Every day we stray further from god’s light.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (40)
sorted by:
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16.
Whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. Period. The thief on the cross is an excellent example of this seen laid out. He was at the end of his life, and accepted Jesus and Jesus told him he would go to heaven. He wasn't baptized and he did nothing except accept Jesus as His savior. So yes it is very Biblical that all we have to do for eternal life is to believe and accept Jesus. And of course we are supposed to live our lives with Jesus and follow him, but that's what the Holy Spirit is there for. Now I don't believe laying hands is necessary for the Holy Spirit to come. I think that happens instantaneously as you accept Jesus. I felt it happen when I accepted Christ, but I was baptized several years later.
I'm not saying it's wrong to go to a priest or a minister or another person for advice or help. And my pastor counsels people regularly, but what I have a problem with is that people are told they HAVE to do this to be forgiven. I don't get the extra step. Once you have confessed to God and repented, that's it. It's the works-based part I have an issue with... like you have to do something (say this many hail Mary's or this many Our Fathers) to earn God's forgiveness when Jesus already did the work for us on the Cross. We just have to accept the gift of salvation and repent from our sin. We don't need to go to any priest or pastor to be forgiven... God can do it without them. So it's not so much that it's "wrong" to go to someone and talk about it. I think that can be very beneficial especially if you're really struggling with something, but I think it's telling people they HAVE to do it when I don't see any Biblical backing for that. I hope that was clear.
And as for the Pope, I have heard of the "good" Pope. And I don't have a problem with him as a person, just the whole idea of a Pope controlling all the churches. I haven't seen any Biblical backing for it, and it's not like how the Apostles set up individual churches during Acts. The Bible is very clear about having elders in authority over each individual church, but to my knowledge they never set one person up as being in charge of all the churches. I know the Apostles traveled around and helped them and supported them, but they weren't in charge of the churches. They were just there to assist and encourage them. This is why I do not go to churches that are affiliated with any one denomination Protestant or otherwise. I don't like or agree with large organizations running multitudes of churches. I think it breeds corruption, and I've seen it first hand. And I am very hesitant for anyone saying they belong to the "one true church." Any follower of Christ is part of the Church. We may differ on theology, but The Church is the bride of Christ and it is all who believe in and follow Jesus.
And I hope no one takes any offense to this. I'm just going with what the Bible says, but of course you are free to disagree <3
The thief didn't accept anything, he turned his heart towards God and made a change, its not a one step prayer. Also, whoever BELIEVES, I suppose you could go into the semantics and argue how believes really means accepts but its about having faith that Jesus is who He says He is and that you turn your heart to follow Him.
As for the laying on hands of the Holy Spirit nowhere do you see EXCEPT at Pentecost (and prior to this Christ laid His hands on His disciples) that the Holy Spirit settled upon them every other time it was for the laying of hands that the Holy Spirit was received.
Ad for the have to go to a priest to be forgiven, I have never been told this but we do need to receive absolution to be able to partake in the holy Communion which is a whole other topic. So that might be something only Catholics do, but in Orthodoxy I have never been taught this.
One thing about our Pope, and I do meme a lot on this subject where I will call the Bishop of Rome just that since the Coptic Church was using the term Pope hundreds of years before the Catholics decided they wanted to take it, is that he isn't controlling all of the Churches. We have for the Coptic Church was is called a Holy Synod and issues are brought up to them and it takes them many years to come to a decision on some issues because the entire Holy Synod has to be in agreement about a decision for an issue. Recently I brought an issue up to my Sayedna (arabic for master its a personal tense when talking about a bishop) Anba Youssef (Anba is arabic for Father, like Abouna for the priests Anba is for Bishops) about Coptic Iconography and an internal issue in our rite with it. He told me he would submit the issue before the Holy Synod and they will make a ruling on this. Now it will probably be many many many years from now if I am even still alive to hear a ruling on this because it really isn't a super pressing matter.
If you read the history of the Church you will see that the Apostles did indeed have particular churches they were in charge of St. Mark was over the Coptic Church, St. James I believe was over the one in Jerusalem (I am not super versed on the history on the councils and which apostle was assigned where) you can even see in Acts of the Apostles one of the councils that happened because it mentions how the Egyptians and Ethiopians were present. Also something that just came to mind is Timothy, he was ordained by St. Paul as bishop of Ephesus. There is a lot of evidence not just in the Bible but history in general that the Apostles and those ordained were consecrated bishops and in-charge of their diocese.
As for theological differences this is very important one theological difference almost ripped apart the entire Church, Arianism that is why they had a council to address it as well this was the same time they laid down the definitions of what being a Christian was and that is the acceptance of the Nicene Creed (which the Catholics later added the filoque heresy into it which most Prot denominations accept). You also have Nestoriansim as well which this teaches that Jesus was just a man who was "inhabited" in a sense by the divine Word, when Jesus was crucified it was the man who died on the cross because the divine could not die and left him. This is also why there are so many writings on Christology.
Once you start to read history you will understand what the fathers believed and what is Biblical. I am more than happy to discuss this a lot further if you ever wish either in DM or discord!
Accepting/believing/following Jesus are all semantics. When we as protestants talk of accepting Christ. What we mean is that we accept the gift of salvation from Jesus. We accept it by believing He is the Son of God who died on the cross to save the world from our sins. He rose and defeated death on the 3rd day so that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. So I agree with what you said, we just use different words, but it means the same thing.
Here is my argument about the laying of hands thing. Why isn't it written about in any of Paul's letters to the churches? He never instructs any of us to do lay hands or tells us that that is the only way to get the Holy Spirit. If this was something that was so necessary, then why isn't it in every letter to every church? God always repeats the very important things. Do not fear is written over a hundred times throughout Scripture for example. Jesus never once talks about laying hands. He heals people and tells them to sin no more. Their faith makes them well, etc. He is very clear that faith is what is needed.
And about Paul being ordained as a bishop or whatever. That is nowhere in the Bible. I go by what the Bible says alone, not on what a possibly corrupt church teaches outside of the Bible. I don't know where those teachings come from or who wrote about it or if it is true or not. If it's not in the Bible, I do not look at it as an example for how I am to behave or what we as the church are supposed to do. The Bible is very clear about having elders in charge or individual churches. So even if the apostles did do something different.... which ISN'T in the Bible, so I have my doubts, it's still not what God has instructed in actual Scripture.
We all know that history can be corrupted and changed at a whim. The word of God is above all things, which is why I only look at what the Bible says and not what could be corrupted by fallible men with their own agendas. So we may be at an impasse.
I want to touch on this part
You do understand that it was the Church that decided which books were to be put into the Bible right? And they had some disagreements about certain books, the current "Bible" accepted by most Prot denominations is not the Bible in its entirety but has books removed from it. The first official decision of it was the Synod of Hippo in 393 and then a reaffirmation at the Council of Carthage in 397.
Theologians have argued for centuries over this. I believe that God is sovereign and if He wanted those other books in the Bible they would be in there. Period. You either believe the Bible is the perfect inspired word of God, or you don't. And if we can't agree on that point, then there is no use discussing theology further. Because for me it always comes back to the Bible over anything else. So I believe we are at an impasse.