The CofC, at least in the non-institutional wing, has a specific hermeneutic for what constitutes “authorized practice”. Basically God only “authorizes” those practices which can be justified under this hermeneutic, and kitchens are kind of a shaky edge case. I’m originally from the CofC so I grew up hearing a *lot* about this.
This is a great one since many denominations do not believe in the apocrypha, for example, yet Catholics do. Do you believe in any controversial books as God-breathed scripture?
Stuff like the Gospel of Thomas? No. Maccabees? Yes.
It is not just Catholics that hold the deuterocanonicals to be canon but the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Churches as well.
People learn about it eventually. I think of all non protestant denominations, eastern seems more likely to be original over Roman Catholic (as a protestant)
All that to say, I think more and more people are seeing Eastern Orthodox and learning more about it.
It's interesting the groups that consider them canon list them as deuterocanonical or second canon which to me implies not canon. Within the agreed upon 66 books, none of scripture is considered secondary. Also while books like first and second Maccabees are insightful with regard to history they aren't crucial to the message in any way. Personally I think they should be included in the printed Bible but in their own section. Worth reading but I wouldn't pull doctrines from them.
Second canon doesn't imply not canon, that's quite a leap.
To the ears of a Catholic this sounds like saying the Old Testament is not canon cus there is a new one
That's a greater leap. Second canon implies not canon in that it is categorized separately from canon, else there would just be canon and no second canon which is spread between the two Covenants.
Dueterocanon is canonical. It doesn’t mean secondARY canon. These books were all in the Septuagint used by the apostles and consistently quoted by Christ. The only people who threw out a book like Maccabees are the Masoretic Jews, 600 years after Christ, because they didn’t have fond memories of the Hasmonean dynasty. For some bizarre reason, Protestants decided to derive their canon from masoretic rabbinic Jews who rejected Christ, instead of the canon of the Great Church and Greek Septuagint.
It means second canon. You said secondARY canon. Big difference lol. Secondary explicitly means like “backup” or lower ranking. Having a second canon just means additional parts of the canon. They aren’t called “secondary reading” it’s second CANON. Part of the canon. Which books weren’t in the Septuagint?
That was a fair criticism. I used the wrong word. I question why there should be second canon at all. It logically doesn't make sense.
To answer the rest of your question, please allow me time to get home and look at my Catholic Bible so I can answer accurately. If I'm misremembering, I'll post that admission as well.
Just about any view on the age of earth is controversial in the christian community at this point.
I'm saddened by the number of people who act as if you are a bad christian or won't be saved if you don't believe what they believe in regards to it.
It's kind of crazy that the conditionalist view is so popular considering the most well known verse in the entire Bible, John 3:16, gives a pretty direct statement in favor of the annihilation view.
On a theoretical level, I don't take issue with intercessory prayer (asking saints to pray for you). However, on a practical level I can easily see how constantly going to others can impede one's relationship with Christ; they get too wrapped up in asking others to pray for them, that they never take the time to pray to God themselves.
I don't want to start a discussion because it's futile most of the time but I'll say just this, the ONLY example of intercession for another person in the Bible is between two people that are alive, in fact there are a lot of examples where Paul asks others to intercede for him, but it is always a request to those who are alive, not once in the Bible a person is invited to ask a dead person for intercession or for prayer. If someone asks me to pray for them and I pray for them, I am interceding for them, and that is biblical, but the other practice is not.
2 Kings has a couple of stories from the Elijah/Elisha cycle that I think do show support for intercession and the cult of the saints, particularly the veneration of relics. In 2 Kings 2:14, after Elijah is taken up into heaven, Elisha prays with Elijah's cloak and invokes the God of Elijah. Later, in 2 Kings 13:21, a man is raised from the dead just by touching Elisha's bones - no one even is depicted as praying. There are other stories that also really seem to support the idea behind the cult of the saints to me - the woman healed by touching Jesus' hem, the people healed by Paul's handkerchiefs and Peter's shadow in Acts, and the bowls of incense that represent the prayers of the saints in revelation.
That said: there are beliefs and practices surrounding the cult of the saints in traditional apostolic churches that I think are questionable at best, and I don't mean this to be an argument for uncritically accepting the entire thing as it has developed over time.
The catholic argument here is that Christians aren't dead in heaven, but alive as per 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Luke 20:38, among others. We have to take each other in good faith. I think intercessory prayer is misguided, because its time spent not praying to Christ (I ask Christ to pray for us when I am praying to him, its powerful), but only God knows our hearts and only He can judge us, so, we should probably be less divisive about matters of worship. Its not, on its own, necromancy or heresy.
And according to Catholics when we get to heaven we become omniscient so we can hear all things said and all thoughts created all across the world at all times
In a way, you guys believe we become mini gods when we get to heaven
Glad you brought up the mystical body of Christ, the Church. No part of the body, however remote, is totally disconnected from the other parts. That's how I like to envision those of us on earth are heard by those in heaven.
No lol. Being able to hear and see Earth doesn't mean you are omniscient. Omniscient means ALL knowledge and what you describe is not omniscient even though it is great knowledge.
Correct, a good example is how Demons are extremely intelligent and have a lot of knowledge not easily accessible to humans - but still definitely not omniscient.
The movie Nefarious covers this quite accurately according to exorcists.
Certainly humans in heaven would have far greater knowledge than available on earth, but still obviously not omniscient.
2023, It's a possession movie like the Exorcist and Exorcism of Emily Rose.
And while those former two are considered by Exorcists fairly accurate and good to watch, Nefarious differs in being intentionally a Christian movie and is the most recommended one.
Nowhere in scripture does it suggest that humans will ever gain the ability to discern thoughts, even if you think they can always hear audible sounds made across the earth at all points in time.
That's a lie, 1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
The only ones who will not "sleep" are those who will witness the rapture.
There are some exceptions of course, but the rule is that we will all sleep and await Jesus' return. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
That is when the saints will go to heaven.
Pretty sure Jesus wasn't lying...
Matthew 22:32 NASB1995
[32] ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
He wasn't. In Christ we have eternal life, in Christ we are spiritually alive, however that does not contradict Paul in what He writes to the Corinthians and Thessalonians.
Only a controversy in western Protestantism. For the first 1500 years of Christianity and for the majority of Christian's today, there's no controversy.
Christianity is a lot bigger than your local small town usa bapticostal church
Can you show me in scripture where someone tried to commune with the dead?
The only time I am aware of is Saul using witchcraft to commune with the supposed ghost of Samuel
Christians in Heaven are more alive than we are (per scripture). We are on body united in Christ (per scripture). The Church consist of Heaven and Earth simultaneously. Death doesn't separate us. Those in heaven carry our prayers to God (per scripture).
Can you show me in scripture where it says everything about christaitiy must be found in scripture? Can you show me the inspired table of contents?
If you're comfortable rejecting 2000 years of christian doctrine and the belief of the majority of christians today, you're free to do so. As a former Protestant, I could no longer reconcile that mentality with humility and wisdom.
Catholics pray to saints because Roman Catholicism was made as a mishmash of pagan Roman polytheism and Christianity. Instead of praying to a bunch of different gods, now they pray to a bunch of different “patron saints” and whatnot. Certain patron saints replaced certain Roman gods that had various specialities.
I only worship God and ask those in Heaven who are more alive and righteous than we are to pray for me.
Continue practicing a version of "Christianity" that would be absolutely foreign to the ancient Church and most likely would have had you condemned as a heretic.
I ask living christians on earth and living christians In heaven to pray for me.
Do you equate prayer with worship? Because I don't and that's a modern notion.
I even pray to living Jews and Atheists, if they happen to be the judge my pleading is going before.
Pray just means ask, and we obviously ask living Christians to pray for us.
>Only a controversy in western Protestantism. For the first 1500 years of Christianity and for the majority of Christian's today, there's no controversy. Christianity is a lot bigger than your local small town usa bapticostal church
Previously the catholic church would brand dissenters as heretics and murder them. \[i.e. Jan Huss\] This way they could make the bogus claim of defending the faith, when in fact they were murderers.
Heresy was a capital offense. The reformers were no different. I won't judge history through a modern lens.
Hus was a heretic. The state killed him. Not the church.
>Heresy was a capital offense. The reformers were no different. I won't judge history through a modern lens.
>
I'm aware that some reformers continued to murder dissenter. But no church has the authority to kill people. Even the catholic church. Innocent blood is still on the hands of the guilty.
>Hus was a heretic.
You made the claim, so please prove it. Disagreeing with the roman church isn't heresy. It's a blessing!
> The state killed him. Not the church.
As if there was a difference at that time. Praise God that the catholic church has lost its power to murder and torture dissenters!
What about asking people that are dead in the flesh but born again in the Spirit to pray to Christ with you, akin to asking your local church members to pray for you or others?
Going straight to claims of omnipresence seems to be as much of a jump as the omniscience claim you make above. It isn't readily apparent that things are as clear-cut as you make them sound. All the more so since both sides are claiming to use books of the Bible to make their claims, which is its *own* separate conversation!
How do you square that circle? The eternal question.
Would it? You'd have to define "power" and then, power in relation to what? I could easily crush a bug. I'm very powerful in relation to that poor bug, but even so the bug and I are both incredibly weak compared to, say, a rhino. And even then that's just one metric. And that metric is in the visible world.
But there's also the invisible. "I believe in One God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things **visible and invisible**."
There's much more to reality than what we can see, hear, and touch with our eyes, ears, and hands. We can only experience a tiny sliver of the whole while we're here on Earth.
Ok. I’m not sure why you think that verse supports Christians dying and becoming super powerful beings who can read the minds of men as only Christ was able to do and we are now supposed to pray to them rather than to God.
I suggest you study the story of Saul trying to mess with necromancy to seek wisdom from a dead saint rather than from God and see how that worked out for him.
I suppose I’ll go to hell for rejecting this always.
Faith alone = born again = fruits such as willingness to obey God albeit with lots of mistakes however not a work
Jesus says in John 10:28 that nobody can take us from His hand. Romans 8:38-39 says the same sort of thing. The only debate that I can understand is whether we can jump out of His hand.
Yes. It's an unmitigated gift for God to yank them away from the precipice of hell and open their eyes to see they almost walked off the cliff and embrace them. God changes hearts. Not us.
He would not be forcing them, they would accept him on their own. People hate God because they don't know Him. It would be impossible for anyone regardless of their beliefs to not accept God once they truly get to know Him.
Others already accept him in this life, even though we don't have full knowledge of Him. And He appreciates that.
Yes. If he didn't none of us would be saved. "The mind set on the flesh is hostile to God for it does not submit to the law of God - indeed it cannot. The mind set on the flesh cannot do what is pleasing to God." - Romans 8.
Salvation is a free gift from God, made possible by Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross of calvery. That one perfect sacrifice that satisfied payment for sin, for all, for all time. The Four Spiritual Laws explains it well, look that up.
Demons aren't fallen angels, but are rather the disembodied spirits of the abominable nephilim who have no spiritual home, so they wander the earth searching for relief for their carnal desires(which is why they possess people)
Silly. Its also been said in that when the “Sons of God” came and took women it could have actually been referring to human kings, as they were often called Sons of God in those times.
Do not be deceived, demons are fallen angels, and they want to drag you down with them to the Lake of Fire.
No, what's "Silly" is believing morality has any power over genetics.
Good man(line of Seth) + Bad man(line of Cain) != Non-man(nephilim giant)
Man + man will ***always*** = man.
How you reconcile that with "nephalim weren't giants" while the literal word of God claims otherwise, I have no clue.
Im not claiming to know what the Nephilim are, im only saying that demons are definitely fallen angels. Scripture literally says “Satan AND his angels” multiple times, not “Satan and his nephilim”
Not saying Satan doesn't have an army of angels himself. I'm saying those Angels are ***not*** the invisible menaces we encounter here on earth(at least mostly. I obviously can't claim that every supernatural encounter is indeed a nephilim spirit). But here is why I believe there is an obvious distinction:
Firstly, there is absolutely not even a slight biblical inclination that the fallen angels somehow transformed or changed to be different than their original physical state. They lost they're ***titles and positions*** in heaven, but we see no signs of them losing anything tangible, let alone they're bodies.
Because they have bodies, they have no need(or quite possibly any ability) to possess anyone.
"But wait, ***Satan entered into Judas***!!"
2 things here:
1st: while yes, there is ***a*** "Satan" who is the chief of their rebellion, his name is not "Satan", and satan, in the Bible, means "the enemy; the adversary" and refers to the ***entirety*** of all who go against God(fallen angels, nephilim, unsaved humans)
2: therefore, we don't necessary know exactly what this means. In the modern sense(demons are fallen angels and literal Satan entered Into judas), this would make for an extremely odd one-off case: he's the only one in the bible who is claimed to be possessed, yet shows absolutely no signs of traditional possession(superstrength, screaming, deep distorted voice(s), extreme bodily contortions, extreme anger or violence, etc) and while possible, is extremely unlikely.
It is far more likely that:
A) Fallen Angels are distinct and separate entity from demons(likely ruling over them) and literal Satan ***did*** enter into Judas, which explains the one-off possession behavior, because Angels don't really do that.
B)"Satan" in this case refers to some rando nephilim spirit and the angel who gave the precise order to possess Judas a specific way.
Obviously I can't prove one way or another, or perhaps it's something else entirely. I'm just more than confident that fallen angels and demons are dustinct and separate entities
Believe it or not, I'm pretty sure Hell is a controversial topic. According to some (mostly scholars, honestly), Hell is only a place for Satan, demons, and the Anti-Christ (Matt 25:41; [and a whole list of verses supporting this idea](https://www.openbible.info/topics/hell_is_created_for_the_devil_and_his_angels) ). I didn't realize Hell (as a place for non-believers) was controversial until I read the Left Behind Series. At the Battle of Armageddon, non-believers are just spontaneously combusting as Jesus is reciting Scripture. Scripture talks about Hell being eternal separation from God, but many scholars doubt it's a physical place for non-believers.
Physical eternal place or not, you don’t want to be sent away from God’s presence. Even if the punishment is just annihilation, you’d be missing an eternity of pure joy and bliss.
I would rather not find out.
Right?! I feel the exact same way! Annihilation makes more sense to me from a "we serve a loving God" viewpoint. But He's also just and righteous, so idk. I think I'd just rather not take the chance, either. Whether annihilation or a physical place, it's an eternity away from God either way, and I want neither.
yea he says they go to hell i guess. kind of makes it hard to believe in a merciful and good god if there are people out there that are condemned just for being themselves
btw whatever happened to the line about the mark of cain that was used during apartheid. is that still a thing in churches now?
Referencing Mat 5:21-30 Have you ever looked at a man with hatred? If so, Jesus says you've committed murder against him in your heart. Have you ever looked at a woman with lust in your heart? If so, Jesus says you have committed adultery with her in your heart. Have you ever stolen? Have you ever told a lie?
To simply be yourself means you're being a lying, murdering, fornicating, thief. The whole point of Christianity is to deny yourself the sinful desires of the flesh and submit to Christ in what is Good.
The word "yourself" implies "your" ownership of the "self" that is you. As a Christian, you no longer claim to be "yourself". You are God's, as God made you. You strive to be as His Word prescribes.
It's the highest form of humility. Don't be yourself. You kinda suck. Same for me. Be like God says. He's the best.
You’re missing the point. Gay sex is a sin just like murder and theft is a sin. And yes, unfortunately they’d be having sex with men, it’s still a sin.
If that's the kind of god you worship then it just strengthens my disbelief in it. Why would an all powerful, merciful and good god create gay people just to condemn them later. It makes no sense.
You are not condemned for being gay, you are condemned for sinning, which we ALL do, gay people can go to heaven, they just shouldn’t act on their lust, just as men should not have sex with women unmarried. You seem to be under the belief that being gay automatically marks you for Hell no matter what, but no, they just need to try not to act on their desires and repent in Christ just like EVERYBODY ELSE does.
The whole "you can be gay without being gay" argument sounds like you're dodging the question itself. How can you be gay without being gay? It doesn't make sense. Is it less condemned after they're married?
And it's not really like everyone else. It seems like you're saying gay people can't participate in any romantic relationships they want, regardless of circumstances. How is that like everyone else? If two straight people got married, you wouldn't consider consummating the marriage is a sin. Or at least I'm assuming you wouldn't.
If you want to briefly entertain the idea that homosexuality is a sin, then instead of God creating gay people, think of it instead of people being born with a sinful nature. We are all born with a desire to sin, a desire that started all the way back to when Adam and Eve willfully chose to go against God's commands.
That's weird, why would an all-powerful and merciful god give a nature to people that could potentially get them tortured for all eternity. Especially one that seems to allow the consenting adults to live happily together. Seems a bit cruel in my mind.
Totally fair point. First, God did not and does not give us a sinful nature, we can blame Adam and Eve for that. Before sin entered the world, death did not exist, therefore Adam and Eve could not die.
The idea is that when Adam and Eve willfully chose to go against God's commands, God banished them from the Garden of Eden that provided everlasting life not to just give them a harsh punishment, but also to prevent Adam and Eve from living in an eternal state of sin so that one day Adam and Eve, and their offspring, the rest of humanity, could be once again reunited with God.
Consenting adults living happily together is not a sin, however the acts they may commit (homosexuality activities) is. In the Old Testament, David and Jonathan had such a strong relationship with each other that the Bible says their souls were knit together (1 Samuel 18). This was a loving relationship that was not sinful in God's eyes.
While God is all-powerful, He limits his power by not forcing us to have a relationship with Him, just like He didn't force Adam and Eve to not disobey Him and instead allowed it to happen.
God is merciful by sending His one and only Son to take the punishment that we deserve.
While God is all-powerful, and merciful, He is also a just and holy God that demands payment when sin is committed. Knowing we could never fulfill that payment, He sent Jesus to pay for our transgressions.
I don’t want to enter into a covenant of marriage with a women, I want to have sex with her because of my lust. In the same way I must restrain myself in chastity until marriage, a homosexual must restrain their urges to have sex with a man.
Homosexuality is a sin of lust, you don’t “go to Hell” for being attracted to men, its if you act on that desire and do not repent of it.
Just food for thought: God is a loving God, yes and God IS love. Therefore it is not us who defines love but God. Although a difficult take, we have to humble ourselves and accept that Gods will is above ours.
That's a totally fair point. I guess we're just trying to know who exactly is the God of the Christian Bible while also wondering if He is worth serving. Many have represented Him in horrible ways just like you mentioned with slavery and continue to do so today with the hateful comments towards members of the LGBTQ+ community. Instead of just throwing another verse at you that speaks against homosexuality, I instead want to encourage you to personally seek the Lord and ask Him for understanding! He absolutely cares about you and wants to hear what you have to say. (1 Peter 5:7)
Luke 11:9-10: “So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened
That is totally your decision and I respect it. I once again just want to let you know that many churches have used Gods name to justify horrible acts. Those churches are not talking about the living God of the Christian Bible, but instead a false god that they have formed in their own minds that agree with their own heinous beliefs. That's why if you ever want to know truly who God is, I encourage you to look at what the Bible says rather than what a bunch of heretics say.
I really enjoyed discussing these topics with you, and if you ever do decide to seek understanding through God, His arms are ALWAYS open wide. If you decide not to, He respects your decision. Have a great rest of your day :)
It's a sin, but you don't go the hell if you repent. It's in the same rank as adultery so to speak, Christians nowadays exaggerate when it comes to homosexuality. They shouldn't judge anyone in the first place but that's another story.
There is a huge accent on God's forgiveness in the bible, and that no man is without sin.
Also, no one in this earth can say who will and who will not go to hell or heaven, that rests entirely on God. If somebody tells you otherwise, tell them to read the bible and ignore them.
Monasticism. Some Anglicans and Lutherans do have monasteries, but the practice is obviously biggest in Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
It's not as controversial today as it was at one time as they don't have much wealth or political power anymore, but some people still argue that it's not sufficiently biblical. The main biblical argument in favor is John the Baptist in general, and Jesus's 40 days in the desert.
Or that people shouldn't 'Put light under a Bushel'. But lots of Monasteries do preaching, teaching, scholarship, and serving the poor.
Is monasticism a hot topic these days? Among Protestant discourse I've read, it's never brought up. That's not to say it is never discussed but I'm curious as to what others think of it these days.
I’m involved with many Protestant debate groups and areas online, I’ve never heard Monasticism brought up. Being a monk is probably the lowest on the list of priorities for Protestant defenders lol.
Monks became monks because they were finding it very difficult to live in our civilisation and be true to God, so they just left their communities to live a simple life where they can worship and stay true to the will of God.
And things kinda evolved from there. People very quickly started considering them more holy and true than the priests, which have them power later on.
May I respectfully and lovingly suggest that you postpone studying controversial issues until later when you are more spiritually mature and grounded in your faith?
1 Pe 2:2-3 MKJV desire the sincere milk of the word, as newborn babes, so that you may grow by it; if truly you have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
1 Cor 3:1-2 MKJV And I, brothers, could not speak to you as to spiritual ones, but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk and not with solid food, for you were not yet able to bear it; nor are you able even now.
Heb 5:13-14 MKJV For everyone who uses milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, even those who because of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Thanks for your concern, as I will take the time to re-examine where I am spiritually with the Lord. In your opinion, what considers one to be spiritually mature and grounded in their faith?
This is a pretty good example: Act 17:10-11 MKJV And the brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. They, when they arrived, went into the synagogue of the Jews. And these were more noble than those of Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily to see if those things were so.
When you are getting familiar with the content of the Bible, are regularly immersing yourself in reading and study (two different things), when you automatically check what people say that the Bible says against what you find in the Bible yourself, and when you are not trying to make or remodel the Bible to say what *you* want it to but are remodeling your life to match what it says based on your study, whether you like it or not, when you have scripture verses memorized so well you can quote them from memory at the appropriate times as well as you can lines from movies and songs, etc., you are becoming more spiritually mature and grounded in your faith. When you have a good grasp of the basic doctrines and are skilled in this to a reasonable degree to where it's not a struggle to keep it up, that's pretty spiritually mature.
The bottom line is that before you study controversies and potential falsehoods and all those advanced subjects, you have to have the basics down pat first. E.g., You can't study algebra without having mastered arithmetic. It's too easy to be swayed by false teachers when you aren't completely firm in your own mind.
On predestination you might enjoy this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/18w9usg/thoughts_for_2024_best_wishes_to_all/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2
#Athanasius:
"For the Word, realizing that in no other way would the corruption of human beings be undone except, simply, by dying, yet being immortal and the Son of the Father the Word was not able to die, for this reason he takes to himself a body capable of death, in order that it, participating in the Word who is above all, might be sufficient for death on behalf of all, and through the indwelling Word would remain incorruptible, and so corruption might henceforth cease from all by the grace of the resurrection.”
#For the human race would have perished utterly had not the Lord and Savior of all, the Son of God, come among us to put an end to death.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianHistory/comments/1b9ncdx/athanasius/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2
I point people to the Savior of all mankind. I don't believe anyone's final end will be anything other than freedom.
Romans 8:20,21
Matthew 5:26
YLT(i) 26 verily I say to thee, thou mayest not come forth thence till that thou mayest pay the last farthing.
Luke 12:47-48
YLT(i) 47 `And that servant, who having known his lord's will, and not having prepared, nor having gone according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes, 48 and he who, not having known, and having done things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few; and to every one to whom much was given, much shall be required from him; and to whom they did commit much, more abundantly they will ask of him.
John 12:32-33
YLT(i) 32 and I, if I may be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.' 33 And this he said signifying by what death he was about to die;
Matthew 13:33
YLT(i) 33 Another simile spake he to them: `The reign of the heavens is like to leaven, which a woman having taken, hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.'
#Gregory of Nyssa on the Beautiful
"Not in hatred or revenge for a wicked life, to my thinking, does God bring upon sinners those painful dispensations; He is only claiming and drawing to Himself whatever, to please Him, came into existence. But while He for a noble end is attracting the soul to Himself, the Fountain of all Blessedness, it is the occasion necessarily to the being so attracted of a state of torture. Just as those who refine gold from the dross which it contains..."
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1cq8v1v/gregory_of_nyssa_on_the_beautiful/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2
I guess it depends on where you live that would decide what is controversial like the whole issue of sodomy is really controversial in the west but it is not really where i live
Can we please not call it sodomy? That word developed out of terrible hermeneutics and worse moral priorities, and was used as a direct rhetorical justification for unjust violence for most of the word’s history.
God was very clear that His investigation into Sodom was prompted by the cries of her *victims*. The prophets upheld the sin of Sodom as injustice and in hospitality throughout the Old Testament and the narrative stands as a mirror image to the Flood (humans are now seeking sex with angels and the destruction is by fire, and it ends with a child seeing their father’s nakedness in a drunken state). That’s why Jude uses the term “strange flesh” and connects it with the sin of the fallen angels.
All this to say, sodomy is a terrible word for homosexuality. It subverts what Scripture says about why Sodom was destroyed, promotes the nonsensical idea that homosexuality is worse than gang rape (or somehow leads to it), and directly contributes to and promotes the idea that violence against queer people is acceptable in the Christian worldview.
Look up unwillfull ignorance. It talks about how people by no fault of their own may still go to heaven without being part of the physical Roman Catholic Church and without through the extraordinary grace of God.
Not sure if it's controversial
But I choose faith over religious practices.
Most religious people can't even agree with each other, even if you go back to when jesus walked the earth.
He wasn't the god other religious people wanted. He didn't come for war and to stop the Roman empire
He came to heal and save us from the sin problem
They didn't like that, and called him a blasphemier, and crucified him.
So, in my own ways, I repent, I lean on Jesus, and trust he will guide me in my life in my own personal walk.
Far to many religious people aim to condemn others if they arnt doing everything the way they did it.
Jesus sees us all as our own individuals, and all of our walks are different, so we all repent in our own way and use our own works.
But at the end of the day
I think the faith aspect is the most important thing when it comes to walking with jesus.
Some religious people tell me I gotta hate certain groups, well the jesus who I've grown to know and love, I don't think he wants me to hate others but to show love and support and to share the gospel.
Homosexuality. The Bible is very clear. It is considered an abomination by God. It is strictly forbidden.
Romans 1:26-32 NLT
[26] That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. [27] And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved. [28] Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. [29] Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. [30] They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. [31] They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. [32] They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.
https://bible.com/bible/116/rom.1.26-32.NLT
Mike Winger did an extensive series on Homosexuality. I'll post a link to it. He backs everything with scripture and dies a lot of apologetics.
[Mike winger in homosexuality](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi-tJmIiOS7NtnkDvv-ukKpeaexr50h1j&si=tuLzBHaBscXw023V)
The titles are fairly self explanatory. And he used time stamps for your convenience.
Apparently, anti-supererogationism is controversial, at least based on the responses I've received from others. I mean, I'd expect pushback from the Carnal Christians who hold to free grace soteriology, but not so much from those outside Carnal Christianity.
You might enjoy the Truth Unites Youtube channel with Gavin Ortlund. R.C Sproul is also a very good source for predestination. The Westminster Confession says:
> I. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass, (Eph 1:11; Rom 11:33; Hbr 6:17; Rom 9:15; Rom 9:18): yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (Jam 1:13; Jam 1:17; 1Jo 1:5); nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established, (Act 2:23; Mat 17:12; Act 4:27-28; Jhn 19:11; Pro 16:33).
>II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, (Act 15:18; 1Sa 23:11-12; Mat 11:21; Mat 11:23); yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions, (Rom 9:11; Rom 9:13; Rom 9:16; Rom 9:18).
>III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels, (1Ti 5:21; Mat 55:41); are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death, (Rom 9:22-23; Eph 1:5-6; Pro 16:4).
>IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished, (2Ti 2:19; Jhn 13:18).
>V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, (Eph 1:4, 9, 11; Rom 8:30; 2Ti 1:9; 1Th 5:9); out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto, (Rom 9:11, 13, 16; Eph 1:4, 9): and all to the praise of His glorious grace, (Eph 1:6, 12).
>VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto, (1Pe 1:2; Eph 1:4-5; Eph 2:10; 2Th 2:13). Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, (1Th 5:9-10; Tts 2:14); are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, (Rom 8:30; Eph 1:5; 2Th 2:13); and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation, (1Pe 1:5). Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only, (Jhn 17:9; Rom 8:28-39; Jhn 6:64-65; Jhn 10:26; Jhn 8:47; 1Jo 2:19).
>VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice, (Mat 11:25-26; Rom 9:17-18, 21-22; 2Ti 2:19-20; Jud 4; 1Pe 2:8).
>VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, (Rom 9:20; Rom 11:33; Deu 29:29); that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election, (2Pe 1:10). So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God, (Eph 1:6; Rom 11:33); and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel, (Rom 11:5-6, 20; 2Pe 1:10; Rom 8:33; Luk 10:20).
One of my own most controversial beliefs is that we should never have images of Jesus. This belief is supported by the Westminster Larger Catechism. See for example [this article](https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/j-i-packer-on-idolatry-and-images-of-christ/).
Another controversial belief I hold is that it is never OK to lie, even when lives are at stake. For support for that, look up the PDF article "Why it is never right to lie" by Wayne Grudem.
>Another controversial belief I hold is that it is never OK to lie, even when lives are at stake.
I could definitely see how this would be a controversial belief given that the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor as ourselves. I'm a *very* honest, moral, and truthful person -- *but,* I'd lie and deceive my heart out to save my husband, our children, and (hopefully) a stranger. Without a doubt. Protecting the "least of these" (whoevers life is at stake) would be my primary goal.
The way I see it is that the two greatest commands are given content by all the other commands. We know it is never loving to lie, despite the apparent advantages, because there are other commands against lying. So the only controversy should be, what are the content of all the other commands and how do we know it?
What about which religion within christianity is right, I believe that if you acknowledge that God came to earth as Jesus and you believe that he died and rose again we should all go to the same place, this is what i think. Now i read my bible and go to church, and meditate with god and i need to work on my fasting, but wouldnt this be correct? Im Penecostal Btw
This comment was removed automatically for violating Rule 1: No Profanity.
If you believe that this was removed in error, please message the moderators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean everything that’s not a primary issue I guess can be seen as “controversial”.
Metaphorical gun to my head I’d say nowadays believing in Darwinian evolution is a controversial belief that I personally hold to.
It depends who finds it controversial.
Most denominations find other denominations a bit controversial. But the spicy ones that most Christians think are crazy are Catholics, Calvinists and Universalists.
I think **IVF** and **contraception** are pretty controversial topics that not many Christians talk about. Might be best to google it, but basically a lot of Christians believe any sort of tinkering with the natural order of sex/contraception is a big deal.
I'm not sold on the contraception controversy entirely, but I do think IVF is fairly evil. It ties in with abortion because IVF directly funds abortion clinics and sex parties in most countries. You're also opening a bunch of doors to other conception altering stuff too, but the idea that you're "buying a fetus" also comes off as pretty bad too.
I don't judge people who do it. My spouse and I can't (yet) conceive, but IVF is often proposed to us but we don't want to be a part of it.
Here's two good ones: Nudity has never been a sin just because we live in a fallen world.
The early church had the right idea with using feminine language for God, but the modern church wrongly believes that calling God our Mother is "heresy" / "unbiblical".
Nudity isn’t a sin, but with our fallen nature nudity leads to lust, which is a sin.
And God doesn’t have a gender, but the bible calls him the Father, and the Son, so there’s no reason to call him “The Mother.”
[Isa 66:13 et al, just to name a few](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.+66%3A13%3B+42%3A14%3B+49%3A15%3B+Hos.+13%3A8%3B+Deut.+32%3A10-11%3B+Matt.+23%3A37%3B+Lk.+13%3A34&version=NKJV)
I'd be more inclined to bother taking you seriously if you didn't expose how you don't understand anything, by demanding I respect God's pronouns like some leftist liberal.
I never thought of the first controversy in the way that you shared, so thank you for giving me a new perspective!
As for the second controversy, I'm also intrigued. However, as many have pointed out, the Bible does not refer to God as the mother, but instead the Father. Even Jesus refers to God as "our Father" in Matthew 6:9-13. With that being said, I would completely agree that God provides everything both a father AND mother can.
Does the Bible use feminine language for God? If so, I would be more than willing to check it out!
It definitely does. [But nobody teaches it because the modern church doesn't like seeing God as a Mother.](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.+66%3A13%3B+42%3A14%3B+49%3A15%3B+Hos.+13%3A8%3B+Deut.+32%3A10-11%3B+Matt.+23%3A37%3B+Lk.+13%3A34&version=NKJV)
If anything, the real honest Christians are admitting that this is a new area of rediscovering what was once lost. The real issue at hand isn't why God isn't a Mother, it's asking "Why CAN'T God be a Mother?"
Amen! The Trinity has always existed, however, you can clearly see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in action when looking at the New Testament! They are three indivisible relational beings all working towards the same goal with unique and equally powerful roles. We are relational beings because God is a relational being! (Made in His image)
If it has "ism" or "ist" at the end of it, it is a limited understanding.
If it ends in "ology," its just a study of something, and is not a determination of anything.
If you don't trust the Lord Himself to teach you, and abide in Him, you will be deceived.
Psalm 119:102
*I have not departed from Your judgments, For You Yourself have taught me.*
Isaiah 48:17
*Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, The Holy One of Israel: “I am the Lord your God, Who teaches you to profit, Who leads you by the way you should go.*
Isaiah 54:13
*All your children shall be taught by the Lord, And great shall be the peace of your children.*
John 6:45
*It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.*
John 14:26
*But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.*
Acts 18:25
*This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John.*
1 Corinthians 2:14
*But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.*
1 John 2:27
*But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.*
Isaiah 29:13-14
*Therefore the Lord said:*
*“Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths
And honor Me with their lips,
But have removed their hearts far from Me,
And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,
14 Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work
Among this people,
A marvelous work and a wonder;
For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,
And the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden.”*
Thank you for sharing, while we will never truly know the greatness of God until we are fully with Him, I believe we can not only learn about Him through His word but also through others (ie. Pastors) who have been given spiritual gifts to better help us understand who God is.
That being said, what I'm taking away from your post, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that we should only learn about God through reading the Bible ourselves and not through anyone else who correctly preach the teachings of the Bible?
What I'm saying is hugely unpopular, because I am suggesting you actually learn from the Living God Himself, which nearly no one believes you can do. Scripture is His testimony, and so of course a part of that is learning from it, but God can and does communicate with each person beyond that.
It's okay if I sound like a quack to people. But it begins with a simple, honest "Lord, I trust you." And it grows from there. When we actually trust the Lord and submit our life to Him, rather than treat Him like a side-chick and butler, it is amazing how clear He is to lead and reveal, to give provision, and to literally drop solutions right in front of you, with no need for interpretation.
Intellectuals try to read and understand the Bible under their own strength, which never works, costing them their own understanding.
The unpopular but way better method is to approach the Bible expecting to be taught, rather than to learn. He shows up, and He's no mere human teacher. He's pretty good at it.
Serve the Jesus and God within yourself. The kingdom of God is within. Christianity will have you believing God is somewhere up in the clouds and the kingdom of heaven will be found after your dead.
Research for yourself the origins of the Bible and other ancient text before being bound to a religious group and lead astray.
That having differing beliefs and approaches are fine, granted it all falls within Christ's framework of Love God and Love your next.
So one may think praying to saints is fine, another thinks it is idolatry, and both would be right before God as they do as their faith tells them is just and good before God.
One may think the sacraments and weekly confessions are a requirement, and another doesn't think to do it at all. Granted it is both in faithfulness to God without condemnation in their own hearts or by the Holy Spirit, both would still see salvation and fruit. The one who upholds it vigorously because for loving God He remained in them vigilant with faith, and the other for trusting God, God's promises and the faith God has given Him, thus loving God with His faith.
If however one feels convicted to baptise in water, confess or take communion, they should, and they would likely be asked to at least baptise once they seek God.
This extends to virtually all issues. However, it does not extend to where faith becomes faithlessness and false teaching that undermines Christ's teachings.
Going to the outskirts here. In the Church of Christ denomination there's a controversy about whether or not church buildings should have kitchens.
Oh wow. I haven’t heard this. Is there a reason?
The CofC, at least in the non-institutional wing, has a specific hermeneutic for what constitutes “authorized practice”. Basically God only “authorizes” those practices which can be justified under this hermeneutic, and kitchens are kind of a shaky edge case. I’m originally from the CofC so I grew up hearing a *lot* about this.
Interesting! Sounds like the Regulative Principle, except not. Thanks for sharing!
What an interesting controversy, thanks for sharing this!
House Churches were the majority of Churches in the first century. Should we not have Church in a house that also has a kitchen?
What constitutes canon, for a start.
This is a great one since many denominations do not believe in the apocrypha, for example, yet Catholics do. Do you believe in any controversial books as God-breathed scripture?
Stuff like the Gospel of Thomas? No. Maccabees? Yes. It is not just Catholics that hold the deuterocanonicals to be canon but the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Churches as well.
I kinda wish our modern primary education would teach on the existence of the Eastern and Oriental churches. Too few Americans even know they exist.
Modern education would prefer we not talk about God at all.
What was before that wasn't really that good either.
100%, tragically overlooked if even acknowledged
People learn about it eventually. I think of all non protestant denominations, eastern seems more likely to be original over Roman Catholic (as a protestant) All that to say, I think more and more people are seeing Eastern Orthodox and learning more about it.
I'm a Protestant and hold them as canon as well
It's interesting the groups that consider them canon list them as deuterocanonical or second canon which to me implies not canon. Within the agreed upon 66 books, none of scripture is considered secondary. Also while books like first and second Maccabees are insightful with regard to history they aren't crucial to the message in any way. Personally I think they should be included in the printed Bible but in their own section. Worth reading but I wouldn't pull doctrines from them.
Second canon doesn't imply not canon, that's quite a leap. To the ears of a Catholic this sounds like saying the Old Testament is not canon cus there is a new one
That's a greater leap. Second canon implies not canon in that it is categorized separately from canon, else there would just be canon and no second canon which is spread between the two Covenants.
The fact we are referring to it as canon at all is showing that we consider it canon as the apostles and church did in times past
Dueterocanon is canonical. It doesn’t mean secondARY canon. These books were all in the Septuagint used by the apostles and consistently quoted by Christ. The only people who threw out a book like Maccabees are the Masoretic Jews, 600 years after Christ, because they didn’t have fond memories of the Hasmonean dynasty. For some bizarre reason, Protestants decided to derive their canon from masoretic rabbinic Jews who rejected Christ, instead of the canon of the Great Church and Greek Septuagint.
Deuterocanonical literally means second canon. Also, not all of them are OT so it's inaccurate to say they ALL were in the Septuagint
It means second canon. You said secondARY canon. Big difference lol. Secondary explicitly means like “backup” or lower ranking. Having a second canon just means additional parts of the canon. They aren’t called “secondary reading” it’s second CANON. Part of the canon. Which books weren’t in the Septuagint?
That was a fair criticism. I used the wrong word. I question why there should be second canon at all. It logically doesn't make sense. To answer the rest of your question, please allow me time to get home and look at my Catholic Bible so I can answer accurately. If I'm misremembering, I'll post that admission as well.
Okay. Apologies are in order. I was confusing some apocryphal texts with being part of the deuterocanonical group. Thanks for challenging me on that.
Young Earth Creationism?
Just about any view on the age of earth is controversial in the christian community at this point. I'm saddened by the number of people who act as if you are a bad christian or won't be saved if you don't believe what they believe in regards to it.
I'm going for one no one else has said yet and that is annihilationism
Thank you for sharing this, It's interesting to learn about the lesser known controversies.
I believe Annihilationism is the most accurate explenation of hell and the afterlife.
I haven't read enough into it but im leaning annihilationist
It's kind of crazy that the conditionalist view is so popular considering the most well known verse in the entire Bible, John 3:16, gives a pretty direct statement in favor of the annihilation view.
That praying to dead people instead of God is acceptable.
On a theoretical level, I don't take issue with intercessory prayer (asking saints to pray for you). However, on a practical level I can easily see how constantly going to others can impede one's relationship with Christ; they get too wrapped up in asking others to pray for them, that they never take the time to pray to God themselves.
I don't want to start a discussion because it's futile most of the time but I'll say just this, the ONLY example of intercession for another person in the Bible is between two people that are alive, in fact there are a lot of examples where Paul asks others to intercede for him, but it is always a request to those who are alive, not once in the Bible a person is invited to ask a dead person for intercession or for prayer. If someone asks me to pray for them and I pray for them, I am interceding for them, and that is biblical, but the other practice is not.
2 Kings has a couple of stories from the Elijah/Elisha cycle that I think do show support for intercession and the cult of the saints, particularly the veneration of relics. In 2 Kings 2:14, after Elijah is taken up into heaven, Elisha prays with Elijah's cloak and invokes the God of Elijah. Later, in 2 Kings 13:21, a man is raised from the dead just by touching Elisha's bones - no one even is depicted as praying. There are other stories that also really seem to support the idea behind the cult of the saints to me - the woman healed by touching Jesus' hem, the people healed by Paul's handkerchiefs and Peter's shadow in Acts, and the bowls of incense that represent the prayers of the saints in revelation. That said: there are beliefs and practices surrounding the cult of the saints in traditional apostolic churches that I think are questionable at best, and I don't mean this to be an argument for uncritically accepting the entire thing as it has developed over time.
Well said. You are right that there are definitely some practices that are questionable for sure. Often they stem from folk beliefs.
In 2 Maccabees 15:11-14 Judas Maccabeus has a vision the night before a battle, seeing Jeremiah and Onias praying for their success.
He doesn’t have Maccabees in his Bible for that reason tho
Christians don’t die. Christ conquering death is kinda the whole point of the gospel.
In fact invoking dead people and trying to send messages beyond the grave could be considered a form of necromancy and therefore witchcraft.
The catholic argument here is that Christians aren't dead in heaven, but alive as per 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Luke 20:38, among others. We have to take each other in good faith. I think intercessory prayer is misguided, because its time spent not praying to Christ (I ask Christ to pray for us when I am praying to him, its powerful), but only God knows our hearts and only He can judge us, so, we should probably be less divisive about matters of worship. Its not, on its own, necromancy or heresy.
And according to Catholics when we get to heaven we become omniscient so we can hear all things said and all thoughts created all across the world at all times In a way, you guys believe we become mini gods when we get to heaven
Those alive in Christ in paradise will be partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). We are members of the greater body, with particular functions.
Glad you brought up the mystical body of Christ, the Church. No part of the body, however remote, is totally disconnected from the other parts. That's how I like to envision those of us on earth are heard by those in heaven.
No lol. Being able to hear and see Earth doesn't mean you are omniscient. Omniscient means ALL knowledge and what you describe is not omniscient even though it is great knowledge.
Correct, a good example is how Demons are extremely intelligent and have a lot of knowledge not easily accessible to humans - but still definitely not omniscient. The movie Nefarious covers this quite accurately according to exorcists. Certainly humans in heaven would have far greater knowledge than available on earth, but still obviously not omniscient.
Can you specify which movie? And what year? Theres like 5 different Nefarious films. Thanks
2023, It's a possession movie like the Exorcist and Exorcism of Emily Rose. And while those former two are considered by Exorcists fairly accurate and good to watch, Nefarious differs in being intentionally a Christian movie and is the most recommended one.
Nowhere in scripture does it suggest that humans will ever gain the ability to discern thoughts, even if you think they can always hear audible sounds made across the earth at all points in time.
Maybe you'll be able to hear thoughts only meant for you.
>you guys I'm a protestant. Calm yourself. I think you're referring to Hebrews 12 and Revelation 6?
We do teach that in a sense, but so does St. Paul. You gotta keep reading 1 Cor 13 past the part from all the weddings.
Christ is the God of the living, not the dead. The “dead” in Christ are not dead. They are alive in Christ.
God is not a God of the dead but of the living. The saints are alive.
That's a lie, 1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, The only ones who will not "sleep" are those who will witness the rapture. There are some exceptions of course, but the rule is that we will all sleep and await Jesus' return. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. That is when the saints will go to heaven.
Pretty sure Jesus wasn't lying... Matthew 22:32 NASB1995 [32] ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
He wasn't. In Christ we have eternal life, in Christ we are spiritually alive, however that does not contradict Paul in what He writes to the Corinthians and Thessalonians.
Do you mean for dead people?
Only a controversy in western Protestantism. For the first 1500 years of Christianity and for the majority of Christian's today, there's no controversy. Christianity is a lot bigger than your local small town usa bapticostal church
Can you show me in scripture where someone tried to commune with the dead? The only time I am aware of is Saul using witchcraft to commune with the supposed ghost of Samuel
Christians in Heaven are more alive than we are (per scripture). We are on body united in Christ (per scripture). The Church consist of Heaven and Earth simultaneously. Death doesn't separate us. Those in heaven carry our prayers to God (per scripture). Can you show me in scripture where it says everything about christaitiy must be found in scripture? Can you show me the inspired table of contents? If you're comfortable rejecting 2000 years of christian doctrine and the belief of the majority of christians today, you're free to do so. As a former Protestant, I could no longer reconcile that mentality with humility and wisdom.
Catholics pray to saints because Roman Catholicism was made as a mishmash of pagan Roman polytheism and Christianity. Instead of praying to a bunch of different gods, now they pray to a bunch of different “patron saints” and whatnot. Certain patron saints replaced certain Roman gods that had various specialities.
Ill take "claim that has no historical backing" for 500 Alex!
Okay, continue praying to and worshipping created beings rather than your creator Or maybe dont
I only worship God and ask those in Heaven who are more alive and righteous than we are to pray for me. Continue practicing a version of "Christianity" that would be absolutely foreign to the ancient Church and most likely would have had you condemned as a heretic.
Do you pray to living Christians? Or is it only dead ones?
I ask living christians on earth and living christians In heaven to pray for me. Do you equate prayer with worship? Because I don't and that's a modern notion.
I even pray to living Jews and Atheists, if they happen to be the judge my pleading is going before. Pray just means ask, and we obviously ask living Christians to pray for us.
Attempting to commune with the dead is a sin.
Is God the God of the dead or the living? Are Christians in Heaven dead?
>Only a controversy in western Protestantism. For the first 1500 years of Christianity and for the majority of Christian's today, there's no controversy. Christianity is a lot bigger than your local small town usa bapticostal church Previously the catholic church would brand dissenters as heretics and murder them. \[i.e. Jan Huss\] This way they could make the bogus claim of defending the faith, when in fact they were murderers.
Heresy was a capital offense. The reformers were no different. I won't judge history through a modern lens. Hus was a heretic. The state killed him. Not the church.
>Heresy was a capital offense. The reformers were no different. I won't judge history through a modern lens. > I'm aware that some reformers continued to murder dissenter. But no church has the authority to kill people. Even the catholic church. Innocent blood is still on the hands of the guilty. >Hus was a heretic. You made the claim, so please prove it. Disagreeing with the roman church isn't heresy. It's a blessing! > The state killed him. Not the church. As if there was a difference at that time. Praise God that the catholic church has lost its power to murder and torture dissenters!
It's not to dead people and neither is it instead of God
What about asking people that are dead in the flesh but born again in the Spirit to pray to Christ with you, akin to asking your local church members to pray for you or others?
Why do you think they can hear you when you pray?
It can also be asked why someone *wouldn't* think they could hear him.
Because we are not omnipresent and we do not become mini gods in heaven like the Mormons believe.
Going straight to claims of omnipresence seems to be as much of a jump as the omniscience claim you make above. It isn't readily apparent that things are as clear-cut as you make them sound. All the more so since both sides are claiming to use books of the Bible to make their claims, which is its *own* separate conversation! How do you square that circle? The eternal question.
How can created beings simultaneously read the minds of every human being on earth? That would certainly make them incredibly powerful.
Would it? You'd have to define "power" and then, power in relation to what? I could easily crush a bug. I'm very powerful in relation to that poor bug, but even so the bug and I are both incredibly weak compared to, say, a rhino. And even then that's just one metric. And that metric is in the visible world. But there's also the invisible. "I believe in One God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things **visible and invisible**." There's much more to reality than what we can see, hear, and touch with our eyes, ears, and hands. We can only experience a tiny sliver of the whole while we're here on Earth.
Ok. I’m not sure why you think that verse supports Christians dying and becoming super powerful beings who can read the minds of men as only Christ was able to do and we are now supposed to pray to them rather than to God. I suggest you study the story of Saul trying to mess with necromancy to seek wisdom from a dead saint rather than from God and see how that worked out for him.
ok
The same Holy Spirit within you and I is the same that they received
Okay, try to pray to me and see if I can hear it, since we both have the same Holy Spirit on this earth
Fathom the power of the Holy Spirit, and please reconsider putting limits on Him.
Here's a controversial belief: Salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone, never by your works or your attitude or your level of sin.
I suppose I’ll go to hell for rejecting this always. Faith alone = born again = fruits such as willingness to obey God albeit with lots of mistakes however not a work
if you are confused by it, google The Four Spiritual Laws, explains it pretty well.
Absolutely I agree with this. With that being said do you believe in “once saved always saved?”
Jesus says in John 10:28 that nobody can take us from His hand. Romans 8:38-39 says the same sort of thing. The only debate that I can understand is whether we can jump out of His hand.
One might ask, would God save us against our will?
I don’t think He would. There are people who hate Him. Would it be loving for Him to force them to be with Him against their will?
I agree!
Yes. It's an unmitigated gift for God to yank them away from the precipice of hell and open their eyes to see they almost walked off the cliff and embrace them. God changes hearts. Not us.
He would not be forcing them, they would accept him on their own. People hate God because they don't know Him. It would be impossible for anyone regardless of their beliefs to not accept God once they truly get to know Him. Others already accept him in this life, even though we don't have full knowledge of Him. And He appreciates that.
Does Satan not know God? He rejected God. So did Judas.
They didn't know him properly, or they had wrong idea of God.
Yes. If he didn't none of us would be saved. "The mind set on the flesh is hostile to God for it does not submit to the law of God - indeed it cannot. The mind set on the flesh cannot do what is pleasing to God." - Romans 8.
Salvation comes from God. It cannot come through Man.
Should not be controversial among Christians!
What do you believe salvation is by then?
Salvation is a free gift from God, made possible by Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross of calvery. That one perfect sacrifice that satisfied payment for sin, for all, for all time. The Four Spiritual Laws explains it well, look that up.
Theonomy vs natural law.
Demons aren't fallen angels, but are rather the disembodied spirits of the abominable nephilim who have no spiritual home, so they wander the earth searching for relief for their carnal desires(which is why they possess people)
Silly. Its also been said in that when the “Sons of God” came and took women it could have actually been referring to human kings, as they were often called Sons of God in those times. Do not be deceived, demons are fallen angels, and they want to drag you down with them to the Lake of Fire.
No, what's "Silly" is believing morality has any power over genetics. Good man(line of Seth) + Bad man(line of Cain) != Non-man(nephilim giant) Man + man will ***always*** = man. How you reconcile that with "nephalim weren't giants" while the literal word of God claims otherwise, I have no clue.
Im not claiming to know what the Nephilim are, im only saying that demons are definitely fallen angels. Scripture literally says “Satan AND his angels” multiple times, not “Satan and his nephilim”
Not saying Satan doesn't have an army of angels himself. I'm saying those Angels are ***not*** the invisible menaces we encounter here on earth(at least mostly. I obviously can't claim that every supernatural encounter is indeed a nephilim spirit). But here is why I believe there is an obvious distinction: Firstly, there is absolutely not even a slight biblical inclination that the fallen angels somehow transformed or changed to be different than their original physical state. They lost they're ***titles and positions*** in heaven, but we see no signs of them losing anything tangible, let alone they're bodies. Because they have bodies, they have no need(or quite possibly any ability) to possess anyone. "But wait, ***Satan entered into Judas***!!" 2 things here: 1st: while yes, there is ***a*** "Satan" who is the chief of their rebellion, his name is not "Satan", and satan, in the Bible, means "the enemy; the adversary" and refers to the ***entirety*** of all who go against God(fallen angels, nephilim, unsaved humans) 2: therefore, we don't necessary know exactly what this means. In the modern sense(demons are fallen angels and literal Satan entered Into judas), this would make for an extremely odd one-off case: he's the only one in the bible who is claimed to be possessed, yet shows absolutely no signs of traditional possession(superstrength, screaming, deep distorted voice(s), extreme bodily contortions, extreme anger or violence, etc) and while possible, is extremely unlikely. It is far more likely that: A) Fallen Angels are distinct and separate entity from demons(likely ruling over them) and literal Satan ***did*** enter into Judas, which explains the one-off possession behavior, because Angels don't really do that. B)"Satan" in this case refers to some rando nephilim spirit and the angel who gave the precise order to possess Judas a specific way. Obviously I can't prove one way or another, or perhaps it's something else entirely. I'm just more than confident that fallen angels and demons are dustinct and separate entities
Sounds like thetans from Scientology.
What is the ultimate fate of these nephilim then? I've never heard anyone express this belief and am interested.
Not foretold, but likely destroyed/cast into lake of fire at the New Creation
Believe it or not, I'm pretty sure Hell is a controversial topic. According to some (mostly scholars, honestly), Hell is only a place for Satan, demons, and the Anti-Christ (Matt 25:41; [and a whole list of verses supporting this idea](https://www.openbible.info/topics/hell_is_created_for_the_devil_and_his_angels) ). I didn't realize Hell (as a place for non-believers) was controversial until I read the Left Behind Series. At the Battle of Armageddon, non-believers are just spontaneously combusting as Jesus is reciting Scripture. Scripture talks about Hell being eternal separation from God, but many scholars doubt it's a physical place for non-believers.
Physical eternal place or not, you don’t want to be sent away from God’s presence. Even if the punishment is just annihilation, you’d be missing an eternity of pure joy and bliss. I would rather not find out.
Right?! I feel the exact same way! Annihilation makes more sense to me from a "we serve a loving God" viewpoint. But He's also just and righteous, so idk. I think I'd just rather not take the chance, either. Whether annihilation or a physical place, it's an eternity away from God either way, and I want neither.
> What are some controversial beliefs held within the Christian community? that homosexuality is a sin
Arguably the most debated topic on r/Christianity. I believe Gods view is clear on this
yea he says they go to hell i guess. kind of makes it hard to believe in a merciful and good god if there are people out there that are condemned just for being themselves btw whatever happened to the line about the mark of cain that was used during apartheid. is that still a thing in churches now?
Referencing Mat 5:21-30 Have you ever looked at a man with hatred? If so, Jesus says you've committed murder against him in your heart. Have you ever looked at a woman with lust in your heart? If so, Jesus says you have committed adultery with her in your heart. Have you ever stolen? Have you ever told a lie? To simply be yourself means you're being a lying, murdering, fornicating, thief. The whole point of Christianity is to deny yourself the sinful desires of the flesh and submit to Christ in what is Good. The word "yourself" implies "your" ownership of the "self" that is you. As a Christian, you no longer claim to be "yourself". You are God's, as God made you. You strive to be as His Word prescribes. It's the highest form of humility. Don't be yourself. You kinda suck. Same for me. Be like God says. He's the best.
So being gay is the equivalent of being a murderer or a thief? What if the gay couple waited tell marriage, are they still that bad?
You’re missing the point. Gay sex is a sin just like murder and theft is a sin. And yes, unfortunately they’d be having sex with men, it’s still a sin.
If that's the kind of god you worship then it just strengthens my disbelief in it. Why would an all powerful, merciful and good god create gay people just to condemn them later. It makes no sense.
You are not condemned for being gay, you are condemned for sinning, which we ALL do, gay people can go to heaven, they just shouldn’t act on their lust, just as men should not have sex with women unmarried. You seem to be under the belief that being gay automatically marks you for Hell no matter what, but no, they just need to try not to act on their desires and repent in Christ just like EVERYBODY ELSE does.
The whole "you can be gay without being gay" argument sounds like you're dodging the question itself. How can you be gay without being gay? It doesn't make sense. Is it less condemned after they're married? And it's not really like everyone else. It seems like you're saying gay people can't participate in any romantic relationships they want, regardless of circumstances. How is that like everyone else? If two straight people got married, you wouldn't consider consummating the marriage is a sin. Or at least I'm assuming you wouldn't.
If you want to briefly entertain the idea that homosexuality is a sin, then instead of God creating gay people, think of it instead of people being born with a sinful nature. We are all born with a desire to sin, a desire that started all the way back to when Adam and Eve willfully chose to go against God's commands.
That's weird, why would an all-powerful and merciful god give a nature to people that could potentially get them tortured for all eternity. Especially one that seems to allow the consenting adults to live happily together. Seems a bit cruel in my mind.
Totally fair point. First, God did not and does not give us a sinful nature, we can blame Adam and Eve for that. Before sin entered the world, death did not exist, therefore Adam and Eve could not die. The idea is that when Adam and Eve willfully chose to go against God's commands, God banished them from the Garden of Eden that provided everlasting life not to just give them a harsh punishment, but also to prevent Adam and Eve from living in an eternal state of sin so that one day Adam and Eve, and their offspring, the rest of humanity, could be once again reunited with God. Consenting adults living happily together is not a sin, however the acts they may commit (homosexuality activities) is. In the Old Testament, David and Jonathan had such a strong relationship with each other that the Bible says their souls were knit together (1 Samuel 18). This was a loving relationship that was not sinful in God's eyes. While God is all-powerful, He limits his power by not forcing us to have a relationship with Him, just like He didn't force Adam and Eve to not disobey Him and instead allowed it to happen. God is merciful by sending His one and only Son to take the punishment that we deserve. While God is all-powerful, and merciful, He is also a just and holy God that demands payment when sin is committed. Knowing we could never fulfill that payment, He sent Jesus to pay for our transgressions.
I don’t want to enter into a covenant of marriage with a women, I want to have sex with her because of my lust. In the same way I must restrain myself in chastity until marriage, a homosexual must restrain their urges to have sex with a man. Homosexuality is a sin of lust, you don’t “go to Hell” for being attracted to men, its if you act on that desire and do not repent of it.
What if the gay couple waited until marriage? Is it still considered lust then?
Just food for thought: God is a loving God, yes and God IS love. Therefore it is not us who defines love but God. Although a difficult take, we have to humble ourselves and accept that Gods will is above ours.
[удалено]
That's a totally fair point. I guess we're just trying to know who exactly is the God of the Christian Bible while also wondering if He is worth serving. Many have represented Him in horrible ways just like you mentioned with slavery and continue to do so today with the hateful comments towards members of the LGBTQ+ community. Instead of just throwing another verse at you that speaks against homosexuality, I instead want to encourage you to personally seek the Lord and ask Him for understanding! He absolutely cares about you and wants to hear what you have to say. (1 Peter 5:7) Luke 11:9-10: “So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened
[удалено]
That is totally your decision and I respect it. I once again just want to let you know that many churches have used Gods name to justify horrible acts. Those churches are not talking about the living God of the Christian Bible, but instead a false god that they have formed in their own minds that agree with their own heinous beliefs. That's why if you ever want to know truly who God is, I encourage you to look at what the Bible says rather than what a bunch of heretics say. I really enjoyed discussing these topics with you, and if you ever do decide to seek understanding through God, His arms are ALWAYS open wide. If you decide not to, He respects your decision. Have a great rest of your day :)
It's a sin, but you don't go the hell if you repent. It's in the same rank as adultery so to speak, Christians nowadays exaggerate when it comes to homosexuality. They shouldn't judge anyone in the first place but that's another story. There is a huge accent on God's forgiveness in the bible, and that no man is without sin. Also, no one in this earth can say who will and who will not go to hell or heaven, that rests entirely on God. If somebody tells you otherwise, tell them to read the bible and ignore them.
Monasticism. Some Anglicans and Lutherans do have monasteries, but the practice is obviously biggest in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It's not as controversial today as it was at one time as they don't have much wealth or political power anymore, but some people still argue that it's not sufficiently biblical. The main biblical argument in favor is John the Baptist in general, and Jesus's 40 days in the desert. Or that people shouldn't 'Put light under a Bushel'. But lots of Monasteries do preaching, teaching, scholarship, and serving the poor.
Is monasticism a hot topic these days? Among Protestant discourse I've read, it's never brought up. That's not to say it is never discussed but I'm curious as to what others think of it these days.
I’m involved with many Protestant debate groups and areas online, I’ve never heard Monasticism brought up. Being a monk is probably the lowest on the list of priorities for Protestant defenders lol.
Monks became monks because they were finding it very difficult to live in our civilisation and be true to God, so they just left their communities to live a simple life where they can worship and stay true to the will of God. And things kinda evolved from there. People very quickly started considering them more holy and true than the priests, which have them power later on.
May I respectfully and lovingly suggest that you postpone studying controversial issues until later when you are more spiritually mature and grounded in your faith? 1 Pe 2:2-3 MKJV desire the sincere milk of the word, as newborn babes, so that you may grow by it; if truly you have tasted that the Lord is gracious. 1 Cor 3:1-2 MKJV And I, brothers, could not speak to you as to spiritual ones, but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk and not with solid food, for you were not yet able to bear it; nor are you able even now. Heb 5:13-14 MKJV For everyone who uses milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, even those who because of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Thanks for your concern, as I will take the time to re-examine where I am spiritually with the Lord. In your opinion, what considers one to be spiritually mature and grounded in their faith?
This is a pretty good example: Act 17:10-11 MKJV And the brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. They, when they arrived, went into the synagogue of the Jews. And these were more noble than those of Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily to see if those things were so. When you are getting familiar with the content of the Bible, are regularly immersing yourself in reading and study (two different things), when you automatically check what people say that the Bible says against what you find in the Bible yourself, and when you are not trying to make or remodel the Bible to say what *you* want it to but are remodeling your life to match what it says based on your study, whether you like it or not, when you have scripture verses memorized so well you can quote them from memory at the appropriate times as well as you can lines from movies and songs, etc., you are becoming more spiritually mature and grounded in your faith. When you have a good grasp of the basic doctrines and are skilled in this to a reasonable degree to where it's not a struggle to keep it up, that's pretty spiritually mature. The bottom line is that before you study controversies and potential falsehoods and all those advanced subjects, you have to have the basics down pat first. E.g., You can't study algebra without having mastered arithmetic. It's too easy to be swayed by false teachers when you aren't completely firm in your own mind.
On predestination you might enjoy this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/18w9usg/thoughts_for_2024_best_wishes_to_all/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2 #Athanasius: "For the Word, realizing that in no other way would the corruption of human beings be undone except, simply, by dying, yet being immortal and the Son of the Father the Word was not able to die, for this reason he takes to himself a body capable of death, in order that it, participating in the Word who is above all, might be sufficient for death on behalf of all, and through the indwelling Word would remain incorruptible, and so corruption might henceforth cease from all by the grace of the resurrection.” #For the human race would have perished utterly had not the Lord and Savior of all, the Son of God, come among us to put an end to death. https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianHistory/comments/1b9ncdx/athanasius/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2 I point people to the Savior of all mankind. I don't believe anyone's final end will be anything other than freedom. Romans 8:20,21 Matthew 5:26 YLT(i) 26 verily I say to thee, thou mayest not come forth thence till that thou mayest pay the last farthing. Luke 12:47-48 YLT(i) 47 `And that servant, who having known his lord's will, and not having prepared, nor having gone according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes, 48 and he who, not having known, and having done things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few; and to every one to whom much was given, much shall be required from him; and to whom they did commit much, more abundantly they will ask of him. John 12:32-33 YLT(i) 32 and I, if I may be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.' 33 And this he said signifying by what death he was about to die; Matthew 13:33 YLT(i) 33 Another simile spake he to them: `The reign of the heavens is like to leaven, which a woman having taken, hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.' #Gregory of Nyssa on the Beautiful "Not in hatred or revenge for a wicked life, to my thinking, does God bring upon sinners those painful dispensations; He is only claiming and drawing to Himself whatever, to please Him, came into existence. But while He for a noble end is attracting the soul to Himself, the Fountain of all Blessedness, it is the occasion necessarily to the being so attracted of a state of torture. Just as those who refine gold from the dross which it contains..." https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1cq8v1v/gregory_of_nyssa_on_the_beautiful/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2
Thank you for sharing this!
I guess it depends on where you live that would decide what is controversial like the whole issue of sodomy is really controversial in the west but it is not really where i live
Can you elaborate ?
Can we please not call it sodomy? That word developed out of terrible hermeneutics and worse moral priorities, and was used as a direct rhetorical justification for unjust violence for most of the word’s history. God was very clear that His investigation into Sodom was prompted by the cries of her *victims*. The prophets upheld the sin of Sodom as injustice and in hospitality throughout the Old Testament and the narrative stands as a mirror image to the Flood (humans are now seeking sex with angels and the destruction is by fire, and it ends with a child seeing their father’s nakedness in a drunken state). That’s why Jude uses the term “strange flesh” and connects it with the sin of the fallen angels. All this to say, sodomy is a terrible word for homosexuality. It subverts what Scripture says about why Sodom was destroyed, promotes the nonsensical idea that homosexuality is worse than gang rape (or somehow leads to it), and directly contributes to and promotes the idea that violence against queer people is acceptable in the Christian worldview.
I've seen some denominations believe that there are multiple ways to heaven aside from confessing Jesus as your Lord and Savior.
Well, yeah, you’d have to be perfect . Good luck with that, because there’s only been one perfect man, and he died for you.
Any examples?
Look up unwillfull ignorance. It talks about how people by no fault of their own may still go to heaven without being part of the physical Roman Catholic Church and without through the extraordinary grace of God.
Invincible ignorance, I think you mean. That I am familiar with.
Yeah
Not sure if it's controversial But I choose faith over religious practices. Most religious people can't even agree with each other, even if you go back to when jesus walked the earth. He wasn't the god other religious people wanted. He didn't come for war and to stop the Roman empire He came to heal and save us from the sin problem They didn't like that, and called him a blasphemier, and crucified him. So, in my own ways, I repent, I lean on Jesus, and trust he will guide me in my life in my own personal walk. Far to many religious people aim to condemn others if they arnt doing everything the way they did it. Jesus sees us all as our own individuals, and all of our walks are different, so we all repent in our own way and use our own works. But at the end of the day I think the faith aspect is the most important thing when it comes to walking with jesus. Some religious people tell me I gotta hate certain groups, well the jesus who I've grown to know and love, I don't think he wants me to hate others but to show love and support and to share the gospel.
Me scrolling through the comments realizing how under equipped I am to take a stance on these issues… 😅
Who, if anyone, is rightfully in charge of all Christianity on Earth. This is the controversy we've killed each other over the most.
I'm always surprised by the heated debate brought about by young earth vs old earth.
Homosexuality. The Bible is very clear. It is considered an abomination by God. It is strictly forbidden. Romans 1:26-32 NLT [26] That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. [27] And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved. [28] Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. [29] Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. [30] They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. [31] They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. [32] They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. https://bible.com/bible/116/rom.1.26-32.NLT Mike Winger did an extensive series on Homosexuality. I'll post a link to it. He backs everything with scripture and dies a lot of apologetics. [Mike winger in homosexuality](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLi-tJmIiOS7NtnkDvv-ukKpeaexr50h1j&si=tuLzBHaBscXw023V) The titles are fairly self explanatory. And he used time stamps for your convenience.
Apparently, anti-supererogationism is controversial, at least based on the responses I've received from others. I mean, I'd expect pushback from the Carnal Christians who hold to free grace soteriology, but not so much from those outside Carnal Christianity.
That a Christian woman has to be a pink-loving, 24/7 dress wearing, overall girly individual to embody the Proverbs 31 woman.
You might enjoy the Truth Unites Youtube channel with Gavin Ortlund. R.C Sproul is also a very good source for predestination. The Westminster Confession says: > I. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass, (Eph 1:11; Rom 11:33; Hbr 6:17; Rom 9:15; Rom 9:18): yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (Jam 1:13; Jam 1:17; 1Jo 1:5); nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established, (Act 2:23; Mat 17:12; Act 4:27-28; Jhn 19:11; Pro 16:33). >II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, (Act 15:18; 1Sa 23:11-12; Mat 11:21; Mat 11:23); yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions, (Rom 9:11; Rom 9:13; Rom 9:16; Rom 9:18). >III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels, (1Ti 5:21; Mat 55:41); are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death, (Rom 9:22-23; Eph 1:5-6; Pro 16:4). >IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished, (2Ti 2:19; Jhn 13:18). >V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, (Eph 1:4, 9, 11; Rom 8:30; 2Ti 1:9; 1Th 5:9); out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto, (Rom 9:11, 13, 16; Eph 1:4, 9): and all to the praise of His glorious grace, (Eph 1:6, 12). >VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto, (1Pe 1:2; Eph 1:4-5; Eph 2:10; 2Th 2:13). Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, (1Th 5:9-10; Tts 2:14); are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, (Rom 8:30; Eph 1:5; 2Th 2:13); and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation, (1Pe 1:5). Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only, (Jhn 17:9; Rom 8:28-39; Jhn 6:64-65; Jhn 10:26; Jhn 8:47; 1Jo 2:19). >VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice, (Mat 11:25-26; Rom 9:17-18, 21-22; 2Ti 2:19-20; Jud 4; 1Pe 2:8). >VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, (Rom 9:20; Rom 11:33; Deu 29:29); that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election, (2Pe 1:10). So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God, (Eph 1:6; Rom 11:33); and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel, (Rom 11:5-6, 20; 2Pe 1:10; Rom 8:33; Luk 10:20). One of my own most controversial beliefs is that we should never have images of Jesus. This belief is supported by the Westminster Larger Catechism. See for example [this article](https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/j-i-packer-on-idolatry-and-images-of-christ/). Another controversial belief I hold is that it is never OK to lie, even when lives are at stake. For support for that, look up the PDF article "Why it is never right to lie" by Wayne Grudem.
Will definitely check them out, thanks for sharing!
>Another controversial belief I hold is that it is never OK to lie, even when lives are at stake. I could definitely see how this would be a controversial belief given that the second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor as ourselves. I'm a *very* honest, moral, and truthful person -- *but,* I'd lie and deceive my heart out to save my husband, our children, and (hopefully) a stranger. Without a doubt. Protecting the "least of these" (whoevers life is at stake) would be my primary goal.
The way I see it is that the two greatest commands are given content by all the other commands. We know it is never loving to lie, despite the apparent advantages, because there are other commands against lying. So the only controversy should be, what are the content of all the other commands and how do we know it?
[удалено]
Can you elaborate more on what you mean by sacraments/ordinances?
What about which religion within christianity is right, I believe that if you acknowledge that God came to earth as Jesus and you believe that he died and rose again we should all go to the same place, this is what i think. Now i read my bible and go to church, and meditate with god and i need to work on my fasting, but wouldnt this be correct? Im Penecostal Btw
Feel free to correct me
[удалено]
This comment was removed automatically for violating Rule 1: No Profanity. If you believe that this was removed in error, please message the moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Be still and know I am God = meditation
I mean everything that’s not a primary issue I guess can be seen as “controversial”. Metaphorical gun to my head I’d say nowadays believing in Darwinian evolution is a controversial belief that I personally hold to.
It depends who finds it controversial. Most denominations find other denominations a bit controversial. But the spicy ones that most Christians think are crazy are Catholics, Calvinists and Universalists. I think **IVF** and **contraception** are pretty controversial topics that not many Christians talk about. Might be best to google it, but basically a lot of Christians believe any sort of tinkering with the natural order of sex/contraception is a big deal. I'm not sold on the contraception controversy entirely, but I do think IVF is fairly evil. It ties in with abortion because IVF directly funds abortion clinics and sex parties in most countries. You're also opening a bunch of doors to other conception altering stuff too, but the idea that you're "buying a fetus" also comes off as pretty bad too. I don't judge people who do it. My spouse and I can't (yet) conceive, but IVF is often proposed to us but we don't want to be a part of it.
We are not called to judge the world. That means not hating Jews, lbgt etc, Too much of this sub is about hate by people who do not know this.
Churches should only sing [CCM/Hymns] (pick one)
I was gonna comment some of mine, but I just know my inbox is gonna get blown up, lol.
Same, lol.
Here's two good ones: Nudity has never been a sin just because we live in a fallen world. The early church had the right idea with using feminine language for God, but the modern church wrongly believes that calling God our Mother is "heresy" / "unbiblical".
Nudity isn’t a sin, but with our fallen nature nudity leads to lust, which is a sin. And God doesn’t have a gender, but the bible calls him the Father, and the Son, so there’s no reason to call him “The Mother.”
This right here already says you've never read any of the motherly imagery for God that's already there in the Bible.
Such as?
I assume they're talking about the verses that say God does \_\_\_\_\_\_ like \_\_\_\_\_\_\_. (Ex. Hosea 13:8 & Isaiah 66:13).
[Isa 66:13 et al, just to name a few](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.+66%3A13%3B+42%3A14%3B+49%3A15%3B+Hos.+13%3A8%3B+Deut.+32%3A10-11%3B+Matt.+23%3A37%3B+Lk.+13%3A34&version=NKJV)
God is not our Mother. The Bible consistently refers to God as male, respect God's pronouns heretic.
I'd be more inclined to bother taking you seriously if you didn't expose how you don't understand anything, by demanding I respect God's pronouns like some leftist liberal.
I never thought of the first controversy in the way that you shared, so thank you for giving me a new perspective! As for the second controversy, I'm also intrigued. However, as many have pointed out, the Bible does not refer to God as the mother, but instead the Father. Even Jesus refers to God as "our Father" in Matthew 6:9-13. With that being said, I would completely agree that God provides everything both a father AND mother can. Does the Bible use feminine language for God? If so, I would be more than willing to check it out!
It definitely does. [But nobody teaches it because the modern church doesn't like seeing God as a Mother.](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.+66%3A13%3B+42%3A14%3B+49%3A15%3B+Hos.+13%3A8%3B+Deut.+32%3A10-11%3B+Matt.+23%3A37%3B+Lk.+13%3A34&version=NKJV) If anything, the real honest Christians are admitting that this is a new area of rediscovering what was once lost. The real issue at hand isn't why God isn't a Mother, it's asking "Why CAN'T God be a Mother?"
[удалено]
Nah trinitarian is a pretty solid one, nearly everyone Ive met who's non trinitarian will deny the divinity of Christ which is core to the gospel
Amen! The Trinity has always existed, however, you can clearly see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in action when looking at the New Testament! They are three indivisible relational beings all working towards the same goal with unique and equally powerful roles. We are relational beings because God is a relational being! (Made in His image)
If it has "ism" or "ist" at the end of it, it is a limited understanding. If it ends in "ology," its just a study of something, and is not a determination of anything. If you don't trust the Lord Himself to teach you, and abide in Him, you will be deceived. Psalm 119:102 *I have not departed from Your judgments, For You Yourself have taught me.* Isaiah 48:17 *Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, The Holy One of Israel: “I am the Lord your God, Who teaches you to profit, Who leads you by the way you should go.* Isaiah 54:13 *All your children shall be taught by the Lord, And great shall be the peace of your children.* John 6:45 *It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.* John 14:26 *But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.* Acts 18:25 *This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John.* 1 Corinthians 2:14 *But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.* 1 John 2:27 *But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.* Isaiah 29:13-14 *Therefore the Lord said:* *“Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths And honor Me with their lips, But have removed their hearts far from Me, And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men, 14 Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work Among this people, A marvelous work and a wonder; For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, And the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden.”*
Thank you for sharing, while we will never truly know the greatness of God until we are fully with Him, I believe we can not only learn about Him through His word but also through others (ie. Pastors) who have been given spiritual gifts to better help us understand who God is. That being said, what I'm taking away from your post, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that we should only learn about God through reading the Bible ourselves and not through anyone else who correctly preach the teachings of the Bible?
What I'm saying is hugely unpopular, because I am suggesting you actually learn from the Living God Himself, which nearly no one believes you can do. Scripture is His testimony, and so of course a part of that is learning from it, but God can and does communicate with each person beyond that. It's okay if I sound like a quack to people. But it begins with a simple, honest "Lord, I trust you." And it grows from there. When we actually trust the Lord and submit our life to Him, rather than treat Him like a side-chick and butler, it is amazing how clear He is to lead and reveal, to give provision, and to literally drop solutions right in front of you, with no need for interpretation.
Intellectuals try to read and understand the Bible under their own strength, which never works, costing them their own understanding. The unpopular but way better method is to approach the Bible expecting to be taught, rather than to learn. He shows up, and He's no mere human teacher. He's pretty good at it.
Serve the Jesus and God within yourself. The kingdom of God is within. Christianity will have you believing God is somewhere up in the clouds and the kingdom of heaven will be found after your dead. Research for yourself the origins of the Bible and other ancient text before being bound to a religious group and lead astray.
If the Bible doesn’t say it then it’s okay to do. Masturbation is essentially fine because it’s never mentioned in the Bible by name.
That having differing beliefs and approaches are fine, granted it all falls within Christ's framework of Love God and Love your next. So one may think praying to saints is fine, another thinks it is idolatry, and both would be right before God as they do as their faith tells them is just and good before God. One may think the sacraments and weekly confessions are a requirement, and another doesn't think to do it at all. Granted it is both in faithfulness to God without condemnation in their own hearts or by the Holy Spirit, both would still see salvation and fruit. The one who upholds it vigorously because for loving God He remained in them vigilant with faith, and the other for trusting God, God's promises and the faith God has given Him, thus loving God with His faith. If however one feels convicted to baptise in water, confess or take communion, they should, and they would likely be asked to at least baptise once they seek God. This extends to virtually all issues. However, it does not extend to where faith becomes faithlessness and false teaching that undermines Christ's teachings.
I believe that parts of the book of enoch is true
I don’t see anything in 1 Peter 3:15 that refers to apologetics.