a former Evangelical "born again" explains why Protestantism isn't true

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

What language do you think Hispanics speak in the United States?

During the days of Jesus, the Jews spoke Greek. During their time in Egypt, they spoke Egyptian.

Gee, and here all those scholars and linguists said that they spoke Aramaic. What language did Jesus and the apostles speak? While they might have used Greek on occasion, their primary language was not Greek, neither can one assume that their primary language earlier was Egyptian.

Originally posted by adjensen

More of your "magic spells and incantations."

More false accusations. The name of Jesus is no more a magic spell than your name is.

Of course it is magic to you -- if you get it wrong, your magic spells of salvation don't work, that's what your entire theology is based on.

Also, you are the one teaching that repentance and baptism are not necessary for salvation.

When was the thief crucified with Christ baptized? When was Abraham or Moses?

reply to post by adjensen


Again you are showing your ignorance. The only difference between calling upon the name of the Lord and calling upon your name is the Lord is God and you are not.

As I have mentioned before, the thief, Abraham, and Moses, died before the necessity of baptism.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

The only difference between calling upon the name of the Lord and calling upon your name is the Lord is God and you are not.

What? We're talking about your theology that teaches that works, magic words and incantations and specific rites are required for baptism, which has nothing to do with "calling upon my name".

If you preach that specific words are what differentiates between a valid and invalid act, your acts are no different than magic spells.

As I have mentioned before, the thief, Abraham, and Moses, died before the necessity of baptism.

Where is it taught that baptism is necessary? Is that a law that the Apostles put in place? Because God sure didn't, as evidenced by those three people, and there is nothing in the words of Christ between his acknowledgment that the thief would be saved, and his ascension, that says he was making a new rule that then required baptism.

Does a baby who dies before being baptized go to hell?

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9 NIV)

Is Paul in hell for teaching that salvation wasn't predicated on works like baptism and repentance?

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

What? We're talking about your theology that teaches that works, magic words and incantations and specific rites are required for baptism, which has nothing to do with "calling upon my name".

You are teaching false things about us. That reveals who your spiritual mother is. If calling on the name of Jesus is magic spells as you claim, so is calling upon your name.

Originally posted by adjensen

Where is it taught that baptism is necessary?

The New Testament.

Originally posted by adjensen

Is that a law that the Apostles put in place?

The apostles teach what Jesus gave them.

Originally posted by adjensen

Does a baby who dies before being baptized go to hell?

No. They are not old enough to have faith.

Originally posted by adjensen

Is Paul in hell for teaching that salvation wasn't predicated on works like baptism and repentance?

It is God's grace through faith that saves a person. Repentance and baptism are actions of faith. A person who refuses baptism, does not have faith.

Originally posted by truejew
If calling on the name of Jesus is magic spells as you claim, so is calling upon your name.

Only if you think that I can save you, and will only do so if you use the proper magic words.

That, in a nutshell is the basis of your theology, whether you want to hear it or not. Whatever basis you might have for it, whatever the background is, it is manifested in that act. Reckart's "God's original name is gee-zus" nonsense is the ultimate projection of it -- not only do you have to use the proper words, you need to pronounce them perfectly.

Where is it taught that baptism is necessary?

The New Testament.

Where in the New Testament does Jesus say that baptism is required for salvation, with the timing of it being after he tells the thief that he's saved, and before his ascension?

Chapter and verse, oh evasive one

Is Paul in hell for teaching that salvation wasn't predicated on works like baptism and repentance?

It is God's grace through faith that saves a person. Repentance and baptism are actions of faith. A person who refuses baptism, does not have faith.

Not surprisingly, that doesn't answer the question. Paul specifically says that ALL that is required is faith. Your "a person who refuses baptism, does not faith" has absolutely no basis in scripture, so, again, is Paul in hell for teaching that baptism is not a requirement of salvation?

Originally posted by adjensen

Only if you think that I can save you, and will only do so if you use the proper magic words.

Again, I do not use magic words.

Originally posted by adjensen

not only do you have to use the proper words,

If I call on a name that is not yours, will you come? I would rather call on the correct name and be sure to get a response than call on the incorrect name and just hope for a response.

Originally posted by adjensen

you need to pronounce them perfectly.

Neither I, nor Pastor Reckart teach that.

Originally posted by adjensen

Where in the New Testament does Jesus say that baptism is required for salvation, with the timing of it being after he tells the thief that he's saved, and before his ascension?

Mark 16:16 (KJV)
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Originally posted by adjensen

Not surprisingly, that doesn't answer the question.

It does.

Originally posted by adjensen

Paul specifically says that ALL that is required is faith. Your "a person who refuses baptism, does not faith" has absolutely no basis in scripture, so, again, is Paul in hell for teaching that baptism is not a requirement of salvation?

Faith without action is dead. That action is by faith repenting and being baptized. You seem to not understand that it is the faith that brings the grace of God, not the action itself. Baptism without faith is only a bath.

I teach salvation by grace through faith, while you teach salvation by grace through dead faith.

James 2:14(KJV)
14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

James 2:17(KJV)
17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

1 Peter 3:20-21 (KJV)
20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

reply to post by Witness123


Both Catholics and Protestants lack holiness.

Originally posted by truejew
Both Catholics and Protestants lack holiness.

That's just ignorant. :shk: To make a blanket statement like that and to banket JUDGE THE SOULS of people ... you are placing yourself in the position of judge of souls, which is GOD's JOB .. not yours.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Only if you think that I can save you, and will only do so if you use the proper magic words.

Again, I do not use magic words.

If you took the time to actually think about it, and look at the claims of those who believe in magic, you'd see that there are definite and compelling similarities to your beliefs and theirs. You won't, of course, but most lucid people can see it immediately.

Originally posted by adjensen

you need to pronounce them perfectly.

Neither I, nor Pastor Reckart teach that.

Then why the obsession with "gee-zus", in light of the fact that all evidence is that you're wrong? And what about your insistence that it's "Jeremieh" and "Messieh", because if spelled and pronounced correctly, those words contain "a moon god" (or something, sorry, I don't remember.)

Magic spells and incantations.

Originally posted by adjensen

Where in the New Testament does Jesus say that baptism is required for salvation, with the timing of it being after he tells the thief that he's saved, and before his ascension?

Mark 16:16 (KJV)
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

You realize that Mark 16:9-20 was added after the fact, right? If you believe in the Bible being the true word of God, you have to reject those verses.

At any rate, it doesn't say "he that believeth not, and wasn't baptized, shall be damned," meaning that it's the faith that matters, not baptism.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by truejew
Both Catholics and Protestants lack holiness.

That's just ignorant. :shk: To make a blanket statement like that and to banket JUDGE THE SOULS of people ... you are placing yourself in the position of judge of souls, which is GOD's JOB .. not yours.

It's not ignorant. Neither group receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. With out the Holy Spirit dwelling within a person, there is no holiness.

Originally posted by adjensen

If you took the time to actually think about it, and look at the claims of those who believe in magic, you'd see that there are definite and compelling similarities to your beliefs and theirs. You won't, of course, but most lucid people can see it immediately.

If you would take the time to study, you would find that those who are using magic words are those of you going around using the name YHWH, which is used to call upon demons in witchcraft.

Originally posted by adjensen

Then why the obsession with "gee-zus", in light of the fact that all evidence is that you're wrong? And what about your insistence that it's "Jeremieh" and "Messieh", because if spelled and pronounced correctly, those words contain "a moon god" (or something, sorry, I don't remember.)

Jesus is His correct name, you have not provided evidence otherwise. It does not need to be pronounced perfectly, just close enough that God knows that you are calling on Him. If calling a name is a magic spell, everyone would be a witch and that is not the case.

Originally posted by adjensen

You realize that Mark 16:9-20 was added after the fact, right? If you believe in the Bible being the true word of God, you have to reject those verses.

You attack me for my teaching on Matthew 28:18-20, then you attempt (incorrectly) to do the same as me with Mark 16:16. Does not surprise me though, the Pharisees were good at being hypocritical.

Mark 16:16 is inline with what the apostles taught on baptism.

Originally posted by adjensen

At any rate, it doesn't say "he that believeth not, and wasn't baptized, shall be damned," meaning that it's the faith that matters, not baptism.

It is saying it is faith in being baptized that matters, getting baptized without faith does not save. That is what I teach.

Notice it does not say "he who believes and is not baptized shall be saved".

Originally posted by truejew
Jesus is His correct name, you have not provided evidence otherwise.

You've provided exactly zero evidence that "gee-zus" is his "real" name, and been shown linguistic evidence that it could not have been, so the impetus is on you, not me, to refute that evidence, with credible sources, not crackpots and then provide real evidence that the name of the Messiah is the English word pronounced "gee-zus."

It does not need to be pronounced perfectly, just close enough that God knows that you are calling on Him.

Are you kidding me? You think God can't sort out that you want to talk to him unless you get his name right?

Read Psalm 139.

You realize that Mark 16:9-20 was added after the fact, right? If you believe in the Bible being the true word of God, you have to reject those verses.

You attack me for my teaching on Matthew 28:18-20, then you attempt (incorrectly) to do the same as me with Mark 16:16.

What's the difference there? You claim that Matthew 28 was changed because a) a few scholars think it might have been, and b) you don't agree with it. I, on the other hand, don't claim anything, I point out that the earliest copies of Mark have a totally different ending, proving conclusively that Mark 16:9-20 was added after the fact.

That's not hypocrisy, that's reality.

Mark 16:16 is inline with what the apostles taught on baptism.

Once again demonstrating that your theology is based on the implied teaching of the Apostles, not Christ and, once again, show me chapter and verse where the Apostles state that baptism is required for salvation, because I've shown you where it is taught, clearly, that it is not required.

reply to post by adjensen


2 Timothy 3:7-8 (KJV)
7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

reply to post by truejew


That's your answer, eh?

"I don't need evidence when I have my personal opinion to fall back on."

For a guy who outwardly dismisses the omniscience of God, that's a pretty flimsy philosophy to rely on.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

That's your answer, eh?

"I don't need evidence when I have my personal opinion to fall back on."

For a guy who outwardly dismisses the omniscience of God, that's a pretty flimsy philosophy to rely on.

It's more like "I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again since this person is reprobate".

I do not dismiss the omniscience of God. That is another one of your lies.

Originally posted by truejew
I do not dismiss the omniscience of God. That is another one of your lies.

Really?

Jesus is His correct name, you have not provided evidence otherwise. It does not need to be pronounced perfectly, just close enough that God knows that you are calling on Him.

Why would an omniscient God need to hear his name pronounced correctly (or "close enough") in order to know that you were calling on him? "Omniscient" means that he knows you're calling on him before you even know you're calling on him, and even if you say "Hey you" to call on him.

Originally posted by adjensen

"Omniscient" means that he knows you're calling on him before you even know you're calling on him, and even if you say "Hey you" to call on him.

It also means that He knows whether you will be calling upon His name or another gods name before it happens.

So, yes, it was another one of your lies.

I don't expect an apology for your lies, but I do recommend that you call upon the name of Jesus and repent.

reply to post by truejew


Okay, we can add "omniscience" to the list of words that you don't understand the definition of.