Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by truejew

Dear truejew,

You are absolutely correct, I may very well have misjudged the situation. For that I am deeply sorry.

But someone has to make peace, someone has to find a way to change strife to love. Perhaps, in pointing at you, I was wildly unfair. Again I apologize. I haven't followed every page, but if we're getting to "witch" and other names, it seems there is fault on both sides.

I can see you all as brothers because of your agreement, in love, for Christ. That can be built on, somehow.

Also, is a person a brother in Christ if they have never been baptized into Christ?

I may be misunderstanding the meaning of Brother. If a brother is working toward Communion with the Church, or if he doesn't even know Christ existed, but is following the Law planted in every man's heart by God, or if he simply loves God, but sees some things differently from me, I will call him brother and walk with him to find ever clearer truth.

I can't judge whether a person is saved, or what God is doing in his heart. Everybody has to face judgment at some time, and I want all of them to come as close to God as they are able. If they are still walking on the path to God, I will call them brother, because that is just what I am doing.

If they scorn God, rejecting His love, what else can I do but try to win them back? But if they refuse, then I must leave them to God's mercy and pray for their salvation.

I think I may have missed your question, but I'll try again, if you'd like.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Snsoc


How many pages, if any thread described nations fighting over belief systemology this one is it; Congratulations To All Of You for posing as the Micro-dynamics of worldwide religious dicotomism, murder JUSTIFIED and self-determinism; (my belief system is the better one, because my God DOES NOT LOVE YOU I CaN kILl you with no impunity). Here is the interesting thing observed, you are apologetic without conceeding to an error of judgement, almost as if waiting to be told you may have misjudged a situation; a movement: a religion. You must know the organized are frowned upon by Satan, smiled upon by God.

reply to post by vethumanbeing

Dear vethumanbeing,

Thanks, I've got a lot to learn. But I have to admit I don't think I would have done anything differently (assuming I could go back to where I was when I wrote the thread), and I'm not sure what you think I should have done.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
reply to post by Snsoc

 

How many pages, if any thread described nations fighting over belief systemology this one is it; Congratulations To All Of You for posing as the Micro-dynamics of worldwide religious dicotomism, murder JUSTIFIED and self-determinism; (my belief system is the better one, because my God DOES NOT LOVE YOU I CaN kILl you with no impunity). Here is the interesting thing observed, you are apologetic without conceeding to an error of judgement, almost as if waiting to be told you may have misjudged a situation; a movement: a religion. You must know the organized are frowned upon by Satan, smiled upon by God.

edit on 6-5-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

Hey, I do what I can.

But seriously...

I warned early on that this kind of arguing didn't look good in front of the world-but nobody paid attention to me. 34 pages later and we're still stuck on whether or not baptism saves you and if truejew is in a cult or not.

Hey! Why don't you join our religion so you can bicker, like us? What's wrong? Where are you going? Come back here and experience the joy of Christ, dammit!

reply to post by charles1952


In history, it has been us Modalists seeking peace with trinitarians, not in a way of accepting their errors, but in reaching out to them with the truth. Trinitarians have historically returned that peace seeking with persecution including murder. One example would be when Michael Servetus tried to reach out to John Calvin and found himself being burned at the stake. We have since learned to be less trusting of trinitarians, especially those who cry out "heretic" and "witch" since in the past those titles have come before burning at the stake and hanging.

reply to post by truejew

Dear truejew,

I didn't know any of the history.

This may sound strange, but I want to go hide for a while in sadness and shame. I'm not in the best place to talk right now. I hope we can speak again tomorrow or soon.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by truejew

 

Dear truejew,

I didn't know any of the history.

This may sound strange, but I want to go hide for a while in sadness and shame. I'm not in the best place to talk right now. I hope we can speak again tomorrow or soon.

With respect,
Charles1952

It is very sad and is a big part of why I cannot accept Catholic and Protestant religions as part of God's Church. We are told that we will know God's people by their fruit. I cannot see God's people doing such evil.

reply to post by truejew

Trinitarians have historically returned that peace seeking with persecution including murder.

I don't think that the fact that they were trinitarian made them more susceptible to thoughts of murder to suppress their opponents, but that this sort of behavior should be expected from anyone who sets themselves up as a "religious authority" with the right to be backed by the punishing power of the civil government.

People back then were pretty stupid and if someone was charged with speaking out against the trinity, rather than understanding that what was meant was a philosophical disagreement with doctrinal issues regarding the mystical formulation of a trinity, they would imagine that the accused was issuing blasphemous personal aspersions against God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

reply to post by truejew

He says that baptism is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not the no name baptism that you and Adjensen seem to be pushing.

No name baptism is a fairly new doctrine, I believe it comes from the Church of Christ denomination, which interestingly appears on some cult lists.

Well, I cannot help you there. I have been saying that baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is just as valid a form of baptism for a Christian, it's the method Christ instructed the disciple to baptize believers with. My apologies, I assumed when you said "no name" baptism you meant the Matthew 28:19 version because there are no names spoken.

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
reply to post by Snsoc

 

How many pages, if any thread described nations fighting over belief systemology this one is it; Congratulations To All Of You for posing as the Micro-dynamics of worldwide religious dicotomism, murder JUSTIFIED and self-determinism; (my belief system is the better one, because my God DOES NOT LOVE YOU I CaN kILl you with no impunity). Here is the interesting thing observed, you are apologetic without conceeding to an error of judgement, almost as if waiting to be told you may have misjudged a situation; a movement: a religion. You must know the organized are frowned upon by Satan, smiled upon by God.

edit on 6-5-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

Well, sometimes dialogues get into theology. That is what this forum is partially about.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by truejew

 

Trinitarians have historically returned that peace seeking with persecution including murder.

I don't think that the fact that they were trinitarian made them more susceptible to thoughts of murder to suppress their opponents, but that this sort of behavior should be expected from anyone who sets themselves up as a "religious authority" with the right to be backed by the punishing power of the civil government.

People back then were pretty stupid and if someone was charged with speaking out against the trinity, rather than understanding that what was meant was a philosophical disagreement with doctrinal issues regarding the mystical formulation of a trinity, they would imagine that the accused was issuing blasphemous personal aspersions against God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

Correct, and it's also quite silly to accuse the many of the actions of the few. I certainly didn't think murder of heretics is justified or Biblical.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

He says that baptism is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not the no name baptism that you and Adjensen seem to be pushing.

No name baptism is a fairly new doctrine, I believe it comes from the Church of Christ denomination, which interestingly appears on some cult lists.

Well, I cannot help you there. I have been saying that baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is just as valid a form of baptism for a Christian, it's the method Christ instructed the disciple to baptize believers with. My apologies, I assumed when you said "no name" baptism you meant the Matthew 28:19 version because there are no names spoken.

No, I was speaking of the doctrine that it does not matter what is said, that even a silent, no name baptism is valid.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by truejew

 

Trinitarians have historically returned that peace seeking with persecution including murder.

I don't think that the fact that they were trinitarian made them more susceptible to thoughts of murder to suppress their opponents, but that this sort of behavior should be expected from anyone who sets themselves up as a "religious authority" with the right to be backed by the punishing power of the civil government.

People back then were pretty stupid and if someone was charged with speaking out against the trinity, rather than understanding that what was meant was a philosophical disagreement with doctrinal issues regarding the mystical formulation of a trinity, they would imagine that the accused was issuing blasphemous personal aspersions against God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

Correct, and it's also quite silly to accuse the many of the actions of the few. I certainly didn't think murder of heretics is justified or Biblical.

You may not, however, you still follow those who did.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by truejew

 

Trinitarians have historically returned that peace seeking with persecution including murder.

I don't think that the fact that they were trinitarian made them more susceptible to thoughts of murder to suppress their opponents, but that this sort of behavior should be expected from anyone who sets themselves up as a "religious authority" with the right to be backed by the punishing power of the civil government.

People back then were pretty stupid and if someone was charged with speaking out against the trinity, rather than understanding that what was meant was a philosophical disagreement with doctrinal issues regarding the mystical formulation of a trinity, they would imagine that the accused was issuing blasphemous personal aspersions against God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

Correct, and it's also quite silly to accuse the many of the actions of the few. I certainly didn't think murder of heretics is justified or Biblical.

You may not, however, you still follow those who did.

I'm not a Calvinist.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

He says that baptism is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not the no name baptism that you and Adjensen seem to be pushing.

No name baptism is a fairly new doctrine, I believe it comes from the Church of Christ denomination, which interestingly appears on some cult lists.

Well, I cannot help you there. I have been saying that baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is just as valid a form of baptism for a Christian, it's the method Christ instructed the disciple to baptize believers with. My apologies, I assumed when you said "no name" baptism you meant the Matthew 28:19 version because there are no names spoken.

No, I was speaking of the doctrine that it does not matter what is said, that even a silent, no name baptism is valid.

Well, I can't help you there. I haven't heard of that until now. Do you have any sources to support that teaching?

I was baptized under the method Christ instructed His disciples to baptize with in Matthew 28:19.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

He says that baptism is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not the no name baptism that you and Adjensen seem to be pushing.

No name baptism is a fairly new doctrine, I believe it comes from the Church of Christ denomination, which interestingly appears on some cult lists.

Well, I cannot help you there. I have been saying that baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is just as valid a form of baptism for a Christian, it's the method Christ instructed the disciple to baptize believers with. My apologies, I assumed when you said "no name" baptism you meant the Matthew 28:19 version because there are no names spoken.

No, I was speaking of the doctrine that it does not matter what is said, that even a silent, no name baptism is valid.

Well, I can't help you there. I haven't heard of that until now. Do you have any sources to support that teaching?

I was baptized under the method Christ instructed His disciples to baptize with in Matthew 28:19.

I came across a person teaching it years ago. He was from the Church of Christ. I have also been told that the Church of Christ is where the doctrine originated from.

It seems that that is what Adjensen is teaching also with his baptizing while speaking something equals witchcraft teaching.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by truejew

 

Trinitarians have historically returned that peace seeking with persecution including murder.

I don't think that the fact that they were trinitarian made them more susceptible to thoughts of murder to suppress their opponents, but that this sort of behavior should be expected from anyone who sets themselves up as a "religious authority" with the right to be backed by the punishing power of the civil government.

People back then were pretty stupid and if someone was charged with speaking out against the trinity, rather than understanding that what was meant was a philosophical disagreement with doctrinal issues regarding the mystical formulation of a trinity, they would imagine that the accused was issuing blasphemous personal aspersions against God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

Correct, and it's also quite silly to accuse the many of the actions of the few. I certainly didn't think murder of heretics is justified or Biblical.

You may not, however, you still follow those who did.

I'm not a Calvinist.

You are descended from the Catholic Church and have kept some of it's teachings and practices.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Ahh.. so "essential" that he didn't bother to even mention it in a verse so monumentally critical to who would be saved or not saved in Romans 10:9-10?

How are these two verses so "critical" in describing who is "saved" or not?
Earlier, you said,

You just effectively made Romans 10:9-10 a false verse by your doctrine. Or you believe the Holy Spirit misled all the believers in Rome by forgetting or purposely omitting that aspect of what a person must believe to "shall be saved".
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It doesn'r really say that exactly in those terms. In the Greek, it just says "saved" but in the word form of future tense, passive voice, indicative mood, second person, singular number, so it ends up being ". . . God raised him from the dead, saved", with that word, saved, being understood as suggested by the way the word is spelled in keeping with certain Greek conventions.
So it is not exactly a dissertation on "how to be saved" just because thrown in there is this one word which is associated with the concept of being kept safe.
This is another example of "proof text" mining to support another theory that is not explicitly taught in the Bible.
'Cherry picked' out is this bit about someone supposedly being saved, in order to support an idea that someone can be "saved" by making a formulaic confession.
What was actually being discussed in that section of Romans was Paul's comparing the "righteousness that is by the Law" with the "righteousness by Faith".
So, he gives a brief analysis of both, with a reference for the first, to a text in the Law saying that you must keep all these laws, since you have agreed to live according to the Law, and for the second, something about a personal commitment to Jesus by making him your Lord, and that commitment being carried out through a change in the heart.
So he is placing these two things, Law and Faith, side by side, where in one, you are standing in front of Mount Sinai making a pledge to follow that thing being proclaimed from that mountain top, and what you need in order to fulfill that pledge, while in the second, you are making a pledge to Jesus as your Lord, and to fulfill that pledge, you must receive that spirit from God that changes your heart which is necessary to follow Jesus in loving others as he commanded.

What it is not saying is what the "proof texters" are cherry picking that fragment to support, which is some idea that if you say that you believe in Jesus, then you are now all-of-a-sudden, and permanently, "saved".

Originally posted by truejew
It seems that that is what Adjensen is teaching also with his baptizing while speaking something equals witchcraft teaching.

No, that is not what I've said.

What I've said is that it doesn't matter, because baptism doesn't save you, and an act made in faith is sufficient in itself, it doesn't need specific pronunciations or practitioners. A baptism made in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is just as valid as a baptism made in the name of "gee-zus", because words do not save you and God is not constrained by human acts.

Period.

That's what I've said all along, and all you've done is dodge specific questions, because you can't answer them without demonstrating that what you teach is either wrong, or it is unbiblical.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by truejew

 

Trinitarians have historically returned that peace seeking with persecution including murder.

I don't think that the fact that they were trinitarian made them more susceptible to thoughts of murder to suppress their opponents, but that this sort of behavior should be expected from anyone who sets themselves up as a "religious authority" with the right to be backed by the punishing power of the civil government.

People back then were pretty stupid and if someone was charged with speaking out against the trinity, rather than understanding that what was meant was a philosophical disagreement with doctrinal issues regarding the mystical formulation of a trinity, they would imagine that the accused was issuing blasphemous personal aspersions against God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

Correct, and it's also quite silly to accuse the many of the actions of the few. I certainly didn't think murder of heretics is justified or Biblical.

You may not, however, you still follow those who did.

I'm not a Calvinist.

You are descended from the Catholic Church and have kept some of it's teachings and practices.

So what? That doesn't mean I am a Calvinist. I'm certainly not.