGHT!!! AND SURPRISINGLY ENOUGH IT IS NOT ABOUT THE BIBLE. YOU MAY FIND THIS SHOCKING?!

As it is the details of the scriptures are why the church fractured into thousands of pieces. Not that the scriptures are at fault but because, for various reasons, a lot of people could not agree on the meaning of them. And the insistence on being right caused strife and animosity within Christianity.

At this point we have become so use to people believing different things that the evil beliefs are tolerated. Can you imagine some one coming up to Peter or Paul and telling them that Christ was not a God or the Son of God and that Hell did not exist? What do you think they would say? Then you have the whole robot Christian thing!

So anyway, how much do you need to know to be saved or to be a “good Christian?” Do you need to read the Bible to be saved? Do you need to study the Bible to be saved? Do you need the Bible at all to be saved? The answer to these questions is absolutely not. And I can prove it!

The truth is, in the beginning the scriptures were not available and then went on to be withheld from Christians… For the Protestants the Bible became a great focus…you know the terms….Bible only, sola scriptura, fundamentalists. They are actually concepts that are misleading. But still after being feed so many false beliefs from the Catholic Church, Christians were hungry for God’s Word….the scriptures….a chance to determine the truth for themselves. Almost like a defense mechanism the Protestants tried to rely only on the Bible, and by doing so cut out most of Christian history.

You cannot blame them! Centuries of corruption and abuse and false beliefs generated by the Catholic Church! Ironically even though they were looking for the truth the Protestants accepted some of the false beliefs of the Catholics like…. the one God formula for the Trinity and Original Sin and that females were not equal members in Christianity….these false beliefs went on to cause other false beliefs, false theological clichés that skewed the meaning of the scriptures, caused inaccurate perceptions, and wrongful applications of Christianity which went on to cause a lot of misery and suffering and even deaths.

So we have the Bible, and it is a good thing to read, a good thing to study, but still the truth is, it is not a requirement for salvation. And one should always keep in mind that you are reading an ancient text from a modern perspective and most have a head full of false beliefs that filter and skew the meaning of the scriptures as they read them. What good is the Bible if you are trying to teach it?

So as it was, the first bound book….the first bound Bibles are known as the 50 Bibles of Constantine, circa 350~ AD. Hand written in Latin and illustrated and decorated and the Catholic Church took them and chained most of them to the pulpit(s). Physically and figuratively. The Catholic Church did not want the public to have Bibles of their own and persecuted anyone that tried to translate them into native languages and get them out to the public. The Catholic Church wanted people to believe what the Catholic Church told them to believe….

The primary false belief being that the Catholic Church was the only Christian authority on earth and it controlled salvation and anyone that preach something different than what the Catholic Church preached were heretics. Of course that means that the Catholic Church believed that all Protestants were heretics! LOL

So at this point Christians are not being told the truth, so in general there are no knowledgeable Christians because the truth is not available to them. I am saying this as a whole….Regional churches had copies of some of the New Testament texts and may have read them to there congregations…but if they preached something different than the Catholic Church, they were labeled heretics and persecuted. But still people were being saved, even if they had never seen a Bible.

So now I am going back to the biblical era…..Christ and the Apostles preached the good news…the Gospels….how to be saved, people were being baptized and being saved, but they were not handing out Bibles or texts, people are believing and learning how to be saved by word of mouth.

Of course the New Testament had not been written yet, so no one is studying the New Testament scriptures….But thousands are being saved without ever seeing New Testament writings. They are being told to believe in Christ as Lord and Savior and to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20). And this was enough to save them, tens of thousands of them. Were they knowledgeable Christians by our modern standards? No. Were the scriptures available for them to read and study at home? No.

As time went on some of the Apostles wrote letters and epistles to the churches and they could read them to their congregations, but they were not handing out texts either. But some were writing down what they heard, maybe favorite scriptures or something they heard….I saw a small pamphlet in a museum that was a few small pages bound by a single metal ring. Just rough wording, no chapters or verse numbers….that does not occur until much later. But people were being saved, by tens of thousands.

And moving forward, this was the way it was….Not all churches had the same texts and they were preaching from them and reading them to their congregations. Some of these texts did not make it into the Canon. Knowledgeable Christian and literate Christians being few and far in between….but still Christianity went on for centuries and for centuries people were being saved….without Bibles.

So the bottom line from all this is that being saved is one thing and it only takes that basic truth. That truth is believing in Christ as Lord and Savior and being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As the umpire would say SAFE! Also the old Apostle’s Creed is a good guideline.

From there what else is to know about Christ and the Apostles and Christianity … well that is where the Bible comes in….but even with that people are taught false beliefs that skew the meaning of the scriptures but usually they are still saved….they may get the details wrong….but the truth they did receive saves them. But if you seek Christian knowledge and understanding, that is all up to you….But you were saved from the start. So you do not have to be smart, or educated, or knowledgeable to be saved or a good Christian. Love God and each other and be good and do good…..the Johnny Appleseed of Truth.

God judges people according to their abilities. People who aren't smart are probably less firmly judged.

 

[Grailhunter]

God judges people according to their abilities. People who aren't smart are probably less firmly judged.

Smart is an ability....
I am not saying that Christians are not smart.
The point is that you do not have to be scholar to be saved.

 

[dev553344]

Smart is an ability....
I am not saying that Christians are not smart.
The point is that you do not have to be scholar to be saved.

Well people that can't understand are judged less harshly for sure. God is merciful and loving and is kind to the less fortunate.

 

[Patrick1966]

I know a guy named Burt who has an IQ that is barely high enough to not be classified as having mental retardation. He's a nice guy. Always polite. Always holding doors for people. Always saying good morning, afternoon, etc., to everyone with a smile on his face. Unfortunately, his father is an atheist and so Burt has been taught, and believes, that God doesn't exist. Burt just passed away at the age of 20.

Sadly, Jesus will torture him day and night, without ceasing for even a second, forever! And Burt deserves it because he had his chance but he didn't figure it out in time. Unless one accepts Jesus while still living, Jesus automatically sends them to his eternal torture chamber.

Poor Burt but, those are the breaks.

 

[dev553344]

I know a guy named Burt who has an IQ that is barely high enough to not be classified as having mental retardation. He's a nice guy. Always polite. Always holding doors for people. Always saying good morning, afternoon, etc., to everyone with a smile on his face. Unfortunately, his father is an atheist and so Burt has been taught, and believes, that God doesn't exist. Burt just passed away at the age of 20.

Sadly, Jesus will torture him day and night, without ceasing for even a second, forever! And Burt deserves it because he had his chance but he didn't figure it out in time. Unless one accepts Jesus while still living, Jesus automatically sends them to his eternal torture chamber.

Poor Burt but, those are the breaks.

Jesus did go to spirit prison to preach to them.

 

[Randy Kluth]

This one is easy....
I have only counted 30,000 named Protestant denominations worldwide but if you look into it some say over 50,000. In most countries denominations have to be registered for different reasons...so those are the ones that count. Now are there duplicates? ....sure.

You referred to "denominations," which usually refer to communions designated by a particular historical following and theology. For example, some of the major denominations would be Catholicism, the Orthodox Church, Lutheranism, the Reform Movement, Anglicanism etc. At different times in history, a major group might be renamed because of the advance of the group into different places or because it became aligned with a reform movement.

For example, there is the Russian Orthodox Church, as opposed to the Greek Orthodox Church. But this is just the same denomination advancing from a place of origin into a frontier region and into a new political state.

When Anabaptism advanced in history out of a Protestant concern to separate from a state church they became named as Baptist churches. When Anglicanism became more tolerant Methodism became a distinct denomination among English Christians. In America Anglicanism was renamed Episcopalian. And as Methodism was confronted by the need for greater reform, "Holiness" and later "Pentecostal" churches appeared to emphasize these new concerns.

If you wish to point out differences in denominations that matter, you might group denominations by opposing theological systems. Sometimes, however, these theological differences are just differences of emphasis on peripheral matters, as opposed to major creedal differences.

For example, within the Protestant denomination there are Lutherans, Reform, and perhaps Anglican and Puritan. As Lutheranism advanced into a reform movement, Pietism emerged. As Reform advanced into Scotland, Presbyterianism emerged. As Anglicanism prompted reform within its communion, Puritanism emerged, as well as Congregationalism.

And then, differences over how the Holy Spirit fit into the Trinity, over how to serve the Communion, and how the Communion is to be explained, and differences over freedom of the will and predestination, and differences over how many "works of grace" were some of the more minor differences separating communions. They did not, largely, figure on matters of doctrinal orthodoxy with respect to the Creeds, except perhaps figuring how the Holy Spirit fits into the Trinity.

Of course, political or structural differences within Christianity figured prominently, including the matter of the authority of the Pope. But this is the nature of progress within the context of political reform. Christianity has to move into and operate within new political systems.

Translations are not a red flag.

But that was your implication, because translation of the biblical ideas from one language to another created problems over such things as the union of the divine "substance," and how to define the "persons" of the Father, Son, and Spirit. As Christianity penetrated into new areas with different languages and different understandings of religious words, explanations had to result. That is part of the work of translating, rendering words with the right meaning in a new language.

Again there is no reason to try to explain why God is both Father and Son since the storyline of the Gospels describes two Gods, Father and Son working together to save humanity. The one God with three aspects thing is very common in Pagan mythology.

Obviously there was a reason to explain Father and Son because it was done. It was not strictly a matter of evangelism, or trying to get a particular person saved. As I said, it was often aimed at trying to avoid things that would take someone away from a proper understanding of what Salvation is.

No, the one God formula comes out of the Catholic Ecumenical Councils....its function was to settle arguments that could not be settled any other way....and it came with a death threat if anyone spoke against it.

There has always been a death threat in any political system because sedition is a serious threat to peace within a political state. If the state is religious, there can be religious tolerance only up to a certain point where order completely breaks down.

Justice is a matter of determining whether incarceration or death is justified. Injustice takes place wherever there are flawed people, whether religious or not. And all people are flawed, I'm sure.

The fact the issue is religious does not hide the fact they are sometimes acts of sedition and revolt. Religious differences are not the exclusive cause of war! The problem is with people, who may fight over any number of issues, including some of the most seemingly "innocent" ones.

Do you think the word transcendent appears in the scriptures? This is part of promoting false beliefs. Terms that are not in the scriptures.

When God said, in the OT, that He was the exclusive Creator and not to be associated with His own creation, then translating that concept into the realm of philosophy, which many non-theists speak, require use of the word "transcendent." Greek philosophy was a major thought form when Christianity initially began to advance into Roman territory. Transcendence, therefore, was a very important matter, as it has been many centuries later in the modern philosophical movements.

This is psalms 51:5 referring to his mother not humanity. Again Augustine was nuts....Him and John Calvin believed that babies go to Hell. You can only expect nutty theology from those two.

Taking cheap shots at great minds doesn't count for much. Picking fights over lesser theological matters is what caused some of the more concerning divisions in Christian history. These were differences over *attitude.* One can disagree agreeably, unless a fight is the object, unless one wishes to diminish the importance of a great figure in order to make himself feel more important.

Lets put it in motion....a baby dies, and because it has sin on its soul it goes to Hell to be fried for eternity. Sounds like a heck of a plan!

Put in your terms yes. But Calvin was dealing with Predestination, and not preeminently about how "fried" a baby gets in the afterlife. The point is, does God know in advance who will be with Him and who will not be with Him? And what is the basis of this predetermination? This would be important in deciding who to approach with the offer of Salvation!

Fighting over what the actual experience of "Hell" is presents a diversion, though it's a legitimate question. Hell itself is burned up in the Lake of Fire. And the Lake of Fire may be saying that the door is eternally shut on entry into the Kingdom of Heaven. It may be only a fire of eternal separation from the New Earth rather than Dante's "torture chamber." That is, the Lake of Fire may not be a form of torture, but rather, a symbol of eternal separation from God's earth. Again, determining what "Hell" is presents questions less relevant to Calvin's concerns.

So Randy here is a cup of sin, do you want that with crushed ice? Sin is an action....wrong doing.....transgression of God. Babies have no action, so no sin.

Sin is definitely an action, but it is also the state in which we were born, with a sick spirituality. It is a kind of spiritual disease. Modern Philosophy in the West has had a problem fixing on "spiritual" realities. For them, words no longer convey "spiritual" ideas.

For people that believe that sex and women are dirty, nasty, and sinful, these guys had to come up with a theology for that and a catchy phrase.
Humanity has a sin nature and that we may have gotten from Adam and Eve....

It is only too obvious that Man has been born with a Sin Nature. I see it in the way I talk, in the way you talk, in the way everybody talks and acts. There is a war between cooperation with God's word and indulgence in our own carnal interests every day, every hour of the day. That is obvious.

Christianity posits that we can have a New Nature, despite this conflict. The New Nature enables us to "be good," and not just do some good things.

By nature we can regularly not just choose to do good but also want to do good. When we give our own nature up to God's nature, we are free to *be good.*

Those who refuse to operate in a new nature only want to do good when it is convenient, and otherwise maintain independent judgment from God's controlling "love." They do not opt for a New Nature, which is what Salvation is. Salvation is embracing Christ as our life, as opposed to doing our own thing.

Adam and Eve sinned.....because they were being tempted by an old smart creature.....They sinned because they had the free-will to do so.
We sin but we cannot blame it on Adam and Eve and babies do not go to Hell.

You need to think more deeply through these things. Perhaps you're young and need more time to consider them? There's a lot more beneath an iceberg than what you see above the surface.

 

[Grailhunter]

And then, differences over how the Holy Spirit fit into the Trinity, over how to serve the Communion, and how the Communion is to be explained, and differences over freedom of the will and predestination, and differences over how many "works of grace" were some of the more minor differences separating communions. They did not, largely, figure on matters of doctrinal orthodoxy with respect to the Creeds, except perhaps figuring how the Holy Spirit fits into the Trinity.

Of course, political or structural differences within Christianity figured prominently, including the matter of the authority of the Pope. But this is the nature of progress within the context of political reform. No..... Christianity has to move into and operate within new political systems.

How many denominations of Protestants are there?
For example, the Center for Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which is evangelical Protestant , estimates that there are currently 47,000 denominations .

There are books on this that will tell you the history of denominations. How they started up, why they broke from another denominations. And there can be several reasons.... For example you have the General Baptist and the Free-will Baptists and then you have Baptist churches that the name does not reflect what is going on in the Church because they have been infiltrated by Calvinists and may include some separatists. Some of the differences maybe in style of service, with music or without music, and worship, and how they apply Christianity, some are mission oriented and like I said there are duplicates.

And sometimes the churches split because of personal conflicts with the administration or congregations.....it a real world thing .....humans disagreeing. Belief control within a denomination has always been a pipe dream. Preachers really never know what is going on in the pews.

And then you have non-denominal churches which add hundreds of thousands to the numbers and no way of defining what they believe. You will have to do an in-depth research yourself, if you want....here is a really short list for a starting point.

List of Christian denominations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Grailhunter]

But that was your implication, because translation of the biblical ideas from one language to another created problems over such things as the union of the divine "substance," and how to define the "persons" of the Father, Son, and Spirit. As Christianity penetrated into new areas with different languages and different understandings of religious words, explanations had to result. That is part of the work of translating, rendering words with the right meaning in a new language.

Not at all....not at all. Language translations are just that, not changing the theology or adding theological words that are not in the scriptures by name or definitions. Then you have theological clichés that preset the minds so that it skews the meaning for reader as they read the scriptures.

 

[Grailhunter]

Obviously there was a reason to explain Father and Son because it was done. It was not strictly a matter of evangelism, or trying to get a particular person saved. As I said, it was often aimed at trying to avoid things that would take someone away from a proper understanding of what Salvation is.

I already gave you the reason.....again the word trinity is not in the scriptures. And the scriptures define what was going on in the Gospels, you do not need a non-biblical cliché to redefine the scriptures.
The Trinity exist, the question is about the oneness vs the unity....tri-une as opposed to tri-one.
I have over a hundred scriptural examples of why the one God formula is false.
Boils down to different presence and different minds, and different positions.
Give and receives.
God the Father loves His Son....God the Son loves His Father.....it does not talk about God loving Himself.
Christ ascended to the Father.
Most of it is pretty simple.
Does the scripture say, God so loved the word that He gave Himself.....
How about....and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is beloved Me, in whom I am well-pleased.”
Christ says that the Father is greater than I....
Were Father, Son, and Holy Spirit crucified?
Christ says the Father knew the time of the end.....but He did not.
Christ says He did not have the authority to promise positions in Heaven.
God describes things so we can relate....father and Son are two positions.
and a hundred other reasons. The unity should be the discussion....not the singularity.

 

[Grailhunter]

There has always been a death threat in any political system because sedition is a serious threat to peace within a political state. If the state is religious, there can be religious tolerance only up to a certain point where order completely breaks down.

Justice is a matter of determining whether incarceration or death is justified. Injustice takes place wherever there are flawed people, whether religious or not. And all people are flawed, I'm sure.

The fact the issue is religious does not hide the fact they are sometimes acts of sedition and revolt. Religious differences are not the exclusive cause of war! The problem is with people, who may fight over any number of issues, including some of the most seemingly "innocent" ones.

When they come to your front door and tell you that you have to believe this or we are going to burn you and your wife and kids at the stake. The perception changes.

 

[Grailhunter]

When God said, in the OT, that He was the exclusive Creator and not to be associated with His own creation, then translating that concept into the realm of philosophy, which many non-theists speak, require use of the word "transcendent." Greek philosophy was a major thought form when Christianity initially began to advance into Roman territory. Transcendence, therefore, was a very important matter, as it has been many centuries later in the modern philosophical movements.

That is not bibleical that is your personal interpretation..

Taking cheap shots at great minds doesn't count for much. Picking fights over lesser theological matters is what caused some of the more concerning divisions in Christian history. These were differences over *attitude.* One can disagree agreeably, unless a fight is the object, unless one wishes to diminish the importance of a great figure in order to make himself feel more important.

Facts are not cheap shots and you brought it up.

Put in your terms yes. But Calvin was dealing with Predestination, and not preeminently about how "fried" a baby gets in the afterlife. The point is, does God know in advance who will be with Him and who will not be with Him? And what is the basis of this predetermination? This would be important in deciding who to approach with the offer of Salvation!

Fighting over what the actual experience of "Hell" is presents a diversion, though it's a legitimate question. Hell itself is burned up in the Lake of Fire. And the Lake of Fire may be saying that the door is eternally shut on entry into the Kingdom of Heaven. It may be only a fire of eternal separation from the New Earth rather than Dante's "torture chamber." That is, the Lake of Fire may not be a form of torture, but rather, a symbol of eternal separation from God's earth. Again, determining what "Hell" is presents questions less relevant to Calvin's concerns.

This is a whole different topic....open a thread on false beliefs or sacrilegious beliefs and we can discuss it there.

Sin is definitely an action, but it is also the state in which we were born, with a sick spirituality. It is a kind of spiritual disease. Modern Philosophy in the West has had a problem fixing on "spiritual" realities. For them, words no longer convey "spiritual" ideas.

I have already disagreed with this. Sin is by person, not lineage.


And the rest of your entries are irrelevant rantings.

 

[Patrick1966]

 

[Randy Kluth]

How many denominations of Protestants are there?
For example, the Center for Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which is evangelical Protestant , estimates that there are currently 47,000 denominations .

There are books on this that will tell you the history of denominations. How they started up, why they broke from another denomination. And there can be several reasons.... For example you have the General Baptist and the Free-will Baptists and then you have Baptist churches that the name does not reflect what is going on in the Church because they have been infiltrated by Calvinists and may include some separatists. Some of the differences maybe in style of service and worship, Christian application, mission oriented and like I said there are duplicates.

And sometimes the churches split because of personal conflicts with the administration or congregations.....it a real world thing .....humans disagreeing. Belief control within a denomination has always been a pipe dream. Preachers really never know what is going on in the pews.

And then you have non-denominal churches which add hundreds of thousands to the numbers and no way of defining what they believe. You will have to do an in-depth research yourself, if you want....here is a really short list for a starting point.

List of Christian denominations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why do I need a starting point? I already outlined for you a brief history of denominations. I don't count denominations like individual churches. I count them from an historical point of view, as a basic philosophy of church structure, relation to the state, relation to the universal Church, and relation to a particular systematic theology.

For example, the Catholic Church sees itself as THE original Church, predenominational. The Orthodox view it the same, but Catholics and the Orthodox were divided along the lines of division in the old Roman Empire, East and West, Greek and Latin.

Protestant Churches present a reform set of churches, opposed to the Catholic hierarchy, favoring a relationship to the State more than the Empire, and favoring a theology of Scriptural authority as opposed to Christian Tradition.

Within the tradition of Protestantism were State churches, reform movements within State churches, and churches favoring complete separation from the State. They all based their theology on Scriptural authority as opposed to Christian Tradition.

State churches developing in different states I do not count as separate denominations for purposes of showing theological division--they were largely divided only in the sense that they belonged to a different state. For example, Presbyterianism and Reform movements in places like Netherlands and Switzerland were basically of the same theological cloth--why distinguish them as denominations for purposes of showing division?

Why distinguish as denominations Episcopalianism and Anglicanism simply because they are in different countries? Do you see what I mean? When a particular Christian movement advances into a different country or state structure, carrying a similar theological position, they are all within the same denomination with respect to concern over divisions.

There are many Pentecostal groups. And though they began by different leaders and had different concerns or burdens, they largely agree theologically with respect to Gifts of the Spirit. I would consider them the same basic denomination, except perhaps for Oneness Pentecostals who have a peripheral difference on the matter of the Trinity.

Looking at it this way, there are not tens of thousands of *divisive* denominations, which is the point you seemed to want to point out. The theological divisions are often rather minor, with the historic creeds binding most of them together.

It's like saying there are 50,000 genres or Rock Music indicating there is a colossal war going on within Rock Music. But in reality, it is all a single genre, and it isn't very divisive at all--it is mostly a matter of preference.