There Are Two Types Of Christians, Which One Are You?

It has become apparent to me that there are two types of Christians. One is the God-given Christianity, the other is the man-made Christianity. I am a Christian so draw your conclusions of mine after this post.

The longer I live and the more people I am around, and seeing the multiplicity and duplicitous worldviews of Christianity, it amazes me how divergent it has gotten in the last 2,000 years from the original source. So I wanted to explore what happened and where it split to become what modern Christianity is today. And I will say that modern Christianity is not close to the original.

All Christians would jump in now and say they are the God-given ones, those who believe God instituted their religion and that's the path they follow. But if this should save a few Christians, let's see how to fix this mess. Removing Calvinism (John Calvin) and his ideas of Predestination, TULIP, Effectual Call and General Call, can we get back to Jesus?

Let's go back further than Martin Luther and his 99 Thesis. He never recanted from Catholicism, he merely tried to reform the abuses of the church. But let's go back before him.

Can we get as far back as the Nicean Council? Let's see if that was where the problem began. Constantine didn't have full control of the Council and neither did he choose which books could be included, but they did come up with the Nicean Creed. But not all churches embraced it, nor did all churches keep the books suggested at the council, there were many deacons from many churches in their known world and at that time, Europe was not fully Christianized. So we can't say the mess came from there, because they all had different views by that time. So it must be earlier. Let's take it back to Jesus and Peter and Paul.

The Christianity label was not on Christians until Paul preached in Antioch and by that time there were different views already coming out of the different cities. For instance, the church at Corinth held different views than they church at Rome. Paul was addressing both of them, sometimes with Peter and sometimes not with Peter, but those two is where this all begins, and to which Paul replies "Some say I am of Paul, some say I am of Cephas, but we all should be of Jesus" (paraphrase). This is why he has to say "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all". The separation had already happened, this is why there are so many views in Christianity today and much of it is because of man-made traditions. So which side do you belong to?

Sunday worship, never God commanded, but man inspired. Drinking alcohol, only drunkeness was frowned upon by God, not the actual drinking of alcohol. So that can be taken both ways, but the Bible would not allow for us to drink alcohol under certain circumstances, then say it is wrong if we do. But many churches follow the man-made traditions of no alcohol whatsoever, whereas some say moderation is ok. The Bible doesn't want us to become alcoholics or run wildly doing wild things and fighting all the time. So the God-given is that alcohol used for certain reasons is ok, just don't become an alcoholic and do terrible things.

Other things we have to ask about is salvation, is it God-given? Yes. How did God give it? The Bible actually mentions several ways, but for the Christian who believes in Jesus, then it is through Jesus, but the Bible also calls Abraham righteous and a friend of God. Jesus even refers to him as Father Abraham. And that blows total depravity, which is also a man-made tradition. When the prophet said "we are all lost sheep, everyone going his own way" means that in that prophet's time, people had left following God and were doing their own thing, it didn't imply total depravity, because Jesus refers to two other individual cases in which He acknowledges they had no sin and were righteous before God. Remember the story of the Publican and the Pharisee, which one was more justified?

Are there those predestined? Not the same thing as John Calvin would have you believe. Calvin's God seems to favor those who follow the man-made salvation of Calvin. But then you have the Catholic Church which does seem to attempt to follow original Christianity, but some of their church fathers made mistakes. They have an evolved theology, and can be changed according to the pope. But their founding was the Nicean Council and subsequent Vatican Councils. They have adopted certain theological stances coming from what men decide as doctrine.

But if true Christianity is God-given, then it must be God-ordained, and it should be gained through knowing God in the first place and this is where my faith comes in. I believe that God is known inwardly and not through endless traditions and doctrines. Some of the traditions are very nice and beneficial, while some are very divisive and detrimental. Should we hate our neighbor because they have a different doctrine? Then who do we belong to, Peter or Paul?

We have on these threads people who embrace God within their concept in a very metaphysical way, but is that no less knowing God? They have perceived God through this understanding, and isn't that what God wants anyway? For us to know Him?

He touched their understanding of Him in a way that they can learn. We don't all learn the same way, so why expect everyone to be right-handed when there are left-handed people?

I believe in God because I know God inwardly and that didn't come from man-made traditions. So why are we putting onto people burdens they should not have. Jesus came to set us free. If we shackle people, then we are captors, but Jesus came to set the captives free, and those the Son have made free are free indeed.

Which type of Christian are you? If you say God-given, then please show that you know God.

I know christians by their actions.

Not the theology they expound, not the Sect they chose to follow, not the long winded diatribes they can get into.

I know them by their actions, its that simple.

You follow christ or you don't, you either pick up your cross and follow, or you don't.


Otherwise its just a social club.

benrl
I know christians by their actions.

Not the theology they expound, not the Sect they chose to follow, not the long winded diatribes they can get into.

I know them by their actions, its that simple.

You follow christ or you don't, you either pick up your cross and follow, or you don't.


Otherwise its just a social club.

That is correct, I will agree with you on that one.

I know christians by their actions.

Not the theology they expound, not the Sect they chose to follow, not the long winded diatribes they can get into.

I know them by their actions, its that simple.

You follow christ or you don't, you either pick up your cross and follow, or you don't.


Otherwise its just a social club.

reply to post by benrl


Nicely said, I can't agree more. You can preach until the cows come home, but your actions speak louder than your words.

reply to post by WarminIndy

I know what Paul would say, because i'm currently exploring his thoughts on the subject in my 1 Corinthians series.
He would say that the difference is between those individuals who are allowing themseles to be guided by the Spirit of God, and those who are not.
Only the first group, in his view, would be truly "spiritual".
The rest ought really to be called "fleshly".
What we see in the history of the church is how much the "fleshly" element has taken over from a very early stage, while the "Spirit" has always been struggling to find expression in the church's life.

DISRAELI
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I know what Paul would say, because i'm currently exploring his thoughts on the subject in my 1 Corinthians series.
He would say that the difference is between those individuals who are allowing themseles to be guided by the Spirit of God, and those who are not.
Only the first group, in his view, would be truly "spiritual".
The rest ought really to be called "fleshly".
What we see in the history of the church is how much the "fleshly" element has taken over from a very early stage, while the "Spirit" has always been struggling to find expression in the church's life.

edit on 8-11-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

Applause, applause, you said it very well what I had gone all the way around in attempting.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Which type of Christian are you? If you say God-given, then please show that you know God.

I'm just a Christian, I don't know that I'd say I'm any particular type.

When I was feeling unhappy about my Methodist faith, I decided to look into what "true" Christianity might be, and the best that I was able to come up with is something along the lines of your post -- if there ever was a "true" church, it only existed in the very distant past. But I wanted to get as close to it as possible, and knowing what I do about church history, that meant either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. The latter isn't practical, as the nearest church isn't remotely close, so I converted to Roman Catholicism in 2012.

I know that it's an unpopular opinion, but I am more and more of the mind that Luther didn't reform Christianity, he created a new version of it (and then Zwingli and Calvin went even further off the rails.)

adjensen
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Which type of Christian are you? If you say God-given, then please show that you know God.

I'm just a Christian, I don't know that I'd say I'm any particular type.

When I was feeling unhappy about my Methodist faith, I decided to look into what "true" Christianity might be, and the best that I was able to come up with is something along the lines of your post -- if there ever was a "true" church, it only existed in the very distant past. But I wanted to get as close to it as possible, and knowing what I do about church history, that meant either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. The latter isn't practical, as the nearest church isn't remotely close, so I converted to Roman Catholicism in 2012.

I know that it's an unpopular opinion, but I am more and more of the mind that Luther didn't reform Christianity, he created a new version of it (and then Zwingli and Calvin went even further off the rails.)

You followed your conscience and no one should require more out of you than that. I don't fault you for that. As long as your heart was in the right place. And it seems it is, so carry on being Catholic, if that's what your conscience says.

You are God given as you doubt the system which is called a church. If we believe that God given is a belief as it was in early Christianity and not God Given catholism.

Im babtised in Lutheran belief when i was a baby, my mothers side they were very religious sunday churches etc and my father couldn´t care a less about the church but instead taught us to think with our own brains.

As you mentioned the Nicean Council the question is why some texts were considered as heretic and some were not.. what drive the early church to it´s decisions. Maybe they wanted similar texts which were supporting each others and was written with same view. Or was it that they wanted the ultimate control of people by telling them what you can and cannot do.

to me, a real Christian, is someone who does not participate in evil.

Bank tellers, munitions factory worker, etc.. not something a true Christian would do.

Imagine trying to explain how personally profiting off of evil was ok because "gotta feed the family"

adjensen
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Which type of Christian are you? If you say God-given, then please show that you know God.

I'm just a Christian, I don't know that I'd say I'm any particular type.

When I was feeling unhappy about my Methodist faith, I decided to look into what "true" Christianity might be, and the best that I was able to come up with is something along the lines of your post -- if there ever was a "true" church, it only existed in the very distant past. But I wanted to get as close to it as possible, and knowing what I do about church history, that meant either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. The latter isn't practical, as the nearest church isn't remotely close, so I converted to Roman Catholicism in 2012.

I know that it's an unpopular opinion, but I am more and more of the mind that Luther didn't reform Christianity, he created a new version of it (and then Zwingli and Calvin went even further off the rails.)

Anyone who picks up his cross and follows christ is my brother and sister.

It doesn't matter if they are Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, Jehovahs Witness, 7th Day Adventist, Pentecostal, Baptist, Protestant etc.

Every church has its heresies they follow (christmas and easter as pagan as anything else), NO church is an "acts" Church, no mater what they say.

In revelation the letters go out to all churches over the various things they are doing wrong.

The only thing that ever matters is your own personal choice and actions, You make the choice what kind of christian you will be, Not the Church you attend.

dollukka
You are God given as you doubt the system which is called a church. If we believe that God given is a belief as it was in early Christianity and not God Given catholism.

Im babtised in Lutheran belief when i was a baby, my mothers side they were very religious sunday churches etc and my father couldn´t care a less about the church but instead taught us to think with our own brains.

As you mentioned the Nicean Council the question is why some texts were considered as heretic and some were not.. what drive the early church to it´s decisions. Maybe they wanted similar texts which were supporting each others and was written with same view. Or was it that they wanted the ultimate control of people by telling them what you can and cannot do.

At that time and place, they were still loose in organization and therefore was not positioned to become ultimate authority, I do not see that as an agenda, as the Catholic church system was not yet formed. These bishops came from every church in Christendom and brought with them books and letters they possessed in their own churches. There was no concept at that time that they were politically positioned to be anything else but individual churches.

It's easy to look back now and make that claim, but if you go one year prior, it was not the case. Many of those bishops were still facing persecution at that time. But some of the doctrines at that time were really far out there and their books could not be proven by them as to who the authors were.

It kind of like is when the church board sits and discusses what songs are the most appropriate to be sung in that church, some songs just won't get sung, and it's not about controlling people, I think those men did have it in their minds to do something they felt was going to help, and not control. I just don't buy into that conspiracy theory of them wanting to control people, they simply were not set up to do so. It just evolved that way.

HanzHenry
to me, a real Christian, is someone who does not participate in evil.

Bank tellers, munitions factory worker, etc.. not something a true Christian would do.

Imagine trying to explain how personally profiting off of evil was ok because "gotta feed the family"

A centurion came to christ to heal his servant,

Christ said the Centurion had faith, it was why his servant was healed.

Christ did not care that the Centurion was part of the opposing arming imprisoning and oppressing his people, he only cared what kind of man he was.


read Matthew 8:5-13.

reply to post by WarminIndy


There is a reason why my husband and I are not in any church. We just don't really feel God there. To us, God isn't in the rituals and He's not in the fellowship although it can be a very good thing to chat with other believers from time to time. God is a presence I feel inside.

He's the one I talk to every night, the one whom I ask for guidance and forgiveness and sometimes comfort when it's needed along with asking him to look our for everyone else in the world, good, bad and otherwise. Strangely enough, I've been doing this since I was quite young, grade school, just because it seemed right and because it felt right, felt good, and now it doesn't feel right to sleep without "checking in."

Call me crazy, but there it is. I can't remember life without God.

HanzHenry
to me, a real Christian, is someone who does not participate in evil.

Bank tellers, munitions factory worker, etc.. not something a true Christian would do.

Imagine trying to explain how personally profiting off of evil was ok because "gotta feed the family"

Then no one should work as a coal miner, as steel is made by that, and steel is used in tanks, no Christian should work in the food production, because that feeds armies, no Christian should make clothing, because that clothes soldiers.


That is not a practical solution. There is no evil in working and to be a good citizen as the Bible commands, we have to submit ourselves to the higher powers. You can make that choice of conscience, but you can't deprive children the necessary food and shelter.

Sometimes you have to make that sacrifice for your children.

reply to post by dollukka

As you mentioned the Nicean Council the question is why some texts were considered as heretic and some were not.. what drive the early church to it´s decisions. Maybe they wanted similar texts which were supporting each others and was written with same view.

The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with selecting the content of the Bible. If you learn nothing else today, let it be that fact. We still have documents that describe what was discussed and decided at that Council, and it wasn't the Bible.

Yes, the books that are in the New Testament were chosen for consistency, in part. The criteria for inclusion was threefold:

1) A text had to have an Apostolic connection (written by an Apostle or with their help)
2) A text had to be in wide circulation among Christian churches
3) A text had to be in harmony with other accepted scripture, including the Old Testament

Or was it that they wanted the ultimate control of people by telling them what you can and cannot do.

Actually, the majority of the "telling them what you can and cannot do" takes place in the Old Testament, not the New.

ketsuko
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

There is a reason why my husband and I are not in any church. We just don't really feel God there. To us, God isn't in the rituals and He's not in the fellowship although it can be a very good thing to chat with other believers from time to time. God is a presence I feel inside.

He's the one I talk to every night, the one whom I ask for guidance and forgiveness and sometimes comfort when it's needed along with asking him to look our for everyone else in the world, good, bad and otherwise. Strangely enough, I've been doing this since I was quite young, grade school, just because it seemed right and because it felt right, felt good, and now it doesn't feel right to sleep without "checking in."

Call me crazy, but there it is. I can't remember life without God.

I don't call you crazy, I understand you completely.

No one should force you against your conscience, and if you don't feel God, then don't go. No one should force you.

benrl

HanzHenry
to me, a real Christian, is someone who does not participate in evil.

Bank tellers, munitions factory worker, etc.. not something a true Christian would do.

Imagine trying to explain how personally profiting off of evil was ok because "gotta feed the family"

A centurion came to christ to heal his servant,

Christ said the Centurion had faith, it was why his servant was healed.

Christ did not care that the Centurion was part of the opposing arming imprisoning and oppressing his people, he only cared what kind of man he was.


read Matthew 8:5-13.

edit on 8-11-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)

That is a very good example.

Thank you.

adjensen
reply to post by dollukka

 

As you mentioned the Nicean Council the question is why some texts were considered as heretic and some were not.. what drive the early church to it´s decisions. Maybe they wanted similar texts which were supporting each others and was written with same view.

The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with selecting the content of the Bible. If you learn nothing else today, let it be that fact. We still have documents that describe what was discussed and decided at that Council, and it wasn't the Bible.

Yes, the books that are in the New Testament were chosen for consistency, in part. The criteria for inclusion was threefold:

1) A text had to have an Apostolic connection (written by an Apostle or with their help)
2) A text had to be in wide circulation among Christian churches
3) A text had to be in harmony with other accepted scripture, including the Old Testament

Or was it that they wanted the ultimate control of people by telling them what you can and cannot do.

Actually, the majority of the "telling them what you can and cannot do" takes place in the Old Testament, not the New.

People just don't understand the Nicea Council.

They hear the same conspiracy theory about Constatine and then everyone blames him for what he didn't even do.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Go back further to Barnabas. The two Spirits are outlined. All of us possess the traits of mixed seed and we each have our Esau to overcome.

See this Thread: Symbolism in the Show Lost