Jesus isn't Catholic

[Nancy]

I was following him and enjoying his ministry until he started teaching on the "Lies" series in Christianity.

When he did the water baptism "Lie" part, I had to make him accountable.

I still have the emails back and forth(he was nice to accommodate my arguments), but he eventually stopped responding to my questions.

He is an Acts 2:38 skipper...bummer.


Here is an excerpt...

Andrew...
Hello and thank you for your email!
Verses 9 to 20 of Mark 16 do not appear in the earliest manuscripts.
Even if they are authentic, notice that the second half of verse 16 removes baptism from the equation.
Clearly, it was normal to be water baptized but the only baptism that actually saves is spiritual baptism into Christ.
Acts chapter 10 reveals a group of Gentiles who have already received the Holy Spirit and have been saved apart from water baptism. Then Peter shows up and says they can be water baptized to celebrate. They were already saved and already had the Spirit. Water baptism came days or weeks later, after salvation.
There are a lot of wet spiritually dead people.

Me...
Bro Farley. Think about this for a moment.
You are teaching us that when someone asks us, “men and brethren what shall we do” , you say “believe the gospel and receive the Holy Ghost”.
This is not what Peter said at Acts 2, not at all.
Peter told the sinner Jews to repent...be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE remission of sins....and you shall receive the Holy Ghost.
The fact is, the Seminary is teaching Christendoms teachers to ignore Acts 2:38(the birth place of the 1st century church), and find remission another way.
One must repent(die), be baptized (be buried), be Spirit filled(which leads a person to repent and be baptized).
Our counterparts teach that per Romans 6, we are buried alive, by saying we are alive in Christ without remission of sins per baptism.
The Spirit does not remit sins, but leads us to remission of sins per water baptism.
Keep in mind, neither the Philippian jailer, nor the Ethiopian eunuch were saved per these doctrines, because neither received the Holy Ghost in scripture at the time.
We must have the Holy Ghost to be saved, correct?
Shall we use examples of men that were not saved by water baptism such as these men, in our Biblical examples?
Or, were they saved per water baptism in both cases as they believed....harmonizing Mark16:16?
Notice, I vindicated Mark 16 and you attempted to eliminate it.
Think about it my brother in Christ


I can continue sharing if you would like to see more.

Thanks for sharing! Him and I had a couple of emails as well as FB messages. Was years ago and, I was still pretty much crawling. I will say that I gleaned from him what God wanted me to and then, some of the stuff he would say, or...omit...just did not sit well with me. He does give great sermons for the most part but...I've not watched him in a good 5 years.
no need to share the rest as, I can see what you are saying and, he did not come back with an answer so... ¯\_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯

 

[Philip James]

All of us who abide in Christ, and He in us are His Church. You don't have to be Catholic to abide in Christ and be one with Him.

Hello CharismaticLady,

To be one with Christ is to be one with His Church, which makes one 'catholic' by definition...

In short, if you are one with Christ, you're stuck with us..

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

 

[friend of]

Jeremiah 32:40
And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me

 

[justbyfaith]

Once AGAIN - you discount the entire context of Scripture on the matter for your favorite past time of cherry-picking.
Acts 2:39 assures us that this promise is for us - and ouR CHILDREN.

The ENTIRE households of Cornelius, Stephanas and the Phillipian Jailer were Baptized based on the faith of those 3 men.

Furthermore - the UNANIMOUS testimony of the Early Church Fathers was that Infant Baptism was an APOSTOLIC practice that was handed down by them . . .

Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The APOSTOLIC TRADITION 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the APOSTLES the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage
"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

Gregory of Nazianz
"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).

John Chrysostom
"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine
"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except APOSTOLIC" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

Some children are even capable of having faith....it is these children that Peter is speaking of in Acts 2:39...he may also be speaking of our grown-up children, referring to our descendants, those who come from our loins. It does not there say that a person can have valid baptism apart from faith...i.e. infant baptism is invalid unless an infant is intelligent enough to place their faith in Jesus.

You claim that I am cherry-picking scripture with Mark 16:16; but this is simply your way of discounting the authority of specific singular verses of scripture when they are quoted.

But you will be accountable for the truths that they represent on your day of judgment...even though you discounted them as being cherries and therefore not authoritative.

I have news for you...every cherry has within it a seed that can be planted and that will produce an entire tree.

I also don't hold the ECF's as being as authoritative as holy scripture.

 

[Philip James]

Jeremiah 32:40
And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me

"This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.

 

[BloodBought 1953]

All of us who abide in Christ, and He in us are His Church. You don't have to be Catholic to abide in Christ and be one with Him.

Many people are getting Saved DESPITE Romanism......No real need to pick on our poor , badly taught catholic friends......one can find adherents to Perverted Gospels in ALL denominations.....The Catholics are just the most obvious, and at least they do not try to hide it....Their Heresies can easily be discovered —- just
Read their Catechisms .....” all that believe in Justification by Faith are Damned by God”.....we’ll see,won’t we......

 

[BloodBought 1953]

I would be one of those teachers who would say that to be fallen from grace means loss of salvation, and here's why:

Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us that we are saved by grace through faith...and this indicates to me that without grace, there is no salvation.



Jesus never taught the disciples about grace? I beg to differ:

Jhn 1:14, And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jhn 1:16, And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

Jhn 1:17, For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.



I would point out to you, however, that baptism doesn't save unless it is believer's baptism...which excludes infant baptism as being valid.

Mar 16:16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.



See 1 Corinthians 15:37 and Matthew 13:30. And Ecclesiastes 9:11.

I would be one of those teachers who would say that to be fallen from grace means loss of salvation, and here's why:

I am not sure about this issue....
Gifted teachers on both sides of this argument can make compelling cases....It your view is correct, that “Narrow Way” That Jesus spoke of sure makes a lot of sense....90% of the Church World does not REsT in Paul’s Gospel Of Grace Plus Nothing for their Salvation.....thus, they “fall from Grace” ....people are TRYING to get Saved instead of TRUSTING to get Saved and the difference, some-maintain is Heaven and Hell.....
But then.....this verse comes to my mind.... “If you will acknowledge ME before men— “ I” will acknowledge YOU before my Father...”
Romans 10: 9 says, “ If you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and Believe in your Heart That God has raised Him from the dead , you will be Saved”.....
So we must not forget those other verses......personally, I think those that have “ fallen from Grace” are Saved Christians that are forced to endure a Crippled Walk Of Faith, Full Of uncertainty and fear as opposed to those like me and many others that live a life of unfathomable Peace and Joy — it’s that “ Abundant Life” Thingy Jesus referred to..
Your “ take” on this vital issue could be correct.For the sake of billions though——- let’s hope that I am right and you are Wrong .If your viewpoint us correct ( and some days I think it is! ) almost everybody that I know is going to be damned.........That “ Jesus Saves — BUT” Crowd is an Enormous One.....God Bless...

 

[mjrhealth]

Hello CharismaticLady,

To be one with Christ is to be one with His Church, which makes one 'catholic' by definition...

In short, if you are one with Christ, you're stuck with us..

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

Id rather have my teeth pulled out without pain killers, being there seeing teh whore from the inside she is no prettier from teh outside.

 

[justbyfaith]

I would be one of those teachers who would say that to be fallen from grace means loss of salvation, and here's why:

I am not sure about this issue....
Gifted teachers on both sides of this argument can make compelling cases....It your view is correct, that “Narrow Way” That Jesus spoke of sure makes a lot of sense....90% of the Church World does not REsT in Paul’s Gospel Of Grace Plus Nothing for their Salvation.....thus, they “fall from Grace” ....people are TRYING to get Saved instead of TRUSTING to get Saved and the difference, some-maintain is Heaven and Hell.....
But then.....this verse comes to my mind.... “If you will acknowledge ME before men— “ I” will acknowledge YOU before my Father...”
Romans 10: 9 says, “ If you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and Believe in your Heart That God has raised Him from the dead , you will be Saved”.....
So we must not forget those other verses......personally, I think those that have “ fallen from Grace” are Saved Christians that are forced to endure a Crippled Walk Of Faith, Full Of uncertainty and fear as opposed to those like me and many others that live a life of unfathomable Peace and Joy — it’s that “ Abundant Life” Thingy Jesus referred to..
Your “ take” on this vital issue could be correct.For the sake of billions though——- let’s hope that I am right and you are Wrong .If your viewpoint us correct ( and some days I think it is! ) almost everybody that I know is going to be damned.........That “ Jesus Saves — BUT” Crowd is an Enormous One.....God Bless...

Perhaps, some of those whom you deem to be fallen from grace are not, in fact, fallen from grace...

 

[Behold]

NONSENSE.

Unless 1 Peter was written during those first 10-15 years after the Ascension of Christ -

If you are able to find a way to take some real seminary classes, you might learn that each chapter of the "Acts of the Apostles". (Note : not acts of the Christians)....each chapter is essentially one year.
So, 28 chapters = about 3 decades.
Your "first pope" which is a cult of mary delusion, didn't receive the doctrines for the Church, as this was given to a distinct apostle, who was chosen by God, after Jesus was back in Glory.
Paul, was chosen by God to be the revealer of the doctrines for the body of Christ., not peter.
peter is not the "gentile apostle"....... Paul is the gentile apostle, who during our "time of the Gentiles" which we are in now, gave us all the doctrine for the Church "age".
peter was an apostle who in 2nd Peter tells us that Paul's Letters are "Torah", = equal to scripture, and that was before any Greek Text or Latin Vulgate was on the horizon.
So, Peter recognizes Paul's authority 2000 yrs ago, and so should all believers, at all times.
This is why Paul is the only Apostle who tells us to "follow ME".

 

[Marymog]

Galatians makes it simple to determine who has “ fallen from Grace”.....Anybody that Believes that the Gospel is ESSENTIAL for Salvation, but on its own, is not Fully ADEQUATE fir that Salvation.....it’s the delusional, Satan- Inspired Thinking That says “ Sure , Jesus Saves......BUT! ( insert your favorited Dead Work here.... ).....The-Most prevalent false Perverted Gospel out there seems to Be “ Jesus Saves But once you know that , you have to prove you Love Jesus by keeping His Commandments or Jesus Saves But you have to make sure you have Repented of all of your sins Before you die.” Lucky Repentance for Salvation” is what I call that.....These are just “ Two” Of The False, or as Paul said, “ Perverted Gospels” out there.....there are more....
My teachers have been J Vernon McGee, Oliver Greene, Dr. Gene Scott, Zola Levitt,Joseph Prince . Les Feldick, Andrew Farley and perhaps the best of all , Renee Roland......Paul Ellis is great also....

Thank you. I don’t think that keeping His Commandments is delusional soooo I think I will stay, according to you “delusional”, by keeping His Commandments.

Mary

 

[justbyfaith]

Thank you. I don’t think that keeping His Commandments is delusional soooo I think I will stay, according to you “delusional”, by keeping His Commandments.

Mary

Rom 3:20, Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Gal 2:16, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Gal 3:21, Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

Law-keeping may indeed be the result of having a relationship with Christ, but it does not have the power to save any man. The only thing that can do that is faith in Jesus Christ of Nazareth and what He did for us on the Cross.

 

[Yan]

Indeed, Jesus is not catholic nor christian nor Judaism nor Islam nor hindu nor budha, because He is the son of God of all mankind.
Many fight among religion today are the sign of the old covenant, in the OC, Abraham was anointed by God and he was the sign of God in the mesopotamian age. In mesopotamian age, the Lord God (Father) was known as Allah by all mankind, then after that day many false people rise as the chosen one (anointed) by Allah, that's was the beginning of false prophets and false gods had rise up and put the digression among the people.
This pattern will follow after Jesus came to earth, since then many false "messiah" rise up until today. They only pursue position and prestige, but they don't want to accept the risk of being a chosen to fight the social injustice among society and corruption of the systemic elite merchant (Revelation 18:23). Economic depression was the main problem that we face today, and they used religious based hatred as the distinction among us to rule each others and all hypocrisy has shown by them who bring the religious based hatred into politics.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Some children are even capable of having faith....it is these children that Peter is speaking of in Acts 2:39...he may also be speaking of our grown-up children, referring to our descendants, those who come from our loins. It does not there say that a person can have valid baptism apart from faith...i.e. infant baptism is invalid unless an infant is intelligent enough to place their faith in Jesus.

You claim that I am cherry-picking scripture with Mark 16:16; but this is simply your way of discounting the authority of specific singular verses of scripture when they are quoted.

But you will be accountable for the truths that they represent on your day of judgment...even though you discounted them as being cherries and therefore not authoritative.

I have news for you...every cherry has within it a seed that can be planted and that will produce an entire tree.

I also don't hold the ECF's as being as authoritative as holy scripture.

And NOBODY is claiming that the Early Church Fathers were usurping holy Scripture,
I was showing you a pattern - what was being taught by the end of the first century i the Church.
Some of these men actually KNEW the Apostles and were taught BY them - like Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp.

YOU make this ridiculous claim - yet ALL the while, YOU are guilty of the very same thing. You place the "authority" of the so-called "Reformers" over Scripture and the teachings of the historic Christian faith.

The rejection of Infant Baptism is a relatively NEW invention that is only about 500 years old. As a matter of fact - SOME of them, including Luther and Calvin believed in Infant baptism and taught it. Luther held - as does the Catholic Church that while an infant cannot exercise faith, they should be baptized because of the faith of their parents and Church family.

This is the exact pattern and fulfillment of the OT Type that was circumcision.

 

[BreadOfLife]

If you are able to find a way to take some real seminary classes, you might learn that each chapter of the "Acts of the Apostles". (Note : not acts of the Christians)....each chapter is essentially one year.
So, 28 chapters = about 3 decades.
Your "first pope" which is a cult of mary delusion, didn't receive the doctrines for the Church, as this was given to a distinct apostle, who was chosen by God, after Jesus was back in Glory.
Paul, was chosen by God to be the revealer of the doctrines for the body of Christ., not peter.
peter is not the "gentile apostle"....... Paul is the gentile apostle, who during our "time of the Gentiles" which we are in now, gave us all the doctrine for the Church "age".
peter was an apostle who in 2nd Peter tells us that Paul's Letters are "Torah", = equal to scripture, and that was before any Greek Text or Latin Vulgate was on the horizon.
So, Peter recognizes Paul's authority 2000 yrs ago, and so should all believers, at all times.
This is why Paul is the only Apostle who tells us to "follow ME".

So, because you couldn't deal with the fact that I refuted your point about Peter and Baptism - you give me another LONG-winded anti-Catholic diatribe.
Funny that you can never just deal with the conversation at hand . . .

 

[Truther]

Thanks for sharing! Him and I had a couple of emails as well as FB messages. Was years ago and, I was still pretty much crawling. I will say that I gleaned from him what God wanted me to and then, some of the stuff he would say, or...omit...just did not sit well with me. He does give great sermons for the most part but...I've not watched him in a good 5 years.
no need to share the rest as, I can see what you are saying and, he did not come back with an answer so... ¯\_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯

You're welcome. I still save some of his lessons that are relevant and scripturally accurate and forward them as needed.

His teaching style is great. I spoke to him for the 1st time over his radio(sirius) program about the Law/Grace debate. He got my attention saying the Law is still in effect only for the unsaved, and saints are free from it.(which I was already espousing).

It snowballed from there.

 

[justbyfaith]

Indeed, Jesus is not catholic nor christian nor Judaism nor Islam nor hindu nor budha, because He is the son of God of all mankind.
Many fight among religion today are the sign of the old covenant, in the OC, Abraham was anointed by God and he was the sign of God in the mesopotamian age. In mesopotamian age, the Lord God (Father) was known as Allah by all mankind, then after that day many false people rise as the chosen one (anointed) by Allah, that's was the beginning of false prophets and false gods had rise up and put the digression among the people.
This pattern will follow after Jesus came to earth, since then many false "messiah" rise up until today. They only pursue position and prestige, but they don't want to accept the risk of being a chosen to fight the social injustice among society and corruption of the systemic elite merchant (Revelation 18:23). Economic depression was the main problem that we face today, and they used religious based hatred as the distinction among us to rule each others and all hypocrisy has shown by them who bring the religious based hatred into politics.

Allah is actually the moon god; as he was picked out from many idols by Mohammed in order to form a monotheistic religion.

When you call out to God, it is important that you call out to Him as "Abba" (Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:6).

 

[justbyfaith]

@BreadOfLife,

I find it interesting that I have heard nothing further from you on the subject of eternal security (and your opposition to it as a doctrine).

Am I to take this to mean that you have given up on your arguments and have conceded that eternal security is sound doctrine for every believer?

And also, if you were wrong on the subject of eternal security, is it not possible that you may also be wrong concerning other subjects also (such as infant baptism)?

 

[BreadOfLife]

@BreadOfLife,
I find it interesting that I have heard nothing further from you on the subject of eternal security (and your opposition to it as a doctrine).

Am I to take this to mean that you have given up on your arguments and have conceded that eternal security is sound doctrine for every believer?

And also, if you were wrong on the subject of eternal security, is it not possible that you may also be wrong concerning other subjects also (such as infant baptism)?

This is perhaps the BIGGEST LIE you've told yet.
I never stopped refuting OSAS. NOBODY has refuted the verses I have presented.

What else am I supposed to say until there is a response to my rock-solid case against this man-made invention??

 

[Truther]

Looks like some religion has replaced remission of sins per Acts 3:38 with a chalk wafer on Sunday.

The pandemic must be piling up the Catholics' sins....yikes!