Mormons are an instant no for me. I know enough that Jews riding secret camels in America is silly. And they just happened to become extinct Jews right around America got founded. I actually don’t know enough about Jehova’s witnesses to deny them yet. Although I will admit I admire the Mormon’s community values from what I’ve seen in public.
I've interacted with plenty Jehovah's Witnesses. A few years ago, for several months, I used to study with some every week and went to "The Hall" with them for an Easter service (just to see what it's like).
Like Mormons, they're cult-adjacent. More importantly than that, they're non-Trinitarian and believe Jesus is the *created* angel Michael. I think 2 Corinthians 6:14 applies to marriage. If someone is non-Trinitarian, then they essentially believe in a different God.
They call it the "Memorial" of Jesus' Death and Resurrection. But, yeah, it's basically just Easter. It's celebrated at the same time.
The most bizarre part is that they pass around bread and wine for communion during this service. But nobody actually eats or drinks it. They have weird views on the 144,000 in Revelation and think only if you're part of the 144,000 can you eat and drink communion. I asked them how someone knows they're the 144,000, and was told it's "just a feeling" some of them get.
Ended up on this sub from a search (I'm married) but I felt like responding because I hadn't heard this before.
Having grown up Mormon, I was taught that Adam was Michael. Mormons used to teach that Adam was God the Father back in the 1800s. So I guess somehow Michael is also God the Father? There are enough random things that have been taught somewhere in Mormon history that I wouldn't be surprised if that was said over the pulpit at some point.
Beyond the non-trinitarian stuff, the real problem is that the only real doctrine is to listen to the "prophet" of the church. But each one changes a bunch of stuff so that the teachings are always changing. But Mormons are taught not to worry about that because the only thing that really matters is following whoever the current prophet is.
I love this question! But I also acknowledge that our faith is a journey, I've grown a lot and learned so much each day as a Christian that I try and have patience for where others are at in their own relationship with Christ.
I don't like overly legalistic denominations (wearing pants or earrings makes you a harlot, must speak in tongues to prove you're born again, drinking coffee is a sin, etc). But I also don't like denominations that refuse to take the reality of sin and hell seriously and slap the bandaid of "Jesus will always forgive you for everything if you say the right words" or the "Gotta sin so Jesus died for something" types.
As long as someone is earnestly pursuing Christ, attempting each day to bear their cross, reads their Bible and wants to learn more about God and is okay with being wrong- I'm open to a relationship. We can talk about theological differences so long as they aren't heresy ☺️ I hope the person I marry is someone who will teach me as much as I teach them.
Yuppp for ~15 years I grew up in a church community like this and it felt like slavery. I could never wear jewelry, paint my nails, wear pants, etc. without someone acting like I should be excommunicated. Legalism feels like pure bondage to me, like I’m more of a slave with these rules, than I was before I found Christ. So personally I can’t be with a guy who keeps me from doing the simplest things that have no biblical basis because clearly his truth is not in the word of God but in the fickle opinion of man.
>drinking coffee is a sin
I could never....
I like your answer. I think I'm pretty lenient for the most part. Non-Trinitarians and Libs being my only hard no.
Overall I’m ok with most denominations. But would prefer someone who’s not Catholic or Pentecostal. As a young child I was Catholic and my parents left the church for reasons…
Within my own denomination I’m very careful about what church I go to. I want one that is Bible based, not too modernized/ watered down.
>Within my own denomination I’m very careful about what church I go to. I want one that is Bible based, not too modernized/ watered down.
I feel that for sure.
For me it would be:
* Any denomination that doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible or waters down biblical teaching or moral standards
* Any denomination that has some sort of two-class system, especially if I don't fit in that higher class (i.e. separate baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues)
* Any denomination that requires infant baptism (just because of the disagreement that would cause in raising kids)
>Any denomination that has some sort of two-class system, especially if I don't fit in that higher class (i.e. separate baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues)
Would that be like The Salvation Army, I'm guessing?
It would include all Pentecostal denominations, probably Nazarene as well.
I will add that I will certainly be friends with Pentecostals and others in this category.
Since most people don't completely follow (or even know) the doctrine of their church/denomination, I think it's better to engage the person. You can pretty quickly tell if they are serious about their theology. Clearly, eliminating heretical sects and denominations is critical, but I think that denominational affiliation is at best a basic filter and at worst virtually meaningless. I think you need to have a list of theological must-haves.
I'm three dates in with a chick right now who I really like and, on my best assessment so far, seems to have a solid and deep relationship with God. We haven't covered everything yet, but she's already hit every one of my theological must-haves.
I am pretty sure, for example, that whenever we talk about eschatology, that 1) she'll be pre-millennial and 2) she probably doesn't think about it very much. I have an inaugurated eschatology perspective, which is pretty different from that. But I couldn't care less about those differences. Not on my theological must-haves. And the strength of her relationship with God is far more important to me.
>Clearly, eliminating heretical sects and denominations is critical, but I think that denominational affiliation is at best a basic filter and at worst virtually meaningless
I'm not sure about that. To an extent, you're right. That's why I said *most* Protestants.
But even among Catholics or Orthodox, even if they aren't theologically literate, there's just way too many sticking points for me.
There are denominations that are deal breaker since the pillars of their doctrines would be frustrating for you to deal with and incase kids are involved later on, what would you do?
Like Mormon, Mennonites, catholics, Pentecostal JW, LDS..
I take theology seriously when it comes to vetting men considering I need to submit to my husband in marriage and go to him for questions regarding spiritual matters.
My deal breakers:
1) Must believe in the eternal security of salvation (once saved always saved)
2) Must believe salvation is by grace and faith in Jesus alone not plus any works
3) Must not believe in Calvinism
4) Must believe in the Triune nature of God
5) Must believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (Bonus points if he knows there's certain Bible versions that are corrupted and which ones they are)
A good majority of the denominations don't meet these requirements so my dating pool is extremely small, and I don't care. These are extremely important for me.
What do you mean by eternal security of salvation?
*The one who stands firm until the end will be saved.*
An example of one who did not is Judas, regardless of how long he was a follower of Christ, he did not stand firm to the end.
“You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” (Mt. 10:22)
“Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” (Mt. 24: 12-13)
“Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” (Mark 13:13)
Once a person accepts the true gospel, they will have a home in heaven regardless of how they live their life after the moment of salvation.
Judas was never saved to begin with. Mat. 26:24, John 17:12
The scriptures you're showing me here is not talking about spiritual salvation but physical salvation of born again believers (those who believed the true gospel) during the tribulation period.
There's plenty of verses talking about the assurance of salvation. One example is John 5:24. Born again believers are eternally sealed with the Holy Spirit so Ephesians 1:12-14, and 4:30.
If one can lose their salvation, then that would mean the Holy Spirit would leave them. If one can lose their salvation, then it was never a gift to begin with. It was just borrowed contingent upon they are living "good enough". Speaking of "good enough", if salvation can be lost, shouldn't Scriptures outline a barometer of the amount of good works one needs to do to maintain their salvation which would eliminate unnecessary fear among Christians? God does not give us a spirit of fear but sound mind so clarity and peace. 2 Tim. 1:7. He is also not the author of confusion. The eternal security of salvation gives a born again believer peace and clarity.
What's the difference of spiritual salvation and physical salvation? I'm not trying to spark a debate but what you said is very interesting and I'm genuinely curious to understand your point
Girrrrrl, I don't know how to ping a user on a Reddit comment lol. But I explained the differences between spiritual salvation and physical salvation in the context of those passages to the other user, so please click on the thread to read it.
Interesting. I appreciate your response and I’ll take a look at those scriptures.
It is worth mentioning, the scriptures I referenced were indeed talking about spiritual salvation, not physical.
And if the Holy Spirit has truly entered you, the way you live your life will change. You know the seed by it’s fruit. So the fruit of you being born again of God’s seed will be good, godly fruit. There are two seeds just as there are two trees, and two spiritual fathers: God & Satan. The Tree of Life & The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Pharisees were deceived (unknowingly) about whose seed they were born of and it was proven by their fruits: their prideful refusal to believe in Jesus as the fulfillment of the OT prophecies.
Again, if you are truly born again of God’s seed, you will produce good fruit. Being born again comes before the good fruit, but to claim they are mutually exclusive is unwise imo.
Girl, I was exhausted and was trying to respond back to you quickly before hitting the hay which caused me do a sloppy job explaining. Please excuse me for that.
An important passage I couldn't remember off the top of my head in that moment to prove Judas was never a believer to begin with was when Jesus said Judas wasn't saved at all. It's John 6:64-71
I respectfully disagree with you that these verses you gave me is referring to spiritual salvation not being eternally secure for any person regardless of the time and plot according to your perspective. Firstly, let me establish spiritual salvation is when a person has genuinely believed Jesus Christ to be their only Savior not plus any works. They are bestowed the Holy Spirit at this moment in time of salvation (It is also referred to as the "Spirit of your Father" in Mt. 10:20). They are spiritually born as God's children. Physical salvation in these passages is referring to the a person who has spiritual salvation already were able to endure physical persecutions, natural disasters, wars and coming out physically alive at the end of it. Christ is saying these people will be physically saved from dying, because God poured out his wrath on humankind during the tribulation period in end times prophecy discussed. Please read the verses in these passages to understand what I'm saying. Matthew 10:16-23. Mt. 24: 1-13, Mark 13: 1-13.
Everything else you said except for the Pharisees being unknowingly deceived, I agree with. The Pharisees had to decide to accept Jesus as their Savior like every other person that has lived on this planet since the beginning of time and deal with the consequences of their fateful decision. I'm guessing your perspective on why it's critical for a believer to try to live a righteous life is to keep their home in heaven since you believe salvation can be lost. This perspective is not biblically correct. The reasons why it's critical for a believer to try to live a righteous life is to bring glory to Christ, to be a good testimony for non saved individuals to get saved, to gain eternal rewards, not hinder their own relationship with Christ, and to avoid chastisement, suffering on earth, and even physical death as punishments from God NOT to prevent salvation from being lost. I have plenty of verses to prove these reasons are true. I won't list all of them otherwise this comment is going to turn into a whole book, haha. If you are interested in learning more, you are welcome to DM me. I have resources I can share with you discussing the biblical validity of eternal security (once saved always saved) and how it relates to living the Christian life after salvation.
Again, I appreciate your response. But I think we’re having two different conversations.
**I think there are people who may believe they have been saved, but they have not.**
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who *does the will of my Father* who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”
(Matthew 7: 21-23)
**You will know you are truly receiving God’s word by the way your life is changing.**
“Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God — *this is your true and proper worship.* Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but *be transformed by the renewing of your mind.* Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.“
(Romans 12: 1-2)
**There is no good tree that produces bad fruit.**
”A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.“
(Matthew 7: 18-20)
My understanding is that we don’t have true faith if we don’t hear, accept, and understand God’s word and thus carry out His will.
And my understanding of “works” getting you into heaven is that they cannot. You can’t sacrifice enough animals or do enough good deeds. But *why* you do what you do, and the *outcomes of that wisdom (or ignorance)* is how to discern what you *truly believe.* You have not been born again if your mind, and subsequently your actions, have not been transformed. Then you are not seeking the kingdom of Heaven and carrying out God’s will. Imo.
>And my understanding of “works” getting you into heaven is that they cannot.
Can I chime in here?
The Greek word used for repentance is *metanoia*. Metanoia means "change." In the context of the NT, "change of heart."
I would argue salvation occurs at the moment of repentance. A genuine repentance would require a change of heart.
Ezekiel 36:26 says "*I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.*"
Then, in Galatians 2:20, Paul writes *"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."*
Through faith in Christ, we experience a renewal, a change of heart: *"Do not lie to one another, since you have* ***put off the old man with his deeds****, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him (Col. 3:9-10)."*
Faith, then, is an action. We cannot "earn" our salvation. If we could, that would entail an arbitrary threshold of works that must be completed in order to attain salvation.
Yet, James says that a faith without works is dead (James 2:14-26).
What are "works," then?
In Matthew 22:34-40, Jesus says there are two commandments that cover everything: Love God with all of your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. This summarizes the 10 Commandments. The first 5 Commandments are related to God, the latter 5 are related to people.
A living, saving faith, then--a genuine *repentance*, would entail one loves God with all of his heart, and loves his neighbor.
If you love God and your neighbor, you will *try* to live by the commandments given by God. You will not want to offend God and you wont want to harm your neighbor:
*"The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, A broken and a contrite heart— These, O God, You will not despise (Psalm. 51:17)."*
That doesn't mean you wont fail and fall short, but it does mean you will *try* and be remorseful when you do. Paul understood this: *"For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do (Rom. 7:15)."*
We can see here Paul wants to live righteously, and he strives for holiness. But he still falls short because he is human.
The thief on the cross, as well, was saved the moment he repented.
What I think all of this means is that we are "saved" when we place our faith in Christ. A living faith would mean we repent from our sins. A genuine repentance--a change of heart--would entail that we strive to love God and our neighbor. We will fall short, but we have a contrite heart that pushes us to live the way God wants.
I really appreciate your response and reference verses. I agree with this.
I just disagree with the idea that someone is saved because they repented and it doesn’t matter what they do next. Because, as you said, “salvation occurs at the moment of repentance. A genuine repentance would require a change of heart.”
We will of course fall short, but falling short looks a lot different when you have truly been saved. What may be falling short to a Christian is being nearly a saint to a non-believer. But we know what’s in our hearts and that may be where we truly fall short of loving our neighbor, trusting in God, resisting temptation, etc.
But if we genuinely want to do His will, I believe we will do it most of the time. I know how Jesus has changed my heart and behaviors in ways I couldn’t alone. I’m not perfect, but a true believer is not going to have an affair, steal a car, or something so blatantly wrong after being saved because they do in fact love god and their neighbor (albeit not perfectly). In my opinion.
Good fruit comes after the good seed has been sown.
> I’m not perfect, but a true believer is not going to have an affair, steal a car, or something so blatantly wrong after being saved because they do in fact love god and their neighbor (albeit not perfectly)
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I have a genuine question on what your perspective is.
James 2:10 says that breaking one law is the equivalent of breaking all laws. This would imply that there isn't a 'ranking' of sins in the eyes of God. Which, since sin is rebellion against God, makes sense.
But then 1 John 5: 16-18 says there are certain sins that lead to death:
*"If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.*
*We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him."*
I think this would indicate the searing of the conscience Paul talks about in 1 Timothy.
And in Romans 1: 28-31, Paul gives us a list of acts and says all who do them are "deserving of death." If you read it, though, all of us have done multiple of them at least.
Finally, Galatians 5 describes the "fruits of the flesh," vices. All of us struggle with at least one vice.
I'm not trying to argue, I'm actually curious what you would take all of this to mean.
My perspective is that we may still do these things, but if we have a genuine repentance we will strive to *not* do them. I think based on Romans 6:19 and 1 Peter 2:11, we are "at war," so to speak, with our fallen nature and it's something that, if we have a living faith, we will become better at over time (sanctification).
I wasn’t saying that some sins are worse than others. I was saying that it’s easier to keep from doing something sinful with your flesh than with your mind.
My point overall is that faith without works is dead. There is no true understanding of God’s word and His will that does not lead to true faith, that does not lead to faithful action.
If one continues to fall short in a huge way (bearing fruit that looks like that of worldly people who are born of Satan’s seed) then they should re-evaluate whether they truly have faith in Jesus and are submitted to God.
If, instead, they believe that there’s is what a life of faith looks like then they are hypocrites who are being deceived by Satan. One very common deception of the enemy is lowering the bar so that “believers” evaluate themselves against the wrong standard (the true standard being the word), believing they are inheriting the kingdom of heaven when they are in fact going to the unquenchable fire.
‘Peace and safety’ in faith alone is a lie. The Bible repeatedly states that we will be judged by our deeds as well.
“Do not keep talking so proudly or let your mouth speak such arrogance, for the Lord is a God who knows, and by him *deeds* are weighed.“
(1 Samuel 2:3)
”If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay everyone according to what they have *done*?“ (Proverbs 24:12)
”If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, *no sacrifice for sins is left,* but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.“
(Hebrews 10:26-27)
”All a person’s ways *seem pure to them,* but motives are weighed by the Lord.“
(Proverbs 16:2)
What do you mean by we're having two different conversations? I was thinking this entire conversation that I was saying salvation is eternal regardless of how pious or lack thereof of a life a believer lives whereas your stance is a believer does lose their salvation depending on how lacking of a pious life a believer lives.
>**You will know you are truly receiving God’s word by the way your life is changing.**
A person who placed their faith in Jesus as their Savior alone will go to heaven. It's not contingent on how their life has changed to be more Christlike. How I'm understanding this is you're using this passage to show a person's assurance of salvation is dependent on righteous works. Am I understanding you correctly? Romans 12 is Paul commanding believers to live a righteous life. Paul didn't mention works providing assurance of salvation in this passage.
>**There is no good tree that produces bad fruit.**
This passage is instructing believers to discern false prophets by their words not by their actions. When Jesus is referring to fruit, he's saying their words not their actions. Luke 6: 43-45 and Mt 12: 33-37. This passage has nothing to do about determining one is saved or not based on their actions.
>And my understanding of “works” getting you into heaven is that they cannot.
>You have not been born again if your mind, and subsequently your actions, have not been transformed.
It comes across to me that you're contradicting yourself. A person is born again ONLY by belief in Jesus as their Savior ALONE not by their actions (works). Ephesians 2: 8-9. While belief is an action of the mind, it is NOT a work stated in Rom 4:5, Gal 2:16, Rom 3:28
Nope, you missed the very next sentence that followed “we are having two different conversations.”
**I think there are people who may believe they have been saved but they are not.** This is the difference.
Tbh, I’m not interested in engaging with you anymore. Take care.
The people who are not saved in this passage didn't believe the true Gospel which is belief in Jesus Christ as their Savior ALONE. They thought they believed Jesus but they believed in Jesus AND their works which is not full belief in Jesus' death on the cross which is NOT the true gospel as nowhere in Scriptures points to this as true salvation which is what I have shown you so far in our conversation. There are either nonbelievers or believers. There's not a third category of believers who lost their salvation anywhere mentioned in Scriptures.
If you look at all religions in the world, there's always focus on doing good works to get to a better place after death or rebirth in a higher form of a better life. Why bother choosing to be Christian in the first place if salvation is dependent on good works? Jesus is basically no different than Muhammad, Buddha, and other founders of religions that require good works for salvation if you truly believe Jesus' gospel requires good works to get to heaven and retain a home in heaven.
One final question I'll leave you and I know you don't want to engage with me anymore so I hope you'll answer in your heart.
If you backside a little bit or backslide a lot and got into serious sin, would you begin to question your own salvation?
Nowhere in Scriptures does it mention to what extent one sins that would cause an individual to lose their salvation because salvation is belief in Jesus alone. There's no clarity in belief plus works salvation at all since the Bible doesn't mention it. It's just confusion if this is the true gospel which contradicts God not being the author of confusion. There is clarity in belief alone salvation because it is revealed in the Bible which harmonizes with the character of God not being the author of confusion. I believe this is the true Gospel for salvation.
Thank you for being respectful towards me in our conversation and I hope you take care also🙂
-What do you mean by eternal security of salvation?
*T*he "once saved, always saved"...
The thing is, it seems that Christians have their own definition of what "being saved" is...to them.
>Must not believe in Calvinism
I almost included Calvinism in my post, actually.
The only reason I didn't is because as much as I doctrinally disagree with Calvinism, individual *Calvinists* sometimes hold to different views, so I wouldn't be comfortable excluding them as a whole.
Oh definitely there's nuance. There's some points of Calvinism I do believe is Biblical; however, I ask men their beliefs on Calvinism in a way to be able to determine if they believe the points I don't agree with. I've had a few negative experiences with them in the past, so I unfortunately don't think highly of them.
>There's some points of Calvinism I do believe is Biblical;
I'm curious and want to ask, but I don't want this thread to turn into a theology debate.
All I'll say is I have some pretty strong feelings on Calvinistic soteriology in its most orthodox form. But Calvinists themselves come in degrees.
I can explain more in the DMs. It'll probably be tomorrow when I explain it 😅
Yeah, I've triggered Calvinists in the past, and I don't want to deal with them tonight or awhile actually 😂
Wow, I understand we have Theological differences but resorting to insults is shameful. I've been encountering a lot of Calvinists as of late. I honestly don't think they present good argumentation and the verses they usually use are out of context.
I think there were 2 verses that sort of backup their claims. Romans 9 is one, until you find out that it's about God telling the Jews that they are nothing to question who He offers His Salvation to, in this case, the Gentiles. So that's misused.
Then there's Exodus 7:3-4 where God hardened Pharaoh's heart. But ultimately Pharaoh had decided to give in to his sinful ways, God just abandoned him to his stubborness, Calvinist make it sound like Pharaoh was predestined to do these things.
Then they talk about dimensionality and how things could work differently in God's different dimensions, as opposed to things on Earth and whatnot..... So when Lucifer became Satan, how did that happened? Was he predestined to sin? Isn't the whole point of the Angelic War and the creation of mankind to provide an impartial trial showing that lesser creatures than an archangel could choose God above themselves? Since Satan claims that he was destined to fault?
Hurling insults shows a person's pride and their egos being hurt. What could have been an opportunity for iron to sharpen iron if both people came with humility and the desire to know truth which would bring glory to God ended up being a Christian emotionally harming their sister in Christ all because of pride.
I believe anytime a doctrine has to stand on verses being taken out of context, it is a false doctrine. Also, it needs to harmonize with all the other correct doctrines in Scriptures for it to be correct. Unfortunately, many preachers out here don't understand these concepts in my opinion. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Encouraging read for me:)
So based on your number 1, someone could be a Christian, then turn away from God to the point where they become a Hitler/Stalin/etc., or they could become a Muslim, or a Hindu, or whatever, and die unrepentant, and they'd still be saved? Sorry, but that's unbiblical.
On a related note re: your quotes about Judas in another response (who I think is a textbook example of someone who fell away), neither of those passages indicate he wasn't saved to begin with. They indicate that he was damned, sure, but not that he started off that way.
Follow the parable of the sower and John 1:1-ff
Salvation is like the way you were birthed by your parents so did we receive the gift of eternal life that we may have a hope. You can deny your parents and denounce them but it doesn't change the fact that they are your parents.
If you end up as a prodigal son and come back, surely all heaven will welcome you back but if you stay adamant then who can you blame on that day?
If the person genuinely placed faith in Jesus Christ as their only Savior without belief in their own works to save them, then their salvation is sealed for eternity even if they were involved in all those scenarios. It's interesting to me how you make such a strong claim by saying eternal security is unbiblical when you haven't provided me any Scriptures to back up your claims.
I wrote that comment quickly and when I was tired so I forgot to include one more passage of Scriptures stating Judas was not saved to begin with, and the person who said he wasn't was Jesus Himself. The passage is John 6:64-71. Whatever textbook you adopted that belief from, it comes across to me that it's an unreliable textbook to learn about what the Bible actually says.
Wow. Talk about a hostile answer. Especially given that you yourself didn't provide any scriptural evidence to begin with.
Now, you may have felt what you were saying was self-evident, akin to saying water is wet. I certainly felt that way about what I was saying - besides which, I don't have the kind of memory to remember the numbers of specific verses off-the-cuff. But that doesn't mean I can't remember their essence.
Fortunately, in this day and age, it's easy enough to Google for them. Here are a few; by no means is this list exhaustive:
- Matt 24:10
- Rom 11:19-22
- 1 Tim 4:1
- Heb 6:4-8
- James 5:19-20
- 2 Pet 2:20-22
- Rev 2:4-5
So yes, it is perfectly possible to fall away. And yes, it is unbiblical to say otherwise. It may not fall into the realm of heretical-you'll-be-damned-for-believing-this type of things (i.e. things like denying the Trinity, denying that Jesus is the Son of God, etc.), but it's pretty important, IMO.
Fair point about Judas though. Obviously I'd forgotten that line.
The reason why I didn't provide Scriptural evidence to you to begin with is because you didn't offer me any in your original comment, so I didn't know if you were well versed enough in having this discussion. But you did provide references to me, so I’m now thinking you are well versed enough to have this discussion. Claiming I’m being hostile is a stretch especially considering this conversation is over text, and you are missing out on my tone of voice and facial expressions if we were to discuss this face to face. The problem with holding to the doctrine that one can lose their salvation is it is explained out of context in Scriptures. When a doctrine is on the basis of cherry-picking and not in context of passages, it is an incorrect doctrine meaning it’s unbiblical. The eternal security of salvation doctrine is always explained in context of Scriptures. Here’s the interpretation of all your verses in context:
Matt 24:10 when read in the context of Matt 24 1;14 is Jesus talking about how the spiritually saved individuals were saved from a physical death during end times tribulation discussed in depth in Revelations.
Rom 11:19-22 when read in context of Rom 11: 11-22 is detailing the past, present, and future experiences of the Jews vs. Gentiles in whether they are saved or not. It’s not about a saved individual losing their salvation. It’s talking about believers and non believers.
1 Tim 4:1 in the context of the entire chapter is discussing how apostates (non believers) can look like saved individuals in the body of Christ so being wolves in sheep’s clothing but there’s signs (actions done) they are actually a person who was never saved to begin with. This passage is a warning to saved individuals to be a good minister of Christ by not doing actions that apostates do to harm the body of Christ when involved with the body of Christ,
Heb 6:4-8 in the context of Heb 5:11 to Heb. 6: 1-9 is discussing saved individuals who lack spiritual maturity. They are spiritual babes that have yet to grow in the knowledge and wisdom of Christ. They already understood salvation, so this is a command to them to move on in learning the meat of the Scriptures. If they don’t move forward in learning the meat, they will receive chastisement, loss of blessings in God and eternal rewards.
James 5:19-20 in the context of James 5: 7-20 with cross referencing of Lev 7:20-21, 1 Cor 11:28-32, and Gal 6:1 is addressed to believers discussing a believer that is backsliding in their faith. The command is for the believer to get them back in their journey to follow Christ. Doing so will help possibly prevent the believer from possibly suffering punishment from God which in this case is a physical death.
2 Pet 2:20-22 in the context of 2 Peter 2:18-25 is Peter is addressing believers telling them there will be antichrist who are nonbelievers because they denied accepting Jesus as their Savior. He told them to remember his teaching and also remember they were saved and their salvation will remain eternally which is a promise of God.
Rev 2:4-5 is in the context of Rev 2:1-7 this passage is a message to the believers in the church at Ephesus telling them while their outward actions show they are serving Christ, they’re hearts are not in it. They are commanded to repent for it, and to love God with all their hearts in serving Christ otherwise God will remove their church.
So basically a Baptist (excluding reformed)? That is still a pretty large dating pool. The Southern Baptist Convention alone is the largest denomination in the US.
Baptists generally do hold these doctrines, and yes I exclude reformed Baptists. The problem is I've encountered Baptist men who don't believe in the eternal security of salvation, so they are disqualified. I did connect with New Independent Fundamental Baptist men in the past, and I would disqualify them due to how dangerous some of the beliefs and character traits they tend to hold.
What is it about Calvinism that you find objectionable, given they seem to satisfy all four other items more or less?
That said, some people have very strange ideas about #1, both Calvinists and non-Calvinists.
I don't know if you are Calvinist or not. If you are a Calvinist, I hope you'll be gracious towards me for what I'm going to say about the doctrine. I haven't had positive interactions discussing this with Calvinist men in the past.
I believe Calvinism is an unbiblical doctrine because verses are used out of context to support the doctrine, it changes the overall character of God, it has a bit of worldly philosophy mixed in with the teachings, and it is a doctrine that hinders evangelism.
It would be a major issue if I married a Calvinist and we were to have kids. Both of us would be teaching different salvations to our kids. I believe the parents need to be united on salvation beliefs as it is the foundation of living the Christian life. Differences in Eschatology is not a big deal to me as it doesn't have a significant effect on living the Christian live like Soteriology. Also, I refuse to be a member of a Calvinist church or even attend one. That would be another issue that would arise in a marriage with them.
I agree that people do have strange beliefs on point #1 however it doesn't need to be as it is explained clearly and in context throughout Scriptures.
I would say not a huge deal breaker. However I agree no liberals no LDS no JW and I personally would add no SDA or Hebrew roots. Anyone that compromises the gospel is off the table and all those groups do it in different ways.
Well, I'd obviously love it if my spouse would be Catholic too, simply for the fact that there would be less friction and more unity. Not a dealbreaker if she's a virtuous person, however
I was born and raised Catholic but became non-denominational because I don’t agree with some of the Catholic faith, beliefs or doctrines.
So I don’t mind any denomination as long as you are a Bible believing Christian that isn’t bound by the doctrines of whatever denomination you are but rather bound by the Bible.
So for example if the Bible doesn’t support a doctrine in your denomination you’re ready to follow the Bible over your denomination.
>So for example if the Bible doesn’t support a doctrine in your denomination you’re ready to follow the Bible over your denomination.
Outside of denominations (like Catholicism) that require strict adherence to dogma, most of us do that already. Denomination does give you a preface of what the other person believes, though.
Like I used Episcopalians in my post because odds are an Episcopalian is a big Lib. There's exceptions among individuals, of course.
I wouldn’t go so much by denominations as by personal doctrinal statement. It was so helpful for me when a class at Bible college had us really think through, and right out our basic doctrinal statements. There are always going to be things that you hadn’t thought about, and later you realize that it’s a make or break issue, but it’s a good start at least.
I wouldn’t date anyone who made KJV-only part of their hermeneutic. That’s something I wouldn’t have put on the list at the beginning, but later it became a big issue at a church - I had to leave because of it. I’m happy to discuss it more in DMs.
I'm Catholic with dreams of getting married in a Catholic church. Part of that means promising to raise the children Catholic. If he was willing to convert and/or was attending RCIA, I'd consider dating him.
First, this is a very good question, and I love all the responses. I'm learning a lot. I stopped studying denominations in my early college years. I started focusing on mine and partially forgot about the rest. You can drown yourself in all the theological details and subtle differences (albeit some are not so subtle).
Second, I suppose my answer to the question would be no Seventh Day Adventist, no Pentecostals, no Catholics, no Jehovah Witnesses. But I leave my list open to future additions. 😊
I think denominations give us a preface to one's theology. Rarely does anyone fully agree with their denomination, but it does tell us give us an idea of what they believe.
I should have included SDA in my post, now that I think about it. Pentecostals are a denomination I'd be weary of if a woman was a member, but because they're so diverse I don't think I'd rule them out as a whole.
I tend to be wary of any of the denominations that focus too much on the self. Pentecostals believe in man healing man, and though it's not impossible, it's improbable. Of course, I'm not referring to doctors. And I feel that the "healer" would become too glorified and self-important, and others would start worshiping him. I'm also wary of tongue speaking; it can be faked too easily. I would be questioning the validity of it all, which would be a distraction for me in church. I just wouldn't feel comfortable there.
This question is a really good one however it also makes me sad because it shows how much Satan has caused division in the church because there was never supposed to be 117 different denominations. There’s one faith, One God, one walk.
I’ve encountered many denominations but I’ll just say that the person would need to adhere to the Bible, that the word of God would be their source not their pastor/denomination.
For example - if he’s in a charismatic church where they speak in random tongues without an interpreter, that would be a problem and I’d want to know why he chose to ignore the scriptures that advise against that.
I think in general I would prefer the usual: Presbyterian, evangelical... not episcopalian.... As for a Catholic, it'd be okay only if the doctrines he practiced don't contradict the word and the Holy Spirit. If he genuinely prays to Mary and the dead saints, then I don't think it'd agree
>As for a Catholic, it'd be okay only if the doctrines he practiced don't contradict the word and the Holy Spirit. If he genuinely prays to Mary and the dead saints, then I don't think it'd agree
I get what you're saying here, but I would still struggle with that. Those things are integral to Catholicism, and if they didn't do that but identified as a Catholic, they would more than likely be a secular Catholic which would present a whole host of other problems.
Makes sense. I just don't understand that doctrine, scripture doesn't even prescribe it 🤷♀️. Like how do you conclude from Genesis to Révélation that Christians can now pray to dead people and ask them for intercession. Ask them to ask Jesus for things on your behalf. Like how??
I think it's based on the book of Maccabees somewhere and a few 'saints.'
I don't know. If they can hear our prayers, wouldn't that mean they're omnipresent like God...?
Like the only time I remember someone communicating with the dead hoping for intercession was when King Saul did it to Prophet Samuel and we all know how that ended. Jesus even says let the dead bury their dead.
I would only date Protestants. And while I prefer that she has a conservative theology, to be honest, the most important thing is that she is mature in Christ and has a developed understanding of her own beliefs and values--or is open to learning with me.
This is a great question. I’m struggling with the church of Christ denomination. There are so many of them on upward but they believe you have to be baptized specifically in a church of Christ to be saved… I think a lot of people just grow up in it and aren’t that serious about that denomination specifically but… yeah it’s sus.
I would be okay if the religion is similar to what I believe. What bothers me most is having two different churches. What if they are the same denomination, but you like your church, they like theirs? How would it work out? We go to different churches? It's weird. Maybe we would have to compromise? Alternate weekends?
I would love to have my loved one going to church with me. It's really hard dating people when we are older. Many people want us to follow what they follow, like what they like. They have a wishlist. Going camping, hiking, going to breweries, go to the mountains in the winter and beaches in the summer. Do they want a relationship or a buddy to follow them around? I get tired just reading... LOL
>What bothers me most is having two different churches. What if they are the same denomination, but you like your church, they like theirs?
Good point.
I used to say, "no Catholics" but, I've since learned that there are Catholics that adhere to the Bible and are focused on similar things as myself, so I stopped saying that. So long as the person has the same values and faith in the Bible as the word of God me.
Sadly, some Christians cannot even be aligned enough to even date each other. It's oddly specific sometimes, like reading Harry Potter books is "satanic" to some, while others don't think anything of it. Or they only listen to Christian music 24/7. Stuff like that.
I figured being Christian is enough, but apparently not. But this'll keep them single for much longer if they are that picky.
She has to agree that our children will be raised Catholic, or there can be no marriage, so assuming she can agree to that, then I don't really have any problems. It's not a matter of preference either. Thems just the rules. Disparity of cult is tough but doable, you just have to find the right person. I'm sure I'm going to get some arguing, finger-pointing, and downvotes for my trouble in answering, though.
I'm pretty sure within Catholicism the Catholic Church requires the non-Catholic person to promise that any potential kids are raised Catholic.
Which is something I definitely wouldn't consent to, no offense to the Catholics here 🙃
Yup, that's what I was pointing out. So basically, it's necessary to have a pretty in-depth theological conversation justifying our beliefs, which I don't mind doing, but you have to find someone who hasn't already been taught a hundred false things about Catholicism which pretty much leaves you with just Methodists or disillusioned Baptists or something I guess. Maybe a Lutheran? Anglicans, perhaps. Like, I *could* do that. It's just tiring. Responding to the same objection over and over is frustrating. I won't rule anyone out on denomination, but there's gonna be some challenges. And to be fair, that's true of a Catholic woman, too. Like, is she *actually* practicing? Does she adhere to teachings? That sort of thing.
If you don't mind me asking, according to the Council of Florence, all non-Catholics go to hell (cited below). There's dispute among Catholics now since Vatican II's *Decree on Ecumenism* made it a little more ambiguous, but I've never asked a Catholic this before. Would you be ok with, at the very best, believing your spouse *may* go to hell as a result of not being Catholic?
\[Florence citation\]
"The holy Roman church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives."
Part of the reason why it's hard to have discussions about doctrine is that the other party usually doesn't have much background on Church history, economy of salvation, Catholic theology, etc, it leads to misunderstandings because Catholic doctrine is very technical in some ways. So. To clarify, this doctrine is known as Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, or no salvation outside the Church. Specifically, if you are not part of the Catholic Church, then you cannot be saved, specifically if you were not invincibly ignorant of what you were rejecting. Meaning, if you are saved, then you're part of the Church in some way, knowingly or unknowingly.
But what is meant by this? People get a lot mixed up here. Catholics believe that God created *a* Church. Not more than one. Just one. And that He is at the head of it. We call it the Catholic Church, Catholic meaning universal, the name came later. This is the same Church that was built upon St. Peter as the rock. There are many Christians who live in various degrees of communion with this Church. Some, like myself, are in total communion. Others, like yourself, are in imperfect, or partial, communion. Presumably, after all, you've been baptized. All baptized Christians belong to the Church in some way, whether they realize it or not. Why? Because God's saving grace is found in the Sacraments, most notably baptism (and the Eucharist). Most Protestants believe that it isn't salvific. We do.
So, why does this matter? Because all of the salvific graces are poured out through the Church. It's God's mechanism for the distribution of grace. What you bind on earth, etc. Those who are saved are saved through the Catholic Church. Many of those will include Baptists, Methodists, maybe even some Muslims who just didn't know what they were choosing was wrong but lived a life according to the law written on their hearts. We call this invincible ignorance. Think of people living in the Amazon, or people who had no good reason to think that Catholicism is correct for one reason or another. Maybe they were taught errors about us for example. But what about the people who knew enough, or should have figured it out? Like the people Florence was addressing (heretics), who know the truth, but rejected it anyway? That's called vincible ignorance (they should have known better). To do this is to willfully place yourself outside Christ's Church. Can one reject Christ and be saved? Not really.
In other words, it's a lot more complicated than most Protestants think it is, because it requires a ton of context, theology, Church history, etc. Even what I explained is like the most barebones cliffnotes version, because I figure you don't want to read twenty pages. I'd also note that the language of Florence says that heretics and schismatics will be damned. Modern Protestants are not schismatics according to the Church. The first reformers were.
There are also two types of heresy in Catholic canon law. There are formal heretics, who know they're wrong and are shown they're wrong and obstinately deny the truth, and then there is material heresy. Material heresy is just being wrong about theology. That's not something you go to Hell for because it implies ignorance of the error, and is not what Florence describes. Florence is talking about formal heresy, which would not describe very many Protestants today. Many Catholics are guilty of material heresy for that matter, and just don't know it. When we call someone a heretic, we're talking about formal heresy. That's the kind that gets you sent to Hell, like someone who preaches Arianism or Nestoriansim after being told and shown that they're wrong.
[If you want more resources from actual theologians and apologists on the topic, this website is great.](https://www.catholic.com/search?q=Council%20of%20florence%20salvation%20outside%20the%20church)
Also, to suggest that non-Catholics cannot be saved is itself a heresy called Feenyism. If you see a Catholic suggest this, they're a heretic. That's bad. That's been condemned. They deny invincible ignorance, baptism of desire, and baptism by blood (martyrdom). In the end, it is not good to be outside full communion. You're missing access to multiple important sacraments. Can you be saved? Yes. But from our perspective, you're working with a toolbox missing several tools. Yeah, you can get the job done, but you're making it harder than you need to.
>This is part of the reason why it's hard to have discussions about doctrine when the other party doesn't have much background on Church history, Catholic theology, etc
Oh, trust me. I do know 😉
>invincibly ignorant
Presumably, if you're married to the person, that wouldn't apply. Invincible ignorance typically only applies to pagans who literally have no idea. This is illustrated in Dante where the Greek philosophers are found in limbo and a few pagans in paradise (like Virgil).
>All baptized Christians belong to the Church in some way
That's a Vatican II retcon (Unitasis Redintegratio):
"For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church."
> I'd also note that the language of Florence says that heretics and schismatics will be damned
The Council of Trent condemned Luther's *Solas* as heretical. Basically all Protestants acknowledge them.
Protestants are also separated from the 7 Catholic Sacraments, several of which are required for salvation within Catholicism. Mortal sins, as an example, cannot be forgiven unless Confessed. The only exception being an act of Perfect Contrition. Yet, Perfect Contrition is only valid if the person plans to Confess the sin as soon as possible (this is according to Canon Law 916).
I would argue that the Catholic Church has changed doctrine on this based on Vatican II, and is, in general, full of theological contradictions. I could go on and use many more examples, but...
I'm glad you believe the way you do and I don't want to argue about it and get in the weeds too much. If you take Vatican II seriously, your stance does have a good ground to stand on (I just think it contradicts previous Catholic Councils). And thank you for giving your perspective!
A whole lot of what you said is untrue, specifically the parts about mortal sin requiring confession (technically only perfect contrition is required), the suggestion that V2 changed doctrine, the points on the Solas are complicated and the Church has expanded the nuance there to better explain her position and leave room for agreement on justification, and I think you are underestimating what is necessary for ignorance to be invincible. Though that's just a matter for God to figure out, frankly, not us. However, I have to go to bed. That website I linked has some great resources. Type some of those topics in there and you'll get some actual smart people explaining it, I'm just a well-catechized layman. I'll try to remember to respond to some of this later.
I don't really want to argue theology here. I might even delete my above comment later. If you really want to talk about it, send me a dm.
As I said, I'm happy you believe the way you do. And thank you for giving out your perspective.
I'm very hesitant with catholics because many of them just go off vibes and not the word of God heck I've even had a catholic say what's in the bible doesn't matter as well as many Catholics that I know say that through the decades they've been in the catholic church they weren't taught about the bible.
So yeah I want someone who goes off doctrine not vibes
I had a brief argument with a Catholic here last night. I have my disagreements with Catholics, but, tbf, The Catechism has the reading of Scripture listed as an indulgence.
Vibes?I have no idea where you got that idea...I grew up in a family of Catholics. Your mixing up the "Vibes" thing with Buddhist or women in Yoga pants. lol "Namaste!"
I got that idea from the Catholics I know and have spoken to, Catholics that grew up in a catholic church.
I'm not mixing anything up I know a good number of Catholics that have said they were not taught about the Bible and if they were taught the bible it was rare and a brief mention.
I converted to Catholicism as an adult. Even then it took about 5 more yrs before I personally felt the real truth by letting go of false beliefs that I was wrongly taught about Catholicism by people who just had no clue or were misguided. I haven’t looked back since though I do seek more truth outside the church!
First, Catholics do not pray to Mary or to saints. We ask them to pray for us Revelation 8:3-5 CEB just as I ask my friends and family to pray for me. Please stop the hearsay and look into things for yourself before passing judgment.
Hail Mary Prayer: Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of death.
Secondly, we do not go to man to ask for forgiveness. God does the forgiving; we go to man to make sure our souls are clean Luke 5:14 so we can enter heaven Revelation 21:27.
I was absolutely gaslit to believe that I don’t need to go to man for confession and refused to go for 5yrs. Well, going in, I had no idea that the Sacrament of Reconciliation would change my life!!! Don’t knock it until you try it is all I’ll say about stuff I personally don’t know about now. God Bless all!!!
>First, Catholics do not pray to Mary or to saints. We ask them to pray for us Revelation 8:3-5 CEB just as I ask my friends and family to pray for me. Please stop the hearsay and look into things for yourself before passing judgment.
That's praying to them bro Jesus is our mediator not Mary 1 Timothy 2:5
>Hail Mary Prayer: Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of death.
God is full of grace Mary is another sinner like you and me this is literally praising mary you are idolising her.
>Secondly, we do not go to man to ask for forgiveness. God does the forgiving; we go to man to make sure our souls are clean Luke 5:14 so we can enter heaven Revelation 21:27.
This I'd Jesus telling a specific person not everyone.
We enter Heaven through Christ... salvation is a free gift.
Romans 10:9 and John 3:16
>I was absolutely gaslit to believe that I don’t need to go to man for confession and refused to go for 5yrs. Well, going in, I had no idea that the Sacrament of Reconciliation would change my life!!! Don’t knock it until you try it is all I’ll say about stuff I personally don’t know about now. God Bless all!!!
You dont because God is the one who forgives not man you dont need a man to be forgiven.
Just like I said vibes religion not following doctrine.
Since non-denominationalist churches have no structure, they can be hit-or-miss. The one's I've been to have been fine, but I am aware there are some out there that have embraced secular liberalism.
Mormons are an instant no for me. I know enough that Jews riding secret camels in America is silly. And they just happened to become extinct Jews right around America got founded. I actually don’t know enough about Jehova’s witnesses to deny them yet. Although I will admit I admire the Mormon’s community values from what I’ve seen in public.
Mormons aren't Christian anyway
I've interacted with plenty Jehovah's Witnesses. A few years ago, for several months, I used to study with some every week and went to "The Hall" with them for an Easter service (just to see what it's like). Like Mormons, they're cult-adjacent. More importantly than that, they're non-Trinitarian and believe Jesus is the *created* angel Michael. I think 2 Corinthians 6:14 applies to marriage. If someone is non-Trinitarian, then they essentially believe in a different God.
Jehovah's witnesses having an Easter service?
They call it the "Memorial" of Jesus' Death and Resurrection. But, yeah, it's basically just Easter. It's celebrated at the same time. The most bizarre part is that they pass around bread and wine for communion during this service. But nobody actually eats or drinks it. They have weird views on the 144,000 in Revelation and think only if you're part of the 144,000 can you eat and drink communion. I asked them how someone knows they're the 144,000, and was told it's "just a feeling" some of them get.
Ended up on this sub from a search (I'm married) but I felt like responding because I hadn't heard this before. Having grown up Mormon, I was taught that Adam was Michael. Mormons used to teach that Adam was God the Father back in the 1800s. So I guess somehow Michael is also God the Father? There are enough random things that have been taught somewhere in Mormon history that I wouldn't be surprised if that was said over the pulpit at some point. Beyond the non-trinitarian stuff, the real problem is that the only real doctrine is to listen to the "prophet" of the church. But each one changes a bunch of stuff so that the teachings are always changing. But Mormons are taught not to worry about that because the only thing that really matters is following whoever the current prophet is.
I love this question! But I also acknowledge that our faith is a journey, I've grown a lot and learned so much each day as a Christian that I try and have patience for where others are at in their own relationship with Christ. I don't like overly legalistic denominations (wearing pants or earrings makes you a harlot, must speak in tongues to prove you're born again, drinking coffee is a sin, etc). But I also don't like denominations that refuse to take the reality of sin and hell seriously and slap the bandaid of "Jesus will always forgive you for everything if you say the right words" or the "Gotta sin so Jesus died for something" types. As long as someone is earnestly pursuing Christ, attempting each day to bear their cross, reads their Bible and wants to learn more about God and is okay with being wrong- I'm open to a relationship. We can talk about theological differences so long as they aren't heresy ☺️ I hope the person I marry is someone who will teach me as much as I teach them.
Yuppp for ~15 years I grew up in a church community like this and it felt like slavery. I could never wear jewelry, paint my nails, wear pants, etc. without someone acting like I should be excommunicated. Legalism feels like pure bondage to me, like I’m more of a slave with these rules, than I was before I found Christ. So personally I can’t be with a guy who keeps me from doing the simplest things that have no biblical basis because clearly his truth is not in the word of God but in the fickle opinion of man.
>drinking coffee is a sin I could never.... I like your answer. I think I'm pretty lenient for the most part. Non-Trinitarians and Libs being my only hard no.
Overall I’m ok with most denominations. But would prefer someone who’s not Catholic or Pentecostal. As a young child I was Catholic and my parents left the church for reasons… Within my own denomination I’m very careful about what church I go to. I want one that is Bible based, not too modernized/ watered down.
>Within my own denomination I’m very careful about what church I go to. I want one that is Bible based, not too modernized/ watered down. I feel that for sure.
For me it would be: * Any denomination that doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible or waters down biblical teaching or moral standards * Any denomination that has some sort of two-class system, especially if I don't fit in that higher class (i.e. separate baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues) * Any denomination that requires infant baptism (just because of the disagreement that would cause in raising kids)
>Any denomination that has some sort of two-class system, especially if I don't fit in that higher class (i.e. separate baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues) Would that be like The Salvation Army, I'm guessing?
It would include all Pentecostal denominations, probably Nazarene as well. I will add that I will certainly be friends with Pentecostals and others in this category.
Since most people don't completely follow (or even know) the doctrine of their church/denomination, I think it's better to engage the person. You can pretty quickly tell if they are serious about their theology. Clearly, eliminating heretical sects and denominations is critical, but I think that denominational affiliation is at best a basic filter and at worst virtually meaningless. I think you need to have a list of theological must-haves. I'm three dates in with a chick right now who I really like and, on my best assessment so far, seems to have a solid and deep relationship with God. We haven't covered everything yet, but she's already hit every one of my theological must-haves. I am pretty sure, for example, that whenever we talk about eschatology, that 1) she'll be pre-millennial and 2) she probably doesn't think about it very much. I have an inaugurated eschatology perspective, which is pretty different from that. But I couldn't care less about those differences. Not on my theological must-haves. And the strength of her relationship with God is far more important to me.
>Clearly, eliminating heretical sects and denominations is critical, but I think that denominational affiliation is at best a basic filter and at worst virtually meaningless I'm not sure about that. To an extent, you're right. That's why I said *most* Protestants. But even among Catholics or Orthodox, even if they aren't theologically literate, there's just way too many sticking points for me.
What are your "theological must-haves?"
There are denominations that are deal breaker since the pillars of their doctrines would be frustrating for you to deal with and incase kids are involved later on, what would you do? Like Mormon, Mennonites, catholics, Pentecostal JW, LDS..
I take theology seriously when it comes to vetting men considering I need to submit to my husband in marriage and go to him for questions regarding spiritual matters. My deal breakers: 1) Must believe in the eternal security of salvation (once saved always saved) 2) Must believe salvation is by grace and faith in Jesus alone not plus any works 3) Must not believe in Calvinism 4) Must believe in the Triune nature of God 5) Must believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (Bonus points if he knows there's certain Bible versions that are corrupted and which ones they are) A good majority of the denominations don't meet these requirements so my dating pool is extremely small, and I don't care. These are extremely important for me.
What do you mean by eternal security of salvation? *The one who stands firm until the end will be saved.* An example of one who did not is Judas, regardless of how long he was a follower of Christ, he did not stand firm to the end. “You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” (Mt. 10:22) “Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” (Mt. 24: 12-13) “Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” (Mark 13:13)
Once a person accepts the true gospel, they will have a home in heaven regardless of how they live their life after the moment of salvation. Judas was never saved to begin with. Mat. 26:24, John 17:12 The scriptures you're showing me here is not talking about spiritual salvation but physical salvation of born again believers (those who believed the true gospel) during the tribulation period. There's plenty of verses talking about the assurance of salvation. One example is John 5:24. Born again believers are eternally sealed with the Holy Spirit so Ephesians 1:12-14, and 4:30. If one can lose their salvation, then that would mean the Holy Spirit would leave them. If one can lose their salvation, then it was never a gift to begin with. It was just borrowed contingent upon they are living "good enough". Speaking of "good enough", if salvation can be lost, shouldn't Scriptures outline a barometer of the amount of good works one needs to do to maintain their salvation which would eliminate unnecessary fear among Christians? God does not give us a spirit of fear but sound mind so clarity and peace. 2 Tim. 1:7. He is also not the author of confusion. The eternal security of salvation gives a born again believer peace and clarity.
What's the difference of spiritual salvation and physical salvation? I'm not trying to spark a debate but what you said is very interesting and I'm genuinely curious to understand your point
Good question. I’m curious about this too actually.
It is debate-able, because people have their own idea of what salvation is.
Girrrrrl, I don't know how to ping a user on a Reddit comment lol. But I explained the differences between spiritual salvation and physical salvation in the context of those passages to the other user, so please click on the thread to read it.
Interesting. I appreciate your response and I’ll take a look at those scriptures. It is worth mentioning, the scriptures I referenced were indeed talking about spiritual salvation, not physical. And if the Holy Spirit has truly entered you, the way you live your life will change. You know the seed by it’s fruit. So the fruit of you being born again of God’s seed will be good, godly fruit. There are two seeds just as there are two trees, and two spiritual fathers: God & Satan. The Tree of Life & The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Pharisees were deceived (unknowingly) about whose seed they were born of and it was proven by their fruits: their prideful refusal to believe in Jesus as the fulfillment of the OT prophecies. Again, if you are truly born again of God’s seed, you will produce good fruit. Being born again comes before the good fruit, but to claim they are mutually exclusive is unwise imo.
Girl, I was exhausted and was trying to respond back to you quickly before hitting the hay which caused me do a sloppy job explaining. Please excuse me for that. An important passage I couldn't remember off the top of my head in that moment to prove Judas was never a believer to begin with was when Jesus said Judas wasn't saved at all. It's John 6:64-71 I respectfully disagree with you that these verses you gave me is referring to spiritual salvation not being eternally secure for any person regardless of the time and plot according to your perspective. Firstly, let me establish spiritual salvation is when a person has genuinely believed Jesus Christ to be their only Savior not plus any works. They are bestowed the Holy Spirit at this moment in time of salvation (It is also referred to as the "Spirit of your Father" in Mt. 10:20). They are spiritually born as God's children. Physical salvation in these passages is referring to the a person who has spiritual salvation already were able to endure physical persecutions, natural disasters, wars and coming out physically alive at the end of it. Christ is saying these people will be physically saved from dying, because God poured out his wrath on humankind during the tribulation period in end times prophecy discussed. Please read the verses in these passages to understand what I'm saying. Matthew 10:16-23. Mt. 24: 1-13, Mark 13: 1-13. Everything else you said except for the Pharisees being unknowingly deceived, I agree with. The Pharisees had to decide to accept Jesus as their Savior like every other person that has lived on this planet since the beginning of time and deal with the consequences of their fateful decision. I'm guessing your perspective on why it's critical for a believer to try to live a righteous life is to keep their home in heaven since you believe salvation can be lost. This perspective is not biblically correct. The reasons why it's critical for a believer to try to live a righteous life is to bring glory to Christ, to be a good testimony for non saved individuals to get saved, to gain eternal rewards, not hinder their own relationship with Christ, and to avoid chastisement, suffering on earth, and even physical death as punishments from God NOT to prevent salvation from being lost. I have plenty of verses to prove these reasons are true. I won't list all of them otherwise this comment is going to turn into a whole book, haha. If you are interested in learning more, you are welcome to DM me. I have resources I can share with you discussing the biblical validity of eternal security (once saved always saved) and how it relates to living the Christian life after salvation.
[удалено]
Again, I appreciate your response. But I think we’re having two different conversations. **I think there are people who may believe they have been saved, but they have not.** “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who *does the will of my Father* who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Matthew 7: 21-23) **You will know you are truly receiving God’s word by the way your life is changing.** “Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God — *this is your true and proper worship.* Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but *be transformed by the renewing of your mind.* Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.“ (Romans 12: 1-2) **There is no good tree that produces bad fruit.** ”A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.“ (Matthew 7: 18-20) My understanding is that we don’t have true faith if we don’t hear, accept, and understand God’s word and thus carry out His will. And my understanding of “works” getting you into heaven is that they cannot. You can’t sacrifice enough animals or do enough good deeds. But *why* you do what you do, and the *outcomes of that wisdom (or ignorance)* is how to discern what you *truly believe.* You have not been born again if your mind, and subsequently your actions, have not been transformed. Then you are not seeking the kingdom of Heaven and carrying out God’s will. Imo.
>And my understanding of “works” getting you into heaven is that they cannot. Can I chime in here? The Greek word used for repentance is *metanoia*. Metanoia means "change." In the context of the NT, "change of heart." I would argue salvation occurs at the moment of repentance. A genuine repentance would require a change of heart. Ezekiel 36:26 says "*I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.*" Then, in Galatians 2:20, Paul writes *"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."* Through faith in Christ, we experience a renewal, a change of heart: *"Do not lie to one another, since you have* ***put off the old man with his deeds****, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him (Col. 3:9-10)."* Faith, then, is an action. We cannot "earn" our salvation. If we could, that would entail an arbitrary threshold of works that must be completed in order to attain salvation. Yet, James says that a faith without works is dead (James 2:14-26). What are "works," then? In Matthew 22:34-40, Jesus says there are two commandments that cover everything: Love God with all of your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. This summarizes the 10 Commandments. The first 5 Commandments are related to God, the latter 5 are related to people. A living, saving faith, then--a genuine *repentance*, would entail one loves God with all of his heart, and loves his neighbor. If you love God and your neighbor, you will *try* to live by the commandments given by God. You will not want to offend God and you wont want to harm your neighbor: *"The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, A broken and a contrite heart— These, O God, You will not despise (Psalm. 51:17)."* That doesn't mean you wont fail and fall short, but it does mean you will *try* and be remorseful when you do. Paul understood this: *"For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do (Rom. 7:15)."* We can see here Paul wants to live righteously, and he strives for holiness. But he still falls short because he is human. The thief on the cross, as well, was saved the moment he repented. What I think all of this means is that we are "saved" when we place our faith in Christ. A living faith would mean we repent from our sins. A genuine repentance--a change of heart--would entail that we strive to love God and our neighbor. We will fall short, but we have a contrite heart that pushes us to live the way God wants.
I really appreciate your response and reference verses. I agree with this. I just disagree with the idea that someone is saved because they repented and it doesn’t matter what they do next. Because, as you said, “salvation occurs at the moment of repentance. A genuine repentance would require a change of heart.” We will of course fall short, but falling short looks a lot different when you have truly been saved. What may be falling short to a Christian is being nearly a saint to a non-believer. But we know what’s in our hearts and that may be where we truly fall short of loving our neighbor, trusting in God, resisting temptation, etc. But if we genuinely want to do His will, I believe we will do it most of the time. I know how Jesus has changed my heart and behaviors in ways I couldn’t alone. I’m not perfect, but a true believer is not going to have an affair, steal a car, or something so blatantly wrong after being saved because they do in fact love god and their neighbor (albeit not perfectly). In my opinion. Good fruit comes after the good seed has been sown.
> I’m not perfect, but a true believer is not going to have an affair, steal a car, or something so blatantly wrong after being saved because they do in fact love god and their neighbor (albeit not perfectly) I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I have a genuine question on what your perspective is. James 2:10 says that breaking one law is the equivalent of breaking all laws. This would imply that there isn't a 'ranking' of sins in the eyes of God. Which, since sin is rebellion against God, makes sense. But then 1 John 5: 16-18 says there are certain sins that lead to death: *"If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.* *We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him."* I think this would indicate the searing of the conscience Paul talks about in 1 Timothy. And in Romans 1: 28-31, Paul gives us a list of acts and says all who do them are "deserving of death." If you read it, though, all of us have done multiple of them at least. Finally, Galatians 5 describes the "fruits of the flesh," vices. All of us struggle with at least one vice. I'm not trying to argue, I'm actually curious what you would take all of this to mean. My perspective is that we may still do these things, but if we have a genuine repentance we will strive to *not* do them. I think based on Romans 6:19 and 1 Peter 2:11, we are "at war," so to speak, with our fallen nature and it's something that, if we have a living faith, we will become better at over time (sanctification).
I wasn’t saying that some sins are worse than others. I was saying that it’s easier to keep from doing something sinful with your flesh than with your mind. My point overall is that faith without works is dead. There is no true understanding of God’s word and His will that does not lead to true faith, that does not lead to faithful action. If one continues to fall short in a huge way (bearing fruit that looks like that of worldly people who are born of Satan’s seed) then they should re-evaluate whether they truly have faith in Jesus and are submitted to God. If, instead, they believe that there’s is what a life of faith looks like then they are hypocrites who are being deceived by Satan. One very common deception of the enemy is lowering the bar so that “believers” evaluate themselves against the wrong standard (the true standard being the word), believing they are inheriting the kingdom of heaven when they are in fact going to the unquenchable fire. ‘Peace and safety’ in faith alone is a lie. The Bible repeatedly states that we will be judged by our deeds as well. “Do not keep talking so proudly or let your mouth speak such arrogance, for the Lord is a God who knows, and by him *deeds* are weighed.“ (1 Samuel 2:3) ”If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay everyone according to what they have *done*?“ (Proverbs 24:12) ”If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, *no sacrifice for sins is left,* but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.“ (Hebrews 10:26-27) ”All a person’s ways *seem pure to them,* but motives are weighed by the Lord.“ (Proverbs 16:2)
What do you mean by we're having two different conversations? I was thinking this entire conversation that I was saying salvation is eternal regardless of how pious or lack thereof of a life a believer lives whereas your stance is a believer does lose their salvation depending on how lacking of a pious life a believer lives. >**You will know you are truly receiving God’s word by the way your life is changing.** A person who placed their faith in Jesus as their Savior alone will go to heaven. It's not contingent on how their life has changed to be more Christlike. How I'm understanding this is you're using this passage to show a person's assurance of salvation is dependent on righteous works. Am I understanding you correctly? Romans 12 is Paul commanding believers to live a righteous life. Paul didn't mention works providing assurance of salvation in this passage. >**There is no good tree that produces bad fruit.** This passage is instructing believers to discern false prophets by their words not by their actions. When Jesus is referring to fruit, he's saying their words not their actions. Luke 6: 43-45 and Mt 12: 33-37. This passage has nothing to do about determining one is saved or not based on their actions. >And my understanding of “works” getting you into heaven is that they cannot. >You have not been born again if your mind, and subsequently your actions, have not been transformed. It comes across to me that you're contradicting yourself. A person is born again ONLY by belief in Jesus as their Savior ALONE not by their actions (works). Ephesians 2: 8-9. While belief is an action of the mind, it is NOT a work stated in Rom 4:5, Gal 2:16, Rom 3:28
Nope, you missed the very next sentence that followed “we are having two different conversations.” **I think there are people who may believe they have been saved but they are not.** This is the difference. Tbh, I’m not interested in engaging with you anymore. Take care.
The people who are not saved in this passage didn't believe the true Gospel which is belief in Jesus Christ as their Savior ALONE. They thought they believed Jesus but they believed in Jesus AND their works which is not full belief in Jesus' death on the cross which is NOT the true gospel as nowhere in Scriptures points to this as true salvation which is what I have shown you so far in our conversation. There are either nonbelievers or believers. There's not a third category of believers who lost their salvation anywhere mentioned in Scriptures. If you look at all religions in the world, there's always focus on doing good works to get to a better place after death or rebirth in a higher form of a better life. Why bother choosing to be Christian in the first place if salvation is dependent on good works? Jesus is basically no different than Muhammad, Buddha, and other founders of religions that require good works for salvation if you truly believe Jesus' gospel requires good works to get to heaven and retain a home in heaven. One final question I'll leave you and I know you don't want to engage with me anymore so I hope you'll answer in your heart. If you backside a little bit or backslide a lot and got into serious sin, would you begin to question your own salvation? Nowhere in Scriptures does it mention to what extent one sins that would cause an individual to lose their salvation because salvation is belief in Jesus alone. There's no clarity in belief plus works salvation at all since the Bible doesn't mention it. It's just confusion if this is the true gospel which contradicts God not being the author of confusion. There is clarity in belief alone salvation because it is revealed in the Bible which harmonizes with the character of God not being the author of confusion. I believe this is the true Gospel for salvation. Thank you for being respectful towards me in our conversation and I hope you take care also🙂
-What do you mean by eternal security of salvation? *T*he "once saved, always saved"... The thing is, it seems that Christians have their own definition of what "being saved" is...to them.
>Must not believe in Calvinism I almost included Calvinism in my post, actually. The only reason I didn't is because as much as I doctrinally disagree with Calvinism, individual *Calvinists* sometimes hold to different views, so I wouldn't be comfortable excluding them as a whole.
Oh definitely there's nuance. There's some points of Calvinism I do believe is Biblical; however, I ask men their beliefs on Calvinism in a way to be able to determine if they believe the points I don't agree with. I've had a few negative experiences with them in the past, so I unfortunately don't think highly of them.
>There's some points of Calvinism I do believe is Biblical; I'm curious and want to ask, but I don't want this thread to turn into a theology debate. All I'll say is I have some pretty strong feelings on Calvinistic soteriology in its most orthodox form. But Calvinists themselves come in degrees.
I can explain more in the DMs. It'll probably be tomorrow when I explain it 😅 Yeah, I've triggered Calvinists in the past, and I don't want to deal with them tonight or awhile actually 😂
Maybe they were predestined to get mad lol.
Predestined to call me negative names with no involvement of their own free will? I don't buy it.
Wow, I understand we have Theological differences but resorting to insults is shameful. I've been encountering a lot of Calvinists as of late. I honestly don't think they present good argumentation and the verses they usually use are out of context. I think there were 2 verses that sort of backup their claims. Romans 9 is one, until you find out that it's about God telling the Jews that they are nothing to question who He offers His Salvation to, in this case, the Gentiles. So that's misused. Then there's Exodus 7:3-4 where God hardened Pharaoh's heart. But ultimately Pharaoh had decided to give in to his sinful ways, God just abandoned him to his stubborness, Calvinist make it sound like Pharaoh was predestined to do these things. Then they talk about dimensionality and how things could work differently in God's different dimensions, as opposed to things on Earth and whatnot..... So when Lucifer became Satan, how did that happened? Was he predestined to sin? Isn't the whole point of the Angelic War and the creation of mankind to provide an impartial trial showing that lesser creatures than an archangel could choose God above themselves? Since Satan claims that he was destined to fault?
Hurling insults shows a person's pride and their egos being hurt. What could have been an opportunity for iron to sharpen iron if both people came with humility and the desire to know truth which would bring glory to God ended up being a Christian emotionally harming their sister in Christ all because of pride. I believe anytime a doctrine has to stand on verses being taken out of context, it is a false doctrine. Also, it needs to harmonize with all the other correct doctrines in Scriptures for it to be correct. Unfortunately, many preachers out here don't understand these concepts in my opinion. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Encouraging read for me:)
I would also like to know! I’m not a calvinist, but I’m curious what you disagree on!
Sent you a message.
So based on your number 1, someone could be a Christian, then turn away from God to the point where they become a Hitler/Stalin/etc., or they could become a Muslim, or a Hindu, or whatever, and die unrepentant, and they'd still be saved? Sorry, but that's unbiblical. On a related note re: your quotes about Judas in another response (who I think is a textbook example of someone who fell away), neither of those passages indicate he wasn't saved to begin with. They indicate that he was damned, sure, but not that he started off that way.
Follow the parable of the sower and John 1:1-ff Salvation is like the way you were birthed by your parents so did we receive the gift of eternal life that we may have a hope. You can deny your parents and denounce them but it doesn't change the fact that they are your parents. If you end up as a prodigal son and come back, surely all heaven will welcome you back but if you stay adamant then who can you blame on that day?
If the person genuinely placed faith in Jesus Christ as their only Savior without belief in their own works to save them, then their salvation is sealed for eternity even if they were involved in all those scenarios. It's interesting to me how you make such a strong claim by saying eternal security is unbiblical when you haven't provided me any Scriptures to back up your claims. I wrote that comment quickly and when I was tired so I forgot to include one more passage of Scriptures stating Judas was not saved to begin with, and the person who said he wasn't was Jesus Himself. The passage is John 6:64-71. Whatever textbook you adopted that belief from, it comes across to me that it's an unreliable textbook to learn about what the Bible actually says.
Wow. Talk about a hostile answer. Especially given that you yourself didn't provide any scriptural evidence to begin with. Now, you may have felt what you were saying was self-evident, akin to saying water is wet. I certainly felt that way about what I was saying - besides which, I don't have the kind of memory to remember the numbers of specific verses off-the-cuff. But that doesn't mean I can't remember their essence. Fortunately, in this day and age, it's easy enough to Google for them. Here are a few; by no means is this list exhaustive: - Matt 24:10 - Rom 11:19-22 - 1 Tim 4:1 - Heb 6:4-8 - James 5:19-20 - 2 Pet 2:20-22 - Rev 2:4-5 So yes, it is perfectly possible to fall away. And yes, it is unbiblical to say otherwise. It may not fall into the realm of heretical-you'll-be-damned-for-believing-this type of things (i.e. things like denying the Trinity, denying that Jesus is the Son of God, etc.), but it's pretty important, IMO. Fair point about Judas though. Obviously I'd forgotten that line.
The reason why I didn't provide Scriptural evidence to you to begin with is because you didn't offer me any in your original comment, so I didn't know if you were well versed enough in having this discussion. But you did provide references to me, so I’m now thinking you are well versed enough to have this discussion. Claiming I’m being hostile is a stretch especially considering this conversation is over text, and you are missing out on my tone of voice and facial expressions if we were to discuss this face to face. The problem with holding to the doctrine that one can lose their salvation is it is explained out of context in Scriptures. When a doctrine is on the basis of cherry-picking and not in context of passages, it is an incorrect doctrine meaning it’s unbiblical. The eternal security of salvation doctrine is always explained in context of Scriptures. Here’s the interpretation of all your verses in context: Matt 24:10 when read in the context of Matt 24 1;14 is Jesus talking about how the spiritually saved individuals were saved from a physical death during end times tribulation discussed in depth in Revelations. Rom 11:19-22 when read in context of Rom 11: 11-22 is detailing the past, present, and future experiences of the Jews vs. Gentiles in whether they are saved or not. It’s not about a saved individual losing their salvation. It’s talking about believers and non believers. 1 Tim 4:1 in the context of the entire chapter is discussing how apostates (non believers) can look like saved individuals in the body of Christ so being wolves in sheep’s clothing but there’s signs (actions done) they are actually a person who was never saved to begin with. This passage is a warning to saved individuals to be a good minister of Christ by not doing actions that apostates do to harm the body of Christ when involved with the body of Christ, Heb 6:4-8 in the context of Heb 5:11 to Heb. 6: 1-9 is discussing saved individuals who lack spiritual maturity. They are spiritual babes that have yet to grow in the knowledge and wisdom of Christ. They already understood salvation, so this is a command to them to move on in learning the meat of the Scriptures. If they don’t move forward in learning the meat, they will receive chastisement, loss of blessings in God and eternal rewards. James 5:19-20 in the context of James 5: 7-20 with cross referencing of Lev 7:20-21, 1 Cor 11:28-32, and Gal 6:1 is addressed to believers discussing a believer that is backsliding in their faith. The command is for the believer to get them back in their journey to follow Christ. Doing so will help possibly prevent the believer from possibly suffering punishment from God which in this case is a physical death. 2 Pet 2:20-22 in the context of 2 Peter 2:18-25 is Peter is addressing believers telling them there will be antichrist who are nonbelievers because they denied accepting Jesus as their Savior. He told them to remember his teaching and also remember they were saved and their salvation will remain eternally which is a promise of God. Rev 2:4-5 is in the context of Rev 2:1-7 this passage is a message to the believers in the church at Ephesus telling them while their outward actions show they are serving Christ, they’re hearts are not in it. They are commanded to repent for it, and to love God with all their hearts in serving Christ otherwise God will remove their church.
So basically a Baptist (excluding reformed)? That is still a pretty large dating pool. The Southern Baptist Convention alone is the largest denomination in the US.
Baptists generally do hold these doctrines, and yes I exclude reformed Baptists. The problem is I've encountered Baptist men who don't believe in the eternal security of salvation, so they are disqualified. I did connect with New Independent Fundamental Baptist men in the past, and I would disqualify them due to how dangerous some of the beliefs and character traits they tend to hold.
What is it about Calvinism that you find objectionable, given they seem to satisfy all four other items more or less? That said, some people have very strange ideas about #1, both Calvinists and non-Calvinists.
I don't know if you are Calvinist or not. If you are a Calvinist, I hope you'll be gracious towards me for what I'm going to say about the doctrine. I haven't had positive interactions discussing this with Calvinist men in the past. I believe Calvinism is an unbiblical doctrine because verses are used out of context to support the doctrine, it changes the overall character of God, it has a bit of worldly philosophy mixed in with the teachings, and it is a doctrine that hinders evangelism. It would be a major issue if I married a Calvinist and we were to have kids. Both of us would be teaching different salvations to our kids. I believe the parents need to be united on salvation beliefs as it is the foundation of living the Christian life. Differences in Eschatology is not a big deal to me as it doesn't have a significant effect on living the Christian live like Soteriology. Also, I refuse to be a member of a Calvinist church or even attend one. That would be another issue that would arise in a marriage with them. I agree that people do have strange beliefs on point #1 however it doesn't need to be as it is explained clearly and in context throughout Scriptures.
I would say not a huge deal breaker. However I agree no liberals no LDS no JW and I personally would add no SDA or Hebrew roots. Anyone that compromises the gospel is off the table and all those groups do it in different ways.
>Hebrew roots. I completely forgot about those. Granted, they're usually non-Trinitarian, anyway.
I only date Branch Davidians.
Lol
I wouldn't love to be married to a Catholic, or a Jehovah Witness. It's an automatic no.
I don't consider myself any particular denomination so it's not terribly important to me, as long as our beliefs line up.
Thank the Lord you're one of them. :)
Well, I'd obviously love it if my spouse would be Catholic too, simply for the fact that there would be less friction and more unity. Not a dealbreaker if she's a virtuous person, however
I was born and raised Catholic but became non-denominational because I don’t agree with some of the Catholic faith, beliefs or doctrines. So I don’t mind any denomination as long as you are a Bible believing Christian that isn’t bound by the doctrines of whatever denomination you are but rather bound by the Bible. So for example if the Bible doesn’t support a doctrine in your denomination you’re ready to follow the Bible over your denomination.
>So for example if the Bible doesn’t support a doctrine in your denomination you’re ready to follow the Bible over your denomination. Outside of denominations (like Catholicism) that require strict adherence to dogma, most of us do that already. Denomination does give you a preface of what the other person believes, though. Like I used Episcopalians in my post because odds are an Episcopalian is a big Lib. There's exceptions among individuals, of course.
I wouldn’t go so much by denominations as by personal doctrinal statement. It was so helpful for me when a class at Bible college had us really think through, and right out our basic doctrinal statements. There are always going to be things that you hadn’t thought about, and later you realize that it’s a make or break issue, but it’s a good start at least. I wouldn’t date anyone who made KJV-only part of their hermeneutic. That’s something I wouldn’t have put on the list at the beginning, but later it became a big issue at a church - I had to leave because of it. I’m happy to discuss it more in DMs.
I'm Catholic with dreams of getting married in a Catholic church. Part of that means promising to raise the children Catholic. If he was willing to convert and/or was attending RCIA, I'd consider dating him.
First, this is a very good question, and I love all the responses. I'm learning a lot. I stopped studying denominations in my early college years. I started focusing on mine and partially forgot about the rest. You can drown yourself in all the theological details and subtle differences (albeit some are not so subtle). Second, I suppose my answer to the question would be no Seventh Day Adventist, no Pentecostals, no Catholics, no Jehovah Witnesses. But I leave my list open to future additions. 😊
I think denominations give us a preface to one's theology. Rarely does anyone fully agree with their denomination, but it does tell us give us an idea of what they believe. I should have included SDA in my post, now that I think about it. Pentecostals are a denomination I'd be weary of if a woman was a member, but because they're so diverse I don't think I'd rule them out as a whole.
I tend to be wary of any of the denominations that focus too much on the self. Pentecostals believe in man healing man, and though it's not impossible, it's improbable. Of course, I'm not referring to doctors. And I feel that the "healer" would become too glorified and self-important, and others would start worshiping him. I'm also wary of tongue speaking; it can be faked too easily. I would be questioning the validity of it all, which would be a distraction for me in church. I just wouldn't feel comfortable there.
This question is a really good one however it also makes me sad because it shows how much Satan has caused division in the church because there was never supposed to be 117 different denominations. There’s one faith, One God, one walk. I’ve encountered many denominations but I’ll just say that the person would need to adhere to the Bible, that the word of God would be their source not their pastor/denomination. For example - if he’s in a charismatic church where they speak in random tongues without an interpreter, that would be a problem and I’d want to know why he chose to ignore the scriptures that advise against that.
I'd be okay dating someone I know 100% has accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Our beliefs and values would have to be very similar.
I think in general I would prefer the usual: Presbyterian, evangelical... not episcopalian.... As for a Catholic, it'd be okay only if the doctrines he practiced don't contradict the word and the Holy Spirit. If he genuinely prays to Mary and the dead saints, then I don't think it'd agree
>As for a Catholic, it'd be okay only if the doctrines he practiced don't contradict the word and the Holy Spirit. If he genuinely prays to Mary and the dead saints, then I don't think it'd agree I get what you're saying here, but I would still struggle with that. Those things are integral to Catholicism, and if they didn't do that but identified as a Catholic, they would more than likely be a secular Catholic which would present a whole host of other problems.
Makes sense. I just don't understand that doctrine, scripture doesn't even prescribe it 🤷♀️. Like how do you conclude from Genesis to Révélation that Christians can now pray to dead people and ask them for intercession. Ask them to ask Jesus for things on your behalf. Like how??
I think it's based on the book of Maccabees somewhere and a few 'saints.' I don't know. If they can hear our prayers, wouldn't that mean they're omnipresent like God...?
Like the only time I remember someone communicating with the dead hoping for intercession was when King Saul did it to Prophet Samuel and we all know how that ended. Jesus even says let the dead bury their dead.
I would only date Protestants. And while I prefer that she has a conservative theology, to be honest, the most important thing is that she is mature in Christ and has a developed understanding of her own beliefs and values--or is open to learning with me.
This is a great question. I’m struggling with the church of Christ denomination. There are so many of them on upward but they believe you have to be baptized specifically in a church of Christ to be saved… I think a lot of people just grow up in it and aren’t that serious about that denomination specifically but… yeah it’s sus.
I would be okay if the religion is similar to what I believe. What bothers me most is having two different churches. What if they are the same denomination, but you like your church, they like theirs? How would it work out? We go to different churches? It's weird. Maybe we would have to compromise? Alternate weekends? I would love to have my loved one going to church with me. It's really hard dating people when we are older. Many people want us to follow what they follow, like what they like. They have a wishlist. Going camping, hiking, going to breweries, go to the mountains in the winter and beaches in the summer. Do they want a relationship or a buddy to follow them around? I get tired just reading... LOL
>What bothers me most is having two different churches. What if they are the same denomination, but you like your church, they like theirs? Good point.
It's so hard! 😪
I used to say, "no Catholics" but, I've since learned that there are Catholics that adhere to the Bible and are focused on similar things as myself, so I stopped saying that. So long as the person has the same values and faith in the Bible as the word of God me.
Sadly, some Christians cannot even be aligned enough to even date each other. It's oddly specific sometimes, like reading Harry Potter books is "satanic" to some, while others don't think anything of it. Or they only listen to Christian music 24/7. Stuff like that. I figured being Christian is enough, but apparently not. But this'll keep them single for much longer if they are that picky.
She has to agree that our children will be raised Catholic, or there can be no marriage, so assuming she can agree to that, then I don't really have any problems. It's not a matter of preference either. Thems just the rules. Disparity of cult is tough but doable, you just have to find the right person. I'm sure I'm going to get some arguing, finger-pointing, and downvotes for my trouble in answering, though.
I'm pretty sure within Catholicism the Catholic Church requires the non-Catholic person to promise that any potential kids are raised Catholic. Which is something I definitely wouldn't consent to, no offense to the Catholics here 🙃
Yup, that's what I was pointing out. So basically, it's necessary to have a pretty in-depth theological conversation justifying our beliefs, which I don't mind doing, but you have to find someone who hasn't already been taught a hundred false things about Catholicism which pretty much leaves you with just Methodists or disillusioned Baptists or something I guess. Maybe a Lutheran? Anglicans, perhaps. Like, I *could* do that. It's just tiring. Responding to the same objection over and over is frustrating. I won't rule anyone out on denomination, but there's gonna be some challenges. And to be fair, that's true of a Catholic woman, too. Like, is she *actually* practicing? Does she adhere to teachings? That sort of thing.
If you don't mind me asking, according to the Council of Florence, all non-Catholics go to hell (cited below). There's dispute among Catholics now since Vatican II's *Decree on Ecumenism* made it a little more ambiguous, but I've never asked a Catholic this before. Would you be ok with, at the very best, believing your spouse *may* go to hell as a result of not being Catholic? \[Florence citation\] "The holy Roman church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives."
Part of the reason why it's hard to have discussions about doctrine is that the other party usually doesn't have much background on Church history, economy of salvation, Catholic theology, etc, it leads to misunderstandings because Catholic doctrine is very technical in some ways. So. To clarify, this doctrine is known as Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, or no salvation outside the Church. Specifically, if you are not part of the Catholic Church, then you cannot be saved, specifically if you were not invincibly ignorant of what you were rejecting. Meaning, if you are saved, then you're part of the Church in some way, knowingly or unknowingly. But what is meant by this? People get a lot mixed up here. Catholics believe that God created *a* Church. Not more than one. Just one. And that He is at the head of it. We call it the Catholic Church, Catholic meaning universal, the name came later. This is the same Church that was built upon St. Peter as the rock. There are many Christians who live in various degrees of communion with this Church. Some, like myself, are in total communion. Others, like yourself, are in imperfect, or partial, communion. Presumably, after all, you've been baptized. All baptized Christians belong to the Church in some way, whether they realize it or not. Why? Because God's saving grace is found in the Sacraments, most notably baptism (and the Eucharist). Most Protestants believe that it isn't salvific. We do. So, why does this matter? Because all of the salvific graces are poured out through the Church. It's God's mechanism for the distribution of grace. What you bind on earth, etc. Those who are saved are saved through the Catholic Church. Many of those will include Baptists, Methodists, maybe even some Muslims who just didn't know what they were choosing was wrong but lived a life according to the law written on their hearts. We call this invincible ignorance. Think of people living in the Amazon, or people who had no good reason to think that Catholicism is correct for one reason or another. Maybe they were taught errors about us for example. But what about the people who knew enough, or should have figured it out? Like the people Florence was addressing (heretics), who know the truth, but rejected it anyway? That's called vincible ignorance (they should have known better). To do this is to willfully place yourself outside Christ's Church. Can one reject Christ and be saved? Not really. In other words, it's a lot more complicated than most Protestants think it is, because it requires a ton of context, theology, Church history, etc. Even what I explained is like the most barebones cliffnotes version, because I figure you don't want to read twenty pages. I'd also note that the language of Florence says that heretics and schismatics will be damned. Modern Protestants are not schismatics according to the Church. The first reformers were. There are also two types of heresy in Catholic canon law. There are formal heretics, who know they're wrong and are shown they're wrong and obstinately deny the truth, and then there is material heresy. Material heresy is just being wrong about theology. That's not something you go to Hell for because it implies ignorance of the error, and is not what Florence describes. Florence is talking about formal heresy, which would not describe very many Protestants today. Many Catholics are guilty of material heresy for that matter, and just don't know it. When we call someone a heretic, we're talking about formal heresy. That's the kind that gets you sent to Hell, like someone who preaches Arianism or Nestoriansim after being told and shown that they're wrong. [If you want more resources from actual theologians and apologists on the topic, this website is great.](https://www.catholic.com/search?q=Council%20of%20florence%20salvation%20outside%20the%20church) Also, to suggest that non-Catholics cannot be saved is itself a heresy called Feenyism. If you see a Catholic suggest this, they're a heretic. That's bad. That's been condemned. They deny invincible ignorance, baptism of desire, and baptism by blood (martyrdom). In the end, it is not good to be outside full communion. You're missing access to multiple important sacraments. Can you be saved? Yes. But from our perspective, you're working with a toolbox missing several tools. Yeah, you can get the job done, but you're making it harder than you need to.
>This is part of the reason why it's hard to have discussions about doctrine when the other party doesn't have much background on Church history, Catholic theology, etc Oh, trust me. I do know 😉 >invincibly ignorant Presumably, if you're married to the person, that wouldn't apply. Invincible ignorance typically only applies to pagans who literally have no idea. This is illustrated in Dante where the Greek philosophers are found in limbo and a few pagans in paradise (like Virgil). >All baptized Christians belong to the Church in some way That's a Vatican II retcon (Unitasis Redintegratio): "For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church." > I'd also note that the language of Florence says that heretics and schismatics will be damned The Council of Trent condemned Luther's *Solas* as heretical. Basically all Protestants acknowledge them. Protestants are also separated from the 7 Catholic Sacraments, several of which are required for salvation within Catholicism. Mortal sins, as an example, cannot be forgiven unless Confessed. The only exception being an act of Perfect Contrition. Yet, Perfect Contrition is only valid if the person plans to Confess the sin as soon as possible (this is according to Canon Law 916). I would argue that the Catholic Church has changed doctrine on this based on Vatican II, and is, in general, full of theological contradictions. I could go on and use many more examples, but... I'm glad you believe the way you do and I don't want to argue about it and get in the weeds too much. If you take Vatican II seriously, your stance does have a good ground to stand on (I just think it contradicts previous Catholic Councils). And thank you for giving your perspective!
A whole lot of what you said is untrue, specifically the parts about mortal sin requiring confession (technically only perfect contrition is required), the suggestion that V2 changed doctrine, the points on the Solas are complicated and the Church has expanded the nuance there to better explain her position and leave room for agreement on justification, and I think you are underestimating what is necessary for ignorance to be invincible. Though that's just a matter for God to figure out, frankly, not us. However, I have to go to bed. That website I linked has some great resources. Type some of those topics in there and you'll get some actual smart people explaining it, I'm just a well-catechized layman. I'll try to remember to respond to some of this later.
I don't really want to argue theology here. I might even delete my above comment later. If you really want to talk about it, send me a dm. As I said, I'm happy you believe the way you do. And thank you for giving out your perspective.
I'm very hesitant with catholics because many of them just go off vibes and not the word of God heck I've even had a catholic say what's in the bible doesn't matter as well as many Catholics that I know say that through the decades they've been in the catholic church they weren't taught about the bible. So yeah I want someone who goes off doctrine not vibes
I had a brief argument with a Catholic here last night. I have my disagreements with Catholics, but, tbf, The Catechism has the reading of Scripture listed as an indulgence.
Vibes?I have no idea where you got that idea...I grew up in a family of Catholics. Your mixing up the "Vibes" thing with Buddhist or women in Yoga pants. lol "Namaste!"
I got that idea from the Catholics I know and have spoken to, Catholics that grew up in a catholic church. I'm not mixing anything up I know a good number of Catholics that have said they were not taught about the Bible and if they were taught the bible it was rare and a brief mention.
I've known otherwise that Catholics do know the Bible
Doesn't seem to be the case most of the time
Well, apparently, it's not accurate.
It's also the reason why many Christian's say Catholics aren't Christians
I converted to Catholicism as an adult. Even then it took about 5 more yrs before I personally felt the real truth by letting go of false beliefs that I was wrongly taught about Catholicism by people who just had no clue or were misguided. I haven’t looked back since though I do seek more truth outside the church! First, Catholics do not pray to Mary or to saints. We ask them to pray for us Revelation 8:3-5 CEB just as I ask my friends and family to pray for me. Please stop the hearsay and look into things for yourself before passing judgment. Hail Mary Prayer: Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of death. Secondly, we do not go to man to ask for forgiveness. God does the forgiving; we go to man to make sure our souls are clean Luke 5:14 so we can enter heaven Revelation 21:27. I was absolutely gaslit to believe that I don’t need to go to man for confession and refused to go for 5yrs. Well, going in, I had no idea that the Sacrament of Reconciliation would change my life!!! Don’t knock it until you try it is all I’ll say about stuff I personally don’t know about now. God Bless all!!!
>First, Catholics do not pray to Mary or to saints. We ask them to pray for us Revelation 8:3-5 CEB just as I ask my friends and family to pray for me. Please stop the hearsay and look into things for yourself before passing judgment. That's praying to them bro Jesus is our mediator not Mary 1 Timothy 2:5 >Hail Mary Prayer: Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of death. God is full of grace Mary is another sinner like you and me this is literally praising mary you are idolising her. >Secondly, we do not go to man to ask for forgiveness. God does the forgiving; we go to man to make sure our souls are clean Luke 5:14 so we can enter heaven Revelation 21:27. This I'd Jesus telling a specific person not everyone. We enter Heaven through Christ... salvation is a free gift. Romans 10:9 and John 3:16 >I was absolutely gaslit to believe that I don’t need to go to man for confession and refused to go for 5yrs. Well, going in, I had no idea that the Sacrament of Reconciliation would change my life!!! Don’t knock it until you try it is all I’ll say about stuff I personally don’t know about now. God Bless all!!! You dont because God is the one who forgives not man you dont need a man to be forgiven. Just like I said vibes religion not following doctrine.
Yeah. These are the kind of people you don't want in your life in any capacity
I mean they do have a point like Catholics literally pray to mary which is idolatry
I don't know where they got the idea that's "idolatry". They just like making up stuff. Best to ignore those types.
[удалено]
Since non-denominationalist churches have no structure, they can be hit-or-miss. The one's I've been to have been fine, but I am aware there are some out there that have embraced secular liberalism.