-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
By 'integral' do you mean "it is required to know the Bible before you can claim Christianity?"
Just a few hours on this forum will quickly show anyone that not only do few of us really know the Bible, but also that some of us may not have really read much of it, at all.
And I certainly cannot accept applying our 'added' word, 'infallible', to the Bible, since the Bible, itself never claims infallibility.
You seem to have tried to ask WAY too much with the few words you typed in that post. But, basically, I believe a person can be a follower of Jesus having never read the Bible.... but it's doubtful they could ever educate themselves into the formal institution of "Christianity" without acquiring some of the same inculcation most of us have absorbed over the years. I think we all know THAT is exactly the attitude and belief that leads to the hundreds of posts that have been made here stating that "so-and-so is not a TRUE Christian."
Just a few hours on this forum will quickly show anyone that not only do few of us really know the Bible, but also that some of us may not have really read much of it, at all.
And I certainly cannot accept applying our 'added' word, 'infallible', to the Bible, since the Bible, itself never claims infallibility.
You seem to have tried to ask WAY too much with the few words you typed in that post. But, basically, I believe a person can be a follower of Jesus having never read the Bible.... but it's doubtful they could ever educate themselves into the formal institution of "Christianity" without acquiring some of the same inculcation most of us have absorbed over the years. I think we all know THAT is exactly the attitude and belief that leads to the hundreds of posts that have been made here stating that "so-and-so is not a TRUE Christian."
D
I wouldn't. That's the reason our denomination split, because the old denomination was heading that way. They're there now. (40 years later.) According to Romans 1, they are without excuse.
So I simply avoid them, because I know this is their game to go for the eternal-vacation package (heaven) without ever having to deal with God.
The only one who can change their minds by the time they go that far is God. And it is quite likely he hardened their hearts already, (like it says in Romans 1.)
Then again, I also don't think they're much different than quite a few people on this site.
So I simply avoid them, because I know this is their game to go for the eternal-vacation package (heaven) without ever having to deal with God.
The only one who can change their minds by the time they go that far is God. And it is quite likely he hardened their hearts already, (like it says in Romans 1.)
Then again, I also don't think they're much different than quite a few people on this site.
What is REALLY going on in this article?
1. You can discuss this topic from a biblical point of view, or from a non-biblical point of view.
A. What does the BIBLES SAY, and imply, about IT'S OWN relevance and necessity?
B. What do a bunch of people who dislike the bible, who want to be gay christians, say about the Bible?
The people writing the article do NOT believe the bible, and are NOT approaching the topic from a Biblical view...
they are trying to DEVALUE the Bible, so they can be Gay, Evolutionary, Secular Humanists.
This topic CAN be discussed Biblically, in a balanced way, but that is NOT what the article is about.
2. This topic is not raised, in this instance, by people who actually BELIEVE THE BIBLE.
* This article is written by extremely liberal, non-blblical Christians, who disbelieve and dislike much of the bible, and want to support various immoral views.
* This is easily discovered by reading the article, and then comparing it with the STATED BELIEFS of the people writing it.
Aritcle:
How Can You Call Yourselves Christian When You Don't Believe in the Bible?
Beliefs of the Author:
About UC - Unfundamentalist Christians
3. The people writing this article are supporting homosexuality, and numerous other sins... and this is why they are openly saying they dislike, and disbelieve much of the bible.
* Go read their beliefs.... they're supporting homosexuality, as a reasonable, non-sinful lifestyle.
About UC - Unfundamentalist Christians
4. This article is NOT an UNBIASED APPROACH to THE STATED TOPIC... it is BIASED ATTEMPT to PERSUADE people to DISBELIEVE, and DEVALUE the Bible... so that the gay lifestyle is ok.
I'll reiterate, here are their beliefs... they're just devaluing the Bible in order to SUPPORT HOMOSEXUALITY.
About UC - Unfundamentalist Christians
5. Here's a quick run down of the things they're trying to support by devaluing the Bible.
A. Homosexuality is fine
B. Evolution is good and correct
C. No Hell
D. God never judges or punishes people
F. Other religions are equally true (multiples ways to Heaven)
G. Wives should definitely NOT submit to their husbands
H. Bible is too old and complex to understand
I. Divorce is ok
J. Secular Humanism: Morality has NOTHING do with your relationship to God, it's only about how you treat others.
Again, go read it yourself.
About UC - Unfundamentalist Christians
Last edited:
I would suggest. How can you hear God not seen. Especially since he is no longer bringing new revelations and warns us not to add or subtract from what is written sealed up til the end of time.
False prophets like Mohomid(ISIS)Jim Jones, Charles Russel etc claimed they received more.
I would ask why go above that which is written? Is there a law missing by which we could know him more adequately?
False prophets like Mohomid(ISIS)Jim Jones, Charles Russel etc claimed they received more.
I would ask why go above that which is written? Is there a law missing by which we could know him more adequately?
This was how I interpreted what ladybug said, what you say here. I sort of understood her because in all honesty, I used to read my bible MORE before I learned to walk in the Spirit more consistently and grew a little in virtue through Him. Now that I'm learning to walk more consistently in the Spirit, I read my bible less, BUT I get more instruction for my inside now than when I read it more.
I read the article... thanks Kayla for posting the link.
I could agree with the article, if I could attach a long list of caveats, restrictions and further explanations. The problem I would have with it is not in what they are actually saying (the overall message, not the details) but in the implications of it. It's like a ship heading in the general direction of its intended destination. If they hold to course without correcting, they won't end up where they thought they were going. A couple of degrees off is still off.
I understand what the writer is saying about idolatry, and I have certainly seen that kind of belief on this forum, but I think he's blowing the whistle on it way too early. If we do not allow the words of the Bible to have enough place in our lives that they can "judge the thoughts and intentions of our hearts" (Hebrews 4:12), can we rightly conclude that we are following Jesus? We don't worship the letter, but we take it very seriously as God's words to us, and grow in Him as we read, interpret, and apply the word.
So, can a person be a Christian and not believe the Bible? Technically, yes, just as a newborn human is fully human without yet eating or drinking. A Christian won't grow much if they don't feed on the word. Even those who prefer to relate with Jesus primarily through prayer and worship rather than Scripture will be directed to Scripture by the Holy Spirit, for He will teach what is consistent with Scripture. Most of what we know about God, we know by Scripture. Neglecting, avoiding or rejecting what He has "written" about Himself and about how we are to relate to Him is silly.
I could agree with the article, if I could attach a long list of caveats, restrictions and further explanations. The problem I would have with it is not in what they are actually saying (the overall message, not the details) but in the implications of it. It's like a ship heading in the general direction of its intended destination. If they hold to course without correcting, they won't end up where they thought they were going. A couple of degrees off is still off.
I understand what the writer is saying about idolatry, and I have certainly seen that kind of belief on this forum, but I think he's blowing the whistle on it way too early. If we do not allow the words of the Bible to have enough place in our lives that they can "judge the thoughts and intentions of our hearts" (Hebrews 4:12), can we rightly conclude that we are following Jesus? We don't worship the letter, but we take it very seriously as God's words to us, and grow in Him as we read, interpret, and apply the word.
So, can a person be a Christian and not believe the Bible? Technically, yes, just as a newborn human is fully human without yet eating or drinking. A Christian won't grow much if they don't feed on the word. Even those who prefer to relate with Jesus primarily through prayer and worship rather than Scripture will be directed to Scripture by the Holy Spirit, for He will teach what is consistent with Scripture. Most of what we know about God, we know by Scripture. Neglecting, avoiding or rejecting what He has "written" about Himself and about how we are to relate to Him is silly.
Can you know God if you have not read the Garden story?
Can you know Jesus without knowing His Earthly name was pronounced, "Eshaw" in Aramaic?
Can you trust in the gospel concept without reading of the manger and the escape to Egypt?
Are we to demand that people must be able to tell us how many books are in our preferred version of the Bible before they are allowed to sense Jesus drawing them?
Where do we come up with these requirements to know Jesus?
Can you know Jesus without knowing His Earthly name was pronounced, "Eshaw" in Aramaic?
Can you trust in the gospel concept without reading of the manger and the escape to Egypt?
Are we to demand that people must be able to tell us how many books are in our preferred version of the Bible before they are allowed to sense Jesus drawing them?
Where do we come up with these requirements to know Jesus?
1. This is a reasonable thing to discuss, but this wasn't the actual topic.
2. This is different than the ACTUAL TOPIC: the actual topic wasn't about study... but about BELIEF.
Belief is willingly, volitionally CHOOSING to have faith in God's word.
This is entirely different from the amount of study you do.
3. This is different than the ACTUAL ARTICLE: the actual article wasn't about study... but about how great it is to NOT BELIEVE.
And it was written by people who disbelieve most christian morals and doctrines.
The author doesn't seem to hold to any christian principles, doctrines, or morals.
Zero.
If you are going to disagree with everything in the bible...
it's much easier to just claim you DON'T BELIEVE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Last edited:
The scriptures are God's written word and hold God's creation, His history, His love, His wisdom, His redemption, His authority, His justice and etc. within its pages.
The Beareans were not willing to accept Paul's teaching until they read the words for themselves to see if what he was teaching was true.
So the early church had the written scriptures at their disposal.
Acts 17:10-12
The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.
As for the New Testament, the early church had the advantage over us because they were reading the original manuscripts. (The apostles letters)
Also, if they had questions, they had the living epistles among them to ask questions.
They passed the letters around to other churches to read and later copyists or scribes began copying them down.
We need the scriptures to authenticate any and all teachings. We need them more today than ever before.
The Beareans were not willing to accept Paul's teaching until they read the words for themselves to see if what he was teaching was true.
So the early church had the written scriptures at their disposal.
Acts 17:10-12
The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.
As for the New Testament, the early church had the advantage over us because they were reading the original manuscripts. (The apostles letters)
Also, if they had questions, they had the living epistles among them to ask questions.
They passed the letters around to other churches to read and later copyists or scribes began copying them down. We need the scriptures to authenticate any and all teachings. We need them more today than ever before.
Last edited:
Of course the homosexuals in that article are trying to justify ignoring what God teaches, but that should not even concern us, since we aren't trying to justify being queer.
But it SHOULD concern us that we may be insisting that someone has to read our book before they can follow our Jesus. The 3,000 at Pentecost didn't. They heard God the way He chose to reach them that morning.... no book ever involved.
But it SHOULD concern us that we may be insisting that someone has to read our book before they can follow our Jesus. The 3,000 at Pentecost didn't. They heard God the way He chose to reach them that morning.... no book ever involved.
There are things we may question in the bible but to completely discard it is dangerous. Not only will the person have poor discernment, lack knowledge of Gods ways but they will be easily deceived by demonic spirits. Not to mention if they have no knowledge to watch out for the mark of the beast they are liable to take it & be condemned. The scriptures is full of wisdom I don't get why anyone professing themselves as christians would deny themselves of it
I'm not arguing your POSITION on the topic.
I'm just trying to REFOCUS on the ACTUAL TOPIC.
The topic is not about "amount of study", or "amount of access"... it is about "belief."
"Belief" and "study" are not the same.
The topic is about belief.
Please don't start a semantic argument over nothing.
I'm not arguing your position on the topic.
I'm only suggesting we refocus, first, on the actual topic.
The scriptures are God's written word and hold God's creation, His history, His love, His wisdom, His redemption, His authority, His justice and etc. within its pages.
The Beareans were not willing to accept Paul's teaching until they read the words for themselves to see if what he was teaching was true.
So the early church had the written scriptures at their disposal.
Acts 17:10-12
The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.
As for the New Testament, the early church had the advantage over us because they were reading the original manuscripts. (The apostles letters)
Also, if they had questions, they had the living epistles among them to ask questions. They passed the letters around to other churches to read and later copyists or scribes began copying them down.
We need the scriptures to authenticate any and all teachings. We need them more today than ever before.
The Beareans were not willing to accept Paul's teaching until they read the words for themselves to see if what he was teaching was true.
So the early church had the written scriptures at their disposal.
Acts 17:10-12
The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.
As for the New Testament, the early church had the advantage over us because they were reading the original manuscripts. (The apostles letters)
Also, if they had questions, they had the living epistles among them to ask questions.
They passed the letters around to other churches to read and later copyists or scribes began copying them down. We need the scriptures to authenticate any and all teachings. We need them more today than ever before.
We tend to assume they were checking letters that actually weren't even written yet.
1. I agree.
2. However... that isn't what the article was about.
We have 2 different things going on.
A. What the actual article was about (believing the bible at all).
B. A separatie issue about whether you need to have read the bible to be a christian.
These are 2 completely different issues.
I'm only suggesting we discuss them as 2 separate issues... because they are.
2. However... that isn't what the article was about.
We have 2 different things going on.
A. What the actual article was about (believing the bible at all).
B. A separatie issue about whether you need to have read the bible to be a christian.
These are 2 completely different issues.
I'm only suggesting we discuss them as 2 separate issues... because they are.