Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Faith without works is dead. It is not real faith.

I think you're trying to quote James. Here is the crux of that argument, James wasn't talking about the process of salvation, but the outward evidence of it. And to speak dogmatically about it like that fails to account for the "babeas in Christ", or Christians like those as Corinth who were getting drunk and instead of having communion properly were having communal sex with each other, yet Paul still addressed them as brothers and sisters in Christ.

James is correct, a person who has an authentic faith in Christ will begin to display good works in their life.

edit on 31-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Anyone who claims to have faith, but refuses to be born again of the water as Jesus said was necessary, is lying about having faith.

I haven't met anyone who refused to be baptized. Generally I have seen people want to be baptized sometime soon after coming to faith in Christ. Me personally, I chose to be baptized a second time when I understood what I was doing and was given faith by God. Mom had me baptized as an infant, but I came to believe that baptism should bedone after a person becomes a believer.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

I teach that because baptism is what saved people do. Getting wet doesn't make someone trust Jesus as their Savior. People do that after they believe in Christ as their Savior.

A person cannot be saved before having faith.

I never said they could.

And people don't decide to be baptized until they have faith. Faith is the first cause. Baptism, communion, good works, paying tithe, et all are secondary consequences of the first cause. Baptism is an act out of the faith someone already has.

Hebrews 11:7 KJV
[7] By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

God warned Noah. Noah had faith in God to build and enter the ark. If Noah did not build and enter the ark, would he have had faith in God? Would Noah have been saved without building and entering the ark?

Building and entering the ark was a necessary faith action for Noah being saved from the flood just as baptism is a necessary faith action for us.

Even though it was necessary for Noah to build and enter the ark, it was his faith in doing it that saved him.

Originally posted by truejew
It is Adjensen and NOTurTypical teaching salvation without baptism, not me.

Actually, what I believe is that it doesn't matter, because we are saved through faith in Christ and through God's mercy, which can be granted in the absence of baptism or any other work, because God can save whomever he wants. Believing that someone is condemned for the simple lack of a work is to adopt an Augustinian view of salvation, which the church, and most rational people, reject.

One should be baptized, but God can save those who are not baptized, because God cares about the intent, not the act, which is the opposite of what you teach, that the intent does not matter, it is the act (done properly, with all the right words and all the right pronunciations) that matters. Under that teaching, it is Gary Reckart that supposedly saves you, because he is the one conducting the act, it is not God who saves you.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by jcutler12888
reply to post by jcutler12888

 

What does your church/denomination do/believe in that is out of the ordinary with your everyday garden variety Christianity?

1. We do not teach the trinity. - We teach as the Bible teaches, that there is one God and this one God was manifest in the flesh as the Son of God. To teach that "God is three persons" is an addition to the Bible since the teaching is not found there. Tertullian in 200 AD was first to teach the trinity.

The trinity is inherent in the text. The fact that the word was adopted later to explain how the trinity is possible does not change the original text. There are clearly three distinct persons, all of whom are God, all of whom interact with each other, in the New Testament. Your Modalism, derived from Greek theatre and philosophy, makes nonsense of clearly trinitarian passages like John 1:1-2 or the baptism of Jesus.

2. We teach what Peter taught - that repentance, baptism in Jesus name, and receiving the Holy Ghost, Acts 2:38, is necessary to faith and salvation. All who accepted his words were born again through water baptism and Spirit baptism and were added to the Church through their faith.

What you teach is what the author of Acts, who was not Peter, taught, and you only teach the bits that you agree with.

3. We reach for perfection in inward holiness which often shows outwardly - Many, Adjensen included, say that our outward holiness makes us "Pharisees". That is not true. The Pharisees had outward holiness without the inward holiness. Jesus did not teach against all outward holiness, only against outward holiness that did not come through inward holiness. See Matt. 23:27-28

Actually, what I said is that your leader, Gary Reckart, is a bigot and a hypocrite. I do not believe that "holiness" such as not wearing wristwatches, not letting women wear their hair as they like, not wearing shorts, and boasting about how much charity one does contributes to anyone's salvation.

6. We teach that "YHWH", which is a name used in witchcraft, is not the name of God. The name that God told to Moses was Ehjeh asher Ehjeh, which shortened to Jeh is where the name Jesus (God saves) comes from.

I like the leap in logic there. More of your cult's teachings that words, syllables and phrases have magical properties.

"Ehjeh asher Ehjeh" is an English translation of Hebrew (a language you say doesn't exist), there is no reason to "shorten it", "Jeh" does not appear in the name "Jesus", and the English name Jesus is derived from the Latin name "Jesu", which is derived from the Greek name "Iesous", which is transliterated from Jesus's Hebrew name, Yeshua.

Claiming that God's name is, and has always been, "Jesus" (pronounced "gee-zus") relies on a language that didn't exist until centuries after Jesus died, making it an incredibly irrational statement about God.

Originally posted by adjensen

One should be baptized, but God can save those who are not baptized, because God cares about the intent, not the act,

God cares about the faith in being baptized. To us, baptism is not a faithless work as Catholics believe, according to your baptizing infants who do not have faith. That is why we teach that the baptizer must be a saved minister. So that it can be sure that the one being baptized is getting baptized in faith in Christ.

reply to post by truejew


You're confusing cause and effect. Noah had faith in God, without that faith he never would have built the ark. Building the ark didn't give Noah faith, it was the secondary consequence of the faith he had.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

One should be baptized, but God can save those who are not baptized, because God cares about the intent, not the act,

God cares about the faith in being baptized.

I see that you're back to your old habit of speaking for God, even though there is no way for you to know that this is God's position.

To us, baptism is not a faithless work as Catholics believe, according to your baptizing infants who do not have faith.

Catholics believe that baptism is a sacrament that removes original sin. That is what was believed for 1500 years, even through the early Reformation, until the Anabaptists came along and re-imagined what baptism was, and an argument can be made that they did so for political reasons as much as they did for theological ones.

That is why we teach that the baptizer must be a saved minister.

Except that I proved a month ago that your belief, that only a person who was "baptized in the name of gee-zus" can baptize someone else, is a logical impossibility.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by jcutler12888

 

The trinity is inherent in the text. The fact that the word was adopted later to explain how the trinity is possible does not change the original text. There are clearly three distinct persons, all of whom are God, all of whom interact with each other, in the New Testament. Your Modalism, derived from Greek theatre and philosophy, makes nonsense of clearly trinitarian passages like John 1:1-2 or the baptism of Jesus.

That the word "trinity" is not found in Scripture is not the issue. It is that the teaching that God is three persons is not. I find that very strange for a doctrine that you claim is necessary for salvation. As I have said before on the prayers of Jesus, the Son of God was God in the role of a man. He prayed to the Father as any man should pray. It is actually the trinity that comes from Greek philosophy. The early trinitarians were very much into the teachings of Plato.

Originally posted by adjensen

What you teach is what the author of Acts, who was not Peter, taught, and you only teach the bits that you agree with.

I teach that the book of Acts is Scripture and that it is telling the truth about Peter saying to repent, be baptized in the name of Christ, and receiving the Holy Spirit. I teach the whole Bible. I don't throw out Acts 2:38 like you do.

Originally posted by adjensen

Actually, what I said is that your leader, Gary Reckart, is a bigot and a hypocrite. I do not believe that "holiness" such as not wearing wristwatches, not letting women wear their hair as they like, not wearing shorts, and boasting about how much charity one does contributes to anyone's salvation.

Like I said, it is not that those things make someone saved, it is that inward holiness shows on the outside. A person who is holy on the inside does not want to wear jewelry. A woman who is holy does not want to cut her hair to look like a man. A person who is holy does not want to show off their legs.

Originally posted by adjensen

I see that you're back to your old habit of speaking for God, even though there is no way for you to know that this is God's position.

Scripture teaches that God cares if a person has faith or not. We are saved by grace through faith.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

You're confusing cause and effect. Noah had faith in God, without that faith he never would have built the ark. Building the ark didn't give Noah faith, it was the secondary consequence of the faith he had.

Noah would not have had faith if he did not build and enter the ark. His faith and his action cannot be separated.

reply to post by truejew


That isn't true. Building a boat didn't give Noah faith. Noah trusted God before he cut down the first tree.

You are confusing cause and effect.

This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together. More formally, this fallacy involves drawing the conclusion that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are in regular conjunction (and there is not a common cause that is actually the cause of A and B). The mistake being made is that the causal conclusion is being drawn without adequate justification.

Confusing Cause and Effect


Works are the effect of faith, not the cause.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

I see that you're back to your old habit of speaking for God, even though there is no way for you to know that this is God's position.

Scripture teaches that God cares if a person has faith or not. We are saved by grace through faith.

Scripture also teaches that God is omniscient and knows our thoughts, and thus knows what our intent is, regardless of whether we follow some set formula. Why do you accept scripture that is rooted in law and works, and reject scripture that is rooted in faith and grace?

Originally posted by truejew
I find that very strange for a doctrine that you claim is necessary for salvation.

When have I said that understanding the trinity is necessary for salvation? Kindly cite my words.

As I said, your Modalism makes a mess out of the Bible, so it obviously is not scripturally based.

Many Modalists think that Father, Son, and Spirit are titles that do not denote persons, but simply "masks" that the one God wears at various times, like a primitive actor in theatre who plays various roles by wearing different clothes and masks. But, these masks cannot be identified as being de facto the person (actor) himself. In Modalism, the real actor's personality is hidden behind the various masks and roles. In Modalism, not even the Father is a person, but is simply one of several ways that God reveals himself.

It is interesting how Paul says that Satan "transforms himself into an angel of light." (II Cor. 11: 14) Satan can take many forms, whether a serpent or angel. He is a "shape shifter." But, Modalists must say that God also, like Satan, "transforms himself" into Father, Son, and Spirit. (Source)

I wonder what Paul would say about your transforming god?

As I have said before on the prayers of Jesus, the Son of God was God in the role of a man.

Okay Arius.

Thanks for the clear demonstration of your adoption of that ancient heresy.

I teach that the book of Acts is Scripture and that it is telling the truth about Peter saying to repent, be baptized in the name of Christ, and receiving the Holy Spirit. I teach the whole Bible.

"Jesus only" baptism is never mentioned outside of the book of Acts, it's even an interpretation there, and the trinitarian formula is explicit in Matthew. You do not "teach the whole Bible", you elevate the book of Acts above all others and ignore everything in the text that you don't like.

A person who is holy does not want to show off their legs.

Sounds like your cult has some serious body image and/or self control issues. Not that I'm asking to see Reckart in a Speedo, mind you

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

I see that you're back to your old habit of speaking for God, even though there is no way for you to know that this is God's position.

Scripture teaches that God cares if a person has faith or not. We are saved by grace through faith.

Scripture also teaches that God is omniscient and knows our thoughts, and thus knows what our intent is, regardless of whether we follow some set formula. Why do you accept scripture that is rooted in law and works, and reject scripture that is rooted in faith and grace?

That's what Legalism is.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

I see that you're back to your old habit of speaking for God, even though there is no way for you to know that this is God's position.

Scripture teaches that God cares if a person has faith or not. We are saved by grace through faith.

Scripture also teaches that God is omniscient and knows our thoughts, and thus knows what our intent is, regardless of whether we follow some set formula. Why do you accept scripture that is rooted in law and works, and reject scripture that is rooted in faith and grace?

That's what Legalism is.

Yeah, I'd just like to hear what his rationalism for it is, since it makes no sense to claim that it's all about faith, and then preach that faith doesn't matter if you don't follow some strict collection of rules.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

That isn't true. Building a boat didn't give Noah faith.

I did not say that it did.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Noah trusted God before he cut down the first tree.

But he was not saved by faith until he entered and stayed in the ark.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

I see that you're back to your old habit of speaking for God, even though there is no way for you to know that this is God's position.

Scripture teaches that God cares if a person has faith or not. We are saved by grace through faith.

Scripture also teaches that God is omniscient and knows our thoughts, and thus knows what our intent is, regardless of whether we follow some set formula. Why do you accept scripture that is rooted in law and works, and reject scripture that is rooted in faith and grace?

Scripture teaches repentance, baptism in Jesus name, and receiving the Holy Spirit. It is God's plan of salvation by grace through faith.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

I see that you're back to your old habit of speaking for God, even though there is no way for you to know that this is God's position.

Scripture teaches that God cares if a person has faith or not. We are saved by grace through faith.

Scripture also teaches that God is omniscient and knows our thoughts, and thus knows what our intent is, regardless of whether we follow some set formula. Why do you accept scripture that is rooted in law and works, and reject scripture that is rooted in faith and grace?

Scripture teaches repentance, baptism in Jesus name, and receiving the Holy Spirit. It is God's plan of salvation by grace through faith.

Scripture teaches salvation through faith, and baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8 NIV)

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19 NIV)

The author of Acts was not an Apostle, but both Paul and Matthew were, so you're dumping Apostolic teaching in favour of something that came later and which may or may not be different than Ephesians and Matthew, neither of which is "salvation by 'gee-zus only' baptism and speaking in tongues."

Originally posted by adjensen
When have I said that understanding the trinity is necessary for salvation? Kindly cite my words.

You would not be fighting so hard against Modalism and doing it with such hatred if you did not believe that the trinity was necessary for salvation.

Originally posted by adjensen

As I said, your Modalism makes a mess out of the Bible, so it obviously is not scripturally based.

All that the Bible teaches about the Godhead is that there is one God and that one God was manifest in the flesh as the Son of God. Making up a "God is three persons" theory to try to explain the prayers of Jesus is not Biblical.

Originally posted by adjensen

Okay Arius.

Arius did not believe that Jesus was 100% God in human flesh as we do. My teaching that Jesus, while still being 100% God, humbled Himself into the role of a man is Biblical.

Philippians 2:5-8 KJV
[5] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: [6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: [8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Originally posted by adjensen

You do not "teach the whole Bible", you elevate the book of Acts above all others and ignore everything in the text that you don't like.

That is not true. We teach the whole Bible as it was originally written.

Originally posted by adjensen

Sounds like your cult has some serious body image and/or self control issues. Not that I'm asking to see Reckart in a Speedo, mind you

It sounds to me that you lack inward holiness and self control if you want to see anyone in a speedo.

Originally posted by adjensen

Scripture teaches salvation through faith,

I agree with that. What we seem to disagree on is whether or not a person who refuses baptism truly has faith in God. I would say they do not due to the Scriptures that speak of baptism being necessary.

Originally posted by adjensen

and baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

As I have said, those words are questionable. Even if Jesus did say them, the word "name" is singular and the apostles understood that to be the name Jesus Christ.