I have a question about Christians who claimed to be saved by faith, but then say that other things are required. I’m talking about things like signs of repentance, proof of good works, etc. If they add things, any things, does that mean they don’t really believe they’re saved by Faith alone even though they say they do? Are they saved at all?
I believe that cannabis can be used for medical purposes. My cousin says that this herb came from the devil. I don’t believe Satan can create anything. I think this drug came from God. Medical people are finding ways to use it to help man kind. What is your uptake on this?
I am a born-again Christian. I know this. But a while back ( and even now occasionally) I had serious doubts. There was a point where I was devoid of faith and it seemed like all was lost. I wanted to believe, but I just couldn’t. I read the bible, and it would help, but then I’d get a sense of hopelessness and belief would become impossible again. It came to a point where I asked for signs that He was real and He delivered in the form of an unknown call on my phone shortly after I had asked. then, a text saying Jesus never fails, and finally, out of the blue a friend texted me cause she felt like something was wrong. I’ve read that once you were saved nothing could change it, but what about you? What if you decide that you don’t believe anymore? Can you come back? The prodigal son explains that the son comes to his senses and begs his father but the son never forgot the father.
In Luke 6:30 the Lord says we should give to everyone that asks us. I consider myself a generous person and have helped out many struggling people through the years, but because of my generosity I have also had some that keep coming back with excuse after excuse and looking for a regular handout. Where do we draw the line? I want to obey the Lord, but I’m not sure getting taken advantage of by people unwilling to provide for themselves was what he had in mind.
Our pastor says we required to pay our entire tithe to the local church and then let the leaders decide how to distribute the money. His support for this view was based on what Paul did when he took the money given in Corinth to help the church in Jerusalem. It he correct in this?