“In Christ Jesus”

[Jesse Stone]

Netchaplain,

Jesse Stone asked:
Do you think that being in Christ (Rom 8:1-4, 12:5; 1 Cor 1:27-31, 3:1-4, 15:22; 2 Cor 5:17, 11:3; Gal 2:4; etc.) is the same as being in Christianity?

Unfortunately, your excellent summary below didn't answer the question. Perhaps in this instance a simple yes or no would suffice.

Netchaplain said:
Those who are Christ's are personally confirmed and reassured by the Spirit of God that they "are the children of God" (Rom 8:16). I believe this is obvious to the believer in two ways: by the Father's work (Phil 2:13); by the Spirit's work (Gal 5:17). In these we always find that the "desire to do God's pleasure" is ultimately always made most important to us by the Spirit, and the priority is of course loving God first, which can only be accomplished by loving others as Christ loves us (John 15:12; 1John 4:20, 21).

An excellent summary of the experience of being in Christ. If rightly understood.

Alas, there's a lot of experiential confusion in Christianity. Confusing natural thinking and natural feelings with the real experience of walking according to the Spirit.

Pentecostalism confuses a natural psychological experience associated with what they call Spiritual gifts with the Spiritual functions portrayed in the NT (e.g., 1 Cor 12-14). They're only right in that the Spiritual functions are supposed to operate today as they did in the 1st century. But Pentecostals are operating from the perspective of 20th-21st century Christianity. Rather than from the perspective of the ekklesia (not to be confused with the denominational churches of Christianity) that are also supposed to exist today as they did in the 1st century. Only interpretations of a few Bible verses by Christianity says that both the ekklesia and its Spiritual functions as they existed in the 1st century have long sense been abrogated or have in some sense developed beyond the basic idea portrayed in the NT to the denominational complexity that exists today. Or that it has developed into what is seen today as "The Church" (the stated view of the RCC). Beyond me why the abrogators haven't abrogated the Holy Spirit altogether in their doctrines, having already left him corporately and functionally impotent (with the possible exception of a few individuals who are led by the Spirit) by their abrogations and natural tendencies.

Good feelings about a once for all acceptance of Christ (faith in a date of one's "Spiritual birth") -- or -- about being in the right institution (faith in "the Church") -- or -- about adhering to the right Tradition (faith in "right doctrine that is objective truth"). Too often replaces the reassurance spoken of in Rom 8:16.

Natural affection more often than not replaces the true expression of agape love (1 Cor 13:1-8) that's only possible through submission to the Spirit, which is different from submitting to Christianity and its Traditions (Gal 5:16-26).

The natural desire to "attend Church" without fail every Sunday -- or -- to faithfully "study" the Bible -- or -- to "serve God". Out of respect for following the unspoken laws of a Tradition, the person and/or teachings of one or more respected leaders of "the faith", or a desire for personal knowledge of a Tradition (an interpretation of the Bible at best) with understanding and/or personal action. These things too often replace being truly led by the Spirit and hearing what he is saying (Rom 8:14; Rev 2:7).

Sheep following the wrong shepherd, whether it be themselves or another person, ideal, or thing. This will inevitably lead down the wrong path.

As hard as he may be to understand at times, Søren Kierkegaard nails the attitude that caused the current problem in Christianity by writing about that attitude as it existed in Lutheranism as he experienced it in his time and place (early 19th century in Denmark where Lutheranism was the state religion). His highly existentialist writings mainly had to do with ethics (in relation to the free will of personal choice and responsibility). But I imagine any contention about free will versus the puppet idea (or an idea of judicial justification that's too often used to relinquish personal responsibility) would not be allowed on this venue having the propensity to produce volatile reactions and ad hominems.

Kierkegaard wrote in his journal:

"What I really need is to get clear about what I must do, not what I must know, except insofar as knowledge must precede every act. What matters is to find a purpose, to see what it really is that God wills that I shall do; the crucial thing is to find a truth which is truth for me, to find the idea for which I am willing to live and die." (as quoted in Wikipedia in the entry titled Soren Kirkegaard)

Kierkegaard was a philosopher with a strong belief in God. Much like the contemporary philosopher William Lane Craig. And I have no doubt that he was thinking of Paul when he wrote those words. Paul's sense of personal purpose pervades his writings. Kierkegaard's writings always emphasized the individual over the institution. And in that his thinking was a little like contemporary Protestant Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism.

Let me know what your think of this reply so I may know more accurately where your interests are.

My primary interest insofar as Christianity is concerned is that it portrays by its denominational character the exact opposite of the desire of the one who is supposed to be its Lord, Jesus Christ. I say supposed to be, based on the name it has chosen to represent itself (i.e., Christian and its derivative Christianity).

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me: (John 17:20-23 KJV)

With a clear dual purpose in mind:

that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (John 17:23 KJV)

Oneness is intended to reflect the attitude of Paul by all (Phil 3:13-16). The unreserved love of Christ is intrinsic to this kind of unity (Rom 8:31-39; 1 Cor 13:5 "seeks not its own"; see Gal 2:20).

The world knowing Christ and the oneness of those who are in Christ go hand in hand. The former is not possible without the latter. And the world knowing Christianity in lieu of Christ certainly is NOT the same thing as the world knowing Christ. As Christianity is divided, so also are the ones who are in Christ who are in Christianity divided.

The world knows Christ by the unity of his people (1 Pet 2:9-10) in his one kingdom (Col 1:13), wherein God alone is God and the Son of God alone is Lord (1 Cor 8:6). Christianity by its denominationalism is divided into many kingdoms each with its own God and its own Lord (sometimes indistinguishable). The denominational character of Christianity gives the world ample excuse to go its own way without guilt. More and more the world is returning to either a new Dark Ages (which has happened several times in the past, though only one instance is actually called "the Dark Ages") or is tumbling headlong towards THE END.

 

[netchaplain]

Christian status is dependant, NOT on being in Christ, but on being in a Christian denomination adhering to a specific Tradition with a specific denominational Creed.

Hi JS - I believe you make fairly informed observations but I believe your conclusions could be more accurate. It's not difficult to find error (misjudgment) within contemporary Christendom (many if not the majority of believers) because of their inferior level of maturity in Christ. Though many are not where they could be in maturity, they are nonetheless believers and are truly desirous of God's pleasures, and I believe He will eventually bring each to where He wants them.

Many years ago I went through a stage that involved being more critical than forgiving and loving (not accusing you, just sharing my experience), and if I had not changed my perception (sought believer's primary motive, which was God's desires) I would have entered into confusion, discouragement and misjudgment concerning other believers, along with eventual isolation from them.

I realized that regardless of my opinions, God is "working" within every believer "to desire and do of His good pleasures" (Phl 2:13), and thus it's just a matter of time for each to be brought to maturity, which is always sourced by love to one another. Therefore my disagreements were kept to myself for the sake of "Letting love be without hypocrisy" (Rom 12:9). To me, love to another is not in accordance to loving me back, but loving others with the intention of no conditions and in a self-sacrificing manner, without which any believer will be less mature in understanding and in accepting others.

Hope this reply did not appear judgmental but rather outreaching, and forgive me if I'm completely misunderstanding you.

Love You in Christ

 

[OzSpen]

Netchaplain,

Part 2

I was perusing your thread regarding legalism (The Legal Path). Found the comments therein to be both interesting and revealing.

Christians tend toward a common human failing. That of emphasis. Balance is hard to find among them. And by balance, I don't mean compromise. This too contributes to the denominational character of Christianity.



Paul isn't presenting a contradiction, conundrum, or paradox. Rather, he's pointing out the necessity of balance in one's life in Christ. A balance between personal responsibility and the responsibility of God. When one's thinking or actions become unbalanced, one can be sure that it's the flesh, rather than the Spirit, that's being followed (Gal 5:16-25).

The Bible is composed of two parts. Christians have done their best to abrogate one part by interpretation (OT) through their emphasis on the other part and it's interpretation (NT). And their ideas have become unbalanced and unreal as a consequence.

For example, the Psalms. The "hymnal" that was good enough for the people of God through much of the OT era. While there are Christian apologists who speak in favor of the Psalms, they will follow a scenario wherein the extra-Biblical is added to the Psalms or replaces them altogether. In the Divine Office of the RCC, wherein the Psalms are central, they have added all sorts of extra-Biblical prayers, songs and writings. It's ultimate expression is in four volumes. That's a lot of extra-Biblical additions. In most sermon services of the Protestants, an extra-Biblical hymnal is used instead of the Psalms. All in the name of Christianization.

Who are the people of God in this era (1 Pet 2:10)? Why isn't the Psalms, that most Commentators agree is a very balanced expression of the relationship between God and man and man with each other, good enough for them? Are the extra-Biblical additions inspired, like the OT Psalms (2 Tim 3:14-17)? Indeed, who's to say where inspiration begins and ends under those conditions? By who's authority? Who has the authority of a God to say?

Another example, the Law. The Law and its commentary is uniquely given in its entirety in the OT. For good reason. And that reason isn't just to announce the coming of the Messiah or just to be "our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (Gal 3:24 KJV). The reason is for the good of man. Fallen man (2 Tim 3:14-17). Pick and choose, or abrogation, is outside of God's will regarding the Law he himself has given for our good.



Not live in the sense of eternal life, though that may be included, since the Law is supposed to lead to Christ (Gal 3:17-24). But primarily so that they might know how to live on earth. That they might know that their ways are not the way of God (see Rom 1-3 and the need for justification by an outside source Rom 3:22 & Rom 7 and the need for living by an outside source Rom 8:1-16).

The Law itself is an outside source, but is ineffectual by itself (Rom 7). Nevertheless, it's a tool given by God. Thus the need to be in Christ (2 Cor 5:17) and led by the Spirit (John 16:13; Rom 8:14); by whom the tool is used. Do you think that not being under the Law (Gal 5:18) implies the Spirit of God will lead one contrary to the Law of God? The Law is one package. If the Law is abrogated, who is man to think he has the authority of a God to say that homosexuality and abortion is sin? Who has the authority of a God to say any behavior is a sin (1 John 3:4)? Indeed, who has the authority of a God to say the Law has been abrogated in first place? Jesus himself didn't think he had that authority (Matt 5:17-18). When will all be fulfilled if not when all who are in Christ are fully like Christ and the Law will no longer be needed (1 John 3:2)? The only thing that's changed is a ritual connected to the Law. The Tabernacle Ritual. It changed into the Lord's Table (1 Cor 10-11; Hebrews).

Christians have for the most part abrogated the Law by the interpretation of certain NT passages in favor of an ethereal idea that in a practical sense allows them to create their own Law. The vacuum left by the abrogation must be filled with something. Christians either don't believe they are actually a part of the New Covenant and don't think that "I will put my [note "my"] laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts" (Heb 8:10 KJV) applies to them -- or -- they think that this law so written is a different Law than the one given by God in the OT. One has to ask oneself, how many different Law scenarios has God created? Is anarchy the right way, wherein each Christian is a Law unto himself (as guided by the God of many Law scenarios, of course)?

The only reason Christians don't eat one another (an unclean food according to OT Law - Lev 11:3; man neither chews the cud nor is cloven hoofed) is because it's regarded as uncivilized to do so. Having abrogated the Law, they no longer have the Bible to tell them that there is something else wrong with human cannibalism than simply being uncivilized. Doesn't stop them from eating pigs, rabbits, squirrels, frogs, oysters and snails (all unclean foods that civilization allows to be eaten). To such Christians, being led by the Spirit doesn't include following him in God's idea (according to the Law of his own creation) of what's healthy and unhealthy for man to eat (Lev 11).

The dietary Laws aren't simply for personal health, but rather for the health of the whole people of God. When God's Law isn't followed, why should the world think that the God who created the Law sent his Son? Any more than the nations believed that the nation of Israel was chosen by God for a certain purpose when they ceased to follow the Law? Why should they believe there is a God, for that matter? Why believe in a God that even the Christians don't or won't follow?

Think of the gay Atheist activist Dan Savage who pointed out in as condescending a manner possible that it's all good under an abrogated Law. Christians have become unbalanced as to their diet. They are as sickly as non-Christians, being subject to the same diseases as non-Christians. And no amount of positive thinking can change what only a return to balance can achieve.

Some will emphasize the 10 commandments as being the only portion of the Law that should be followed, because it's reiterated in the NT or some such. The dietary Laws aren't mentioned in the 10 commandments. Because the 10 commandments only refer to man's intended relationship toward God and man (Matt 22:36-40). Of course, if the Law has been abrogated, and the 10 commandments are clearly a part of the abrogated Law (Ex 20:1-17; Deut 5:1-22)....

The denominational character of Christianity is just the tip, a tip very visible to the whole world, of a very deep iceberg. Any reason why I shouldn't be concerned by that? Those who are in Christ and realize that what is clearly said in the Bible is objective truth, and experientially realize through the Spirit that Christ walks among them even to this day through the Spirit (Matt 18:20; Rev 1:12-18, 2:1), they should also realize that today's situation is of great concern to their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (John 17:17-23).

Does this help?

Jesse,

May I make a personal observation. You are here making way too many posts that are too long to gain and maintain my attention. You obviously have experienced some rejections by Christians because of your non-Trinitarian doctrines. Would you please reduce your content to smaller chunks for imbibing by this oldie?

Oz

 

[Bar Elohim]

JS - May I ask what you mean by being denied Christian status? My concern is to attempt to begin sharing with you my answers to your questions.

God's blessings to you!

If I may interject a thought.. the definition of Christianity needs clarification. Christianity is not a religion! True Christianity is one abiding in a living relationship with the living Christ. This is available to all In Christ, through the receiving of the Spirit of Christ.

 

[netchaplain]

If I may interject a thought.. the definition of Christianity needs clarification. Christianity is not a religion! True Christianity is one abiding in a living relationship with the living Christ. This is available to all In Christ, through the receiving of the Spirit of Christ.

Hi BE - I agree with your comment, and not to seem competitive, I would reply that one could say (for it is classified as a religion) that it's the only religion that involves a living union and fellowship with the One it worships, for no other religion provides an eternal interaction with its object of worship.

Thanks for the sensitive and sincere reply, and God's blessings to your Family!

 

[OzSpen]

If I may interject a thought.. the definition of Christianity needs clarification. Christianity is not a religion! True Christianity is one abiding in a living relationship with the living Christ. This is available to all In Christ, through the receiving of the Spirit of Christ.

Bar,

Oxford dictionaries gives this definition of religion. It is 'the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods' (Oxford dictionaries 2015. S v religion).

On the basis of this English definition of 'religion', Christianity is a religion.

Oz

 

[Bar Elohim]

Bar,

Oxford dictionaries gives this definition of religion. It is 'the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods' (Oxford dictionaries 2015. S v religion).

On the basis of this English definition of 'religion', Christianity is a religion.

Oz

For sure the Christianity you quote is a religion, but the Christianity where Christ is the source of worship, as He said... One must worship Him in Spirit and Truth is from a Living relationship with the Living One worshipped !

 

[Jesse Stone]

Netchaplain,

Netchaplain said:
Hi JS - I believe you make fairly informed observations but I believe your conclusions could be more accurate. It's not difficult to find error (misjudgment) within contemporary Christendom (many if not the majority of believers) because of their inferior level of maturity in Christ. Though many are not where they could be in maturity, they are nonetheless believers and are truly desirous of God's pleasures, and I believe He will eventually bring each to where He wants them.

Many years ago I went through a stage that involved being more critical than forgiving and loving (not accusing you, just sharing my experience), and if I had not changed my perception (sought believer's primary motive, which was God's desires) I would have entered into confusion, discouragement and misjudgment concerning other believers, along with eventual isolation from them.

Why is this so hard? I'm not the one doing the judging. Unless you count taking issue with Christian denominationalism as judging. Unless you count taking issue with your OP in maintaining that to be in Christ is NOT the same as nor equal to being in Christianity.

If I lacked forgiveness, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I would have reverted to Atheism. A very militant version of Atheism that would make the single minded Richard Dawkins eye brows raise. Bringing up issues that his kind never thought of. Before, when I was an Atheist, I had no reason to care. All considered, I think I've had some experience with forgiveness just to be here.

The issue is NOT personal judgment on my part. The issue is whether or not the matter discerned regarding the denominational character of Christianity is real or not. And if real, how important is it? I maintain that the matter is valid and very important to God and man. The issue is whether or not being in Christ and being in Christianity are the same thing. I maintain they are not by reason of the former issue.

The Bible is clear concerning the issue of the character flaw of Christian denominationalism. The ultimate expression of division. When compared to the word of Jesus Christ (John 17:17-23) and Paul (1 Cor 1-3; Eph 4:1-6) regarding the essence of real unity. The Bible can either be a guide to discernment or it can be rejected and/or ignored. I maintain that it's the rejection that results in Christian divisions and judgment. In the existence of Christian Lords and institutions. Just as Adam and Eve both judged someone other than themselves for their own acts of rejection (Gen 3).

The Bible is just as clear concerning the issue of in Christ vs. in Christianity. For those who are in Christ there is only one God and only one Lord (1 Cor 8:5-6). Which eliminates any Lord of Christianity (1 Pet 5:1-4). For whom also there is only one Creed, which is the Bible alone that includes the only legitimate revelation (2 Tim 3:14-17). Which eliminates any authoritative Creed of Christianity. While I'm not surprised at the RCC for not agreeing with this matter, it still surprises me initially when a Protestant who claims to believe in Sola Scriptura also does not agree.

Netchaplain said:
Therefore my disagreements were kept to myself for the sake of "Letting love be without hypocrisy" (Rom 12:9). To me, love to another is not in accordance to loving me back, but loving others with the intention of no conditions and in a self-sacrificing manner, without which any believer will be less mature in understanding and in accepting others.

After reading through the Bible so many times over some ten years, I tend to look askance at a Christian who makes a conscious decision to take the route of least resistance.

Anyone who says nothing against denominationalism, has no issue with it, continues to take an active part in a denomination (in an authoritative sense, or by promoting its efficacy and objectiveness as real reality) are in effect condoning denominationalism. They are simultaneously rejecting and/or ignoring the plain word of God in the Bible. And I'm of firm conviction that the word of God takes precedence over denominationalism, any denomination, and any Lord or Creed of any denomination.

Hypocrisy is "An expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction; insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have" (WordWeb Dictionary). I don't think it's hypocritical to state the truth in love (Eph 4:14-16). And I strongly believe that what I say about Christian denominationalism and the source of its beginnings in the 4th century, as well as the difference between being in Christ and being in Christianity, is truth that is both objective and objectively arrived at.

I can only do what I can do. I can only point out the predominant character flaw of Christianity as I have discerned it, to all who have ears to hear. And I can only point out in keeping with this thread that equating in Christ with in Christianity in effect displaces the authority and position of the only true Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ. Other than that, all I can do is pray that the perpetrators of Christian denominationalism will see the need to agree with God and to return to that which he has intended (Matt 5:44-45; Rom 12:18, 20-21; Eph 4:1-2; 1 Tim 2:1-4). To which it is to their benefit, as well as that of the world, that they do so.

To the Christian's benefit, in that they will be able to participate in the real Lord's Table. The Christian denominational imitations of the Lord's table are just that, an imitation of the real thing (1 Cor 10-11). Especially note the bread of unity, that's based on life in the Body of Christ, instead of on denominational doctrine (1 Cor 10:16-17). In Christianity, it's the bread of unity only in a denominational sense. Evidenced by the common denominational practice of closed communion based on doctrine.

To the world's benefit, so that the world may know that God has truly sent his Son into the World (John 17:21-23). Indeed, that they may know there truly is a God through the unified expression of the life within of those who already know he exists (John 17:24-26).

 

[Jesse Stone]

OzSpen,

I'm not a Christian. Fundamentally, for most of Christianity, because I'm not a Trinitarian and can't in good conscience submit to Christian denominational Creeds or Christian denominational Lords, which especially presents that doctrine as quintessentially essential. Which in Christianity is a requirement to be regarded as a Christian. I maintain that Christian denominationalism is a character flaw, that's integrally related to its essence that efficaciously began in the 4th century with the authoritative promulgations of the Council of Nicaea, and is against the Biblical revelation of unity. In keeping with this thread, in opposition to the OP, I maintain that being in Christ is not the same as nor equal to being in Christianity.

I'm sorry. But the KISS method of posting (Keep It Simple Stupid) doesn't work for me. If all my posts were simple, it would mean I didn't really care about the subject matter. Nor about the people to whom I respond. On a venue open to be read by the general public, such as this one, all the world's a stage. Which is why it's so important for moderators to moderate attitudes.

I generally write to all of the public, especially to my brothers in Christ, with a particular emphasis toward the individual to whom I'm responding.

God wrote a rather long post to humanity and especially to believers, wouldn't you say? Not saying my posts are near as important as God's post. But I do regard my posts (whether long or short) as leading toward that which is important to God and the Son of God, and reflects the Bible that God wrote and the Son uses as his teaching tool. And as such, important to all who have ears to hear. Otherwise, why bother?

Ozpen said:
Oxford dictionaries gives this definition of religion. It is 'the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods' (Oxford dictionaries 2015. S v religion). On the basis of this English definition of 'religion', Christianity is a religion.

Religion is defined generally as you say. It's a simplistic definition that doesn't account for human authority in a religious institution. It doesn't account for the common belief that religion is sub-ruled by vicars of the supreme being. Who are authoritatively supreme in their own right. It isn't God who said I couldn't be a part of Christianity. It's these human vicars in Christian denominations who make this claim. And make the decision for me. If I believed in the unity of in Christ and in Christianity, I would have to think God wants me to be an Atheist. Seeing as I don't, indeed can't, believe in human Gods.

There are other definitions in Dictionaries that give a different view of religion and religiosity. Such as this one from Merriam-Webster: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". A definition that has nothing whatever to do with a supreme being. It's a philosophical definition.

There is another common usage of the term religion among some fundamentalist type Christians that hasn't yet achieved status in the Dictionaries. It's commonly used by those who see only Spiritual darkness in the Christian institutions. It claims that religion is that which replaces the Spiritual in institutions or a group of people. Wherein the seemingly religious people are described as totally human and are only connected to the supernatural in some form apart from the life that is essential to such a connection.

In my case, when I refer to Christianity as a religion, it's not intended to be a compliment. For I am equating it with all the other so-called religions of the world. Like Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. Many adherents of which can claim as much as any Christian that they have a relationship with one or more supreme beings. And Christians can only claim that in accordance with their own beliefs, it isn't so. I only make this claim regarding Christianity. I don't make such a claim regarding the adherents of Christianity. For it is evident that in their case, some are simply religious and some are real. Which is why I maintain that being in Christ is not the same thing as being in Christianity. To say they are the same is a blanket statement definition that doesn't take the reality of the entire situation into account.

Just the other day I was reading an article about Christians (in leadership positions, no less) who make no bones about being Atheist. They refer to themselves as religious Atheists. I remember sometime back sitting in on a Catholic Mass where the homily (sermon) was given by a Monsignor (high ranking Priest). He would quote the Bible and say, "Is it true? I don't know". And go right on with his homily as if he hadn't said it. Christianity includes a lot of people who are Christian by claim and have a wide variety of beliefs. Yet, Christianity is composed of denominations each with doctrinal authority of their own. I'm sure that makes sense to somebody.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Bar Elohim,

Bar Elohim said:
One must worship Him in Spirit and Truth is from a Living relationship with the Living One worshipped !

Don't need Christianity or any institution thereof to do that. However one wishes to define it. Can be experienced in one's own home or in an open field. Even in the center of a city.

People create their own limitations and liberations with their own mind. And reality remains reality.

 

[OzSpen]

OzSpen,

I'm not a Christian. Fundamentally, for most of Christianity, because I'm not a Trinitarian and can't in good conscience submit to Christian denominational Creeds or Christian denominational Lords, which especially presents that doctrine as quintessentially essential. Which in Christianity is a requirement to be regarded as a Christian. I maintain that Christian denominationalism is a character flaw, that's integrally related to its essence that efficaciously began in the 4th century with the authoritative promulgations of the Council of Nicaea, and is against the Biblical revelation of unity. In keeping with this thread, in opposition to the OP, I maintain that being in Christ is not the same as nor equal to being in Christianity.

I'm sorry. But the KISS method of posting (Keep It Simple Stupid) doesn't work for me. If all my posts were simple, it would mean I didn't really care about the subject matter. Nor about the people to whom I respond. On a venue open to be read by the general public, such as this one, all the world's a stage. Which is why it's so important for moderators to moderate attitudes.

I generally write to all of the public, especially to my brothers in Christ, with a particular emphasis toward the individual to whom I'm responding....

Thanks for sharing your personal opinion. It has no more weight than personal outlook.

The KISS principle is one of simple communication. It has applied from my days as a radio DJ, advertising copywriter and to posts on a Christian forum. To make the KISS principle work, it does mean that you 'really care about the subject matter' (your words). You care so much that you want to communicate it to people who might not know your product. You want them to understand what you are saying so you practise KISS.

You speak of 'my brothers in Christ' and yet call yourself a non-Christian That's provocatively speaking out of both sides of the mouth at the same time.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

There are other definitions in Dictionaries that give a different view of religion and religiosity. Such as this one from Merriam-Webster: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". A definition that has nothing whatever to do with a supreme being. It's a philosophical definition.

So you are into censorship of a full definition of 'religion' in Merriam-Webster.

It's too bad that you didn't provide the fuller definition of 'religion' in Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2015. S v religion) that states:

religion
noun re·li·gion \ri-ˈli-jən\
Simple Definition of religion
Popularity: Top 1% of lookups

• : the belief in a god or in a group of gods
• : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
• : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

Full Definition of religion

1. 1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2. 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3. 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4. 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

re·li·gion·less adjective​

Therefore, your statement that the Merriam-Webster definition of 'religion' is that it 'has nothing whatever to do with a supreme being', is a false understanding of what Merriam-Webster states. M-R's full definition of religion includes 'the service and worship of God or the supernatural'. So, your assessment of what I posted was false, based on your own alleged quote from Merriam-Webster. You have censored certain statements from Merriam-Webster to bolster your personal definition of religion. In doing this, you have falsified your claim about M-R.

I urge you to be honest with your quotes.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Bar Elohim,
People create their own limitations and liberations with their own mind. And reality remains reality.

That sure seems to be what you are doing yourself in this thread. Please don't inflict that view on others when it is from your 'own mind' (your language).

 

[Jesse Stone]

OzSpen,

Thanks for sharing your personal opinion. It has no more weight than personal outlook.

As has yours.

The KISS principle is one of simple communication. It has applied from my days as a radio DJ, advertising copywriter and to posts on a Christian forum. To make the KISS principle work, it does mean that you 'really care about the subject matter' (your words). You care so much that you want to communicate it to people who might not know your product. You want them to understand what you are saying so you practise KISS.

Different folks and different venues require different principles of communication.

You speak of 'my brothers in Christ' and yet call yourself an atheist. That's provocatively speaking out of both sides of the mouth at the same time.

I WAS an Atheist. Might have reverted and been one again had I taken the Christian Lords as seriously as I take my Lord Jesus Christ. I'm not a Christian. I'm in Christ. If that means Atheist to you, nothing I can do about that. Your opinion is your own. I've met many Christians who regard me as unchanged (i.e., still an Atheist) because I refuse to submit to Christian Lords, Christian institutions, or Christian Creeds. Jesus Christ is my only Lord. I need no other. I'm in the kingdom of the Son. I need no other. And the Bible as taught by Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit is my only Creed. I need no other.

 

[OzSpen]

Jesus Christ is my only Lord. I need no other. I'm in the kingdom of the Son. I need no other. And the Bible as taught by Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit is my only Creed. I need no other.

So why do you state in association with your avatar that you are not a Christian?

How do you respond to the content of what is stated in Acts 4: 11-12 (ESV), 'This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

From whom did you learn your kind of religion?

Oz

 

[Jesse Stone]

OzSpen,

So why do you state in association with your avatar that you are not a Christian?

Because Christianity tells me I'm not a Christian. Or rather, the Lords of Christianity tell me so.

How do you respond to the content of what is stated in Acts 4: 11-12 (ESV), 'This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

I agree with it.

From whom did you learn your kind of religion?

From Jesus Christ. I was reading the Bible and was under his tutelage for some time before I contacted Christianity. That is, any Christian denomination.

Things might have been different had the situation been reversed. According to the usual way Christians understand their reality. Birth into or conversion to one of the many denominations of Christianity, than understanding the Bible according to the Christian Lord and Creed thereof.

 

[OzSpen]

OzSpen,

As has yours.

Different folks and different venues require different principles of communication.

I WAS an Atheist. Might have reverted and been one again had I taken the Christian Lords as seriously as I take my Lord Jesus Christ. I'm not a Christian. I'm in Christ. If that means Atheist to you, nothing I can do about that. Your opinion is your own. I've met many Christians who regard me as unchanged (i.e., still an Atheist) because I refuse to submit to Christian Lords, Christian institutions, or Christian Creeds. Jesus Christ is my only Lord. I need no other. I'm in the kingdom of the Son. I need no other. And the Bible as taught by Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit is my only Creed. I need no other.

From your own statement, it does seem as though you are a rather autonomous person in what you want to believe.

As for me, I'm grateful that Christ came into our family through Billy Graham's preaching to my parents in Australia and they were wonderfully saved. Because they then attended and joined a local Baptist church, does that make them submitting to 'Christian Lords' in your opinion?

Is your view correct and mine wrong?

I support what Jesus said in John 14:6 (ESV), 'Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

From Jesus Christ. I was reading the Bible and was under his tutelage for some time before I contacted Christianity. That is, any Christian denomination.

Things might have been different had the situation been reversed. According to the usual way Christians understand their reality. Birth into or conversion to one of the many denominations of Christianity, than understanding the Bible according to the Christian Lord and Creed thereof.

I also don't follow denominational Christianity verbatim. I follow these instructions at Berea according to Acts 17:10-11 (NIV), 'As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true' (emphasis added).

That's the biblical mandate. It's not just examining what Jesus said, but examining the Scriptures daily to see if what the preacher said is true. If they did it for Paul, they need to do it in any church around the world. That's what I do in the church I attend every Sunday.

Oz

 

[Jesse Stone]

OzSpen,

From your own statement, it does seem as though you are a rather autonomous person in what you want to believe.

Not what I want to believe. What I have learned to believe from one who to me is a very reliable source. Christian denominations are rather autonomous. Wouldn't you say?

As for me, I'm grateful that Christ came into our family through Billy Graham's preaching to my parents in Australia and they were wonderfully saved. Because they then attended and joined a local Baptist church, does that make them submitting to 'Christian Lords' in your opinion?

Depends. If they're following the Baptist Creed to the letter, they may well be following the wrong Lord. Can't say much about their situation for certain. Seeing as I don't know them. One must be careful or one will find oneself following a human instead of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 1-3).

I've heard Billy Graham make the statement on public TV that people who don't even know about Jesus Christ can be saved. Not much of a Baptist idea. Seeing as he claims to be a Baptist. Kind of makes Missionaries superfluous. wouldn't you say? But he did lead people to Jesus Christ. That much is true. He also led people to join a Christian Church. That also is true. He is a Christian. I expect him to say and do things that Christians might say.

I support what Jesus said in John 14:6 (ESV), 'Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

As do I.

 

[OzSpen]

I've heard Billy Graham make the statement on public TV that people who don't even know about Jesus Christ can be saved. Not much of a Baptist idea. Seeing as he claims to be a Baptist. Kind of makes Missionaries superfluous. wouldn't you say? But he did lead people to Jesus Christ. That much is true. He also led people to join a Christian Church. That also is true. He is a Christian. I expect him to say and do things that Christians might say.

You provided no documentation or context to what he said, so I would not be prepared to assess what Billy Graham said and compare it with Scripture. I do wish you would not make undocumented statements like this as it doesn't help your credibility.

It was Paul who wrote to the Romans and said, 'For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse' (Rom 1:20 NIV, emphasis added).

What have people done with the evidence for God's existence (his eternal power and divine nature)? Not a person anywhere in the world will have an excuse when he or she stands before God. That' what this verse states.

Oz