yep sounds like a bunch of fuzz......hehe, hows that scripture comin...you know the one that says......."freely you have received, freely give"?? or does that elude you??
BAPTISM is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church: the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.
I say good video, it needs God's plan of salvation according to Acts 2:38. This is the way the church got started and the Jews, Gentiles, and Samaritans all came the same way. Acts 2:4, 2:38, 10:44--48, 19:1-6, Mark 16:16, Romans 6:3-5, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:27, Ephesians 4:5-6. 1 Peter 3:21. One can't escape baptism of the water and spirit. There's no sinner's prayer in the Bible. We have to come the way God set it up on Pentecost. The Bible way is the only way. man can't change it.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ, that he taught to his apostles, is still, "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the NAME of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." That's it, in its most simplest form.
No Hail Mary's. no Our Father's, no believe in a trinity or be condemned.
and(((((( they went down both into the water))))))), and both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when(((((( they were come up out of the water,)))))) Acts Chapter 8, beginning with verse 36,
And Philip said, 'If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest'. And he answered and said, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God'. And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and ((((they went down both into the water)))), and both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, Acts Chapter 8, beginning with verse 36,
And Philip said, 'If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest'. And he answered and said, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God'. And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down both into the water, and both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, Acts Chapter 8, beginning with verse 36,
When God speaks and makes a decree He speaks by His Living Word and He is bound to His own promises and divine purposes. We cannot go into God's presence without a promise from His Word.
The good news is that Jesus is the Lamb of God; the perfect sacrifice for all mankind. If you simply come to Jesus and believe His Word you will be forgiven. There is a cry in the heart of God to draw His people into His love and peace. All you need is found in Jesus the Lamb of God!
there is a right way, the bible specify immersion that's not being sprinkled, Jesus himself was fully immersed underneath the water not sprinkled so there is a right way and and a wrong way the bible speaks of the correct way and if your gonna fully obey Jesus then i think you should be baptized the way he was,
BTW, you posed a fantastic question at the end of the video. If someone doesn't even believe that baptism is essential - why would they care about the mode of baptism in a particular denomination?
It appears that some simply try to find opportunities to attack others simply for self-gratification.
Though you and I obviously have disagreements on certain points of doctrine, and even in the mode of baptism, I appreciate your conviction, and have come to know how much in common I have with Catholics. God Bless.
baptism doth also now save us...BY THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST
believe he is resurrected be saved be baptized to show you are saved
Romans 10:9-That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
@Cblevins0020 That verse does not say by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Of course as Catholics we believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected and bought for us salvation. No one says you don't have to confess Jesus as Lord ALSO to be saved. We just don't believe confession alone is part of our salvation process.
@Mr. Nathan -- We preach the Gospel, and the Gospel alone to be saved. You talk about the Gospel, and teach another form of salvation. But then, "A man cannot give what he doesn't have." (C.M.Villa)
@leadstring66 Mark 16:15 And he said to them, Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
@leadstring66 Christ will baptise you with Fire this is the requirement only.And that is by Grace alone.When we start worrying of outward salvation then we are seeking a false way it is of Spirit and repentance remember He is intrested what is on the inside of the bowl not the outside.And He can search the Heart know it's intention to humble in Spirit and repent is priceless to cry out a hundred hail mary's is in vain.You are saved by Grace there is nothing you can do to earn it.
@leadstring66 Remeber John said i baptise in water but the one who will come after me will baptise in Fire Thats the baptism you realy wan't and this is what John was speaking of.They were also baptising in the name of Abraham because they were Jews and non jews converting to Christianity for the new Covanant.What would be more important being done at birth or doing under youre own addmitance and acceptance when you grow up?Or is this something that is all in the Package deal with being Chosen?
this is the Testimony of Jesus Christ from and Apostle
18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
LOL, i suggest you go look up in matthew, you know the scripture your cult likes to pervert to say peter is the head of your church??
"Who is authorized to bind on earth, before you make conclusions, especially about the validity of scripture.
those who cant tell a perversion of the Testimony of Jesus Christ will surly perish.....because you do not respect or fear the commandment to....."not add or take away from the word in which i command thee."
Water Immersion will not Save you only a Genuine Heart Repentance will lead you to the Grace of His Father
Yeshua says to Believe, belief what? Belief in Him that He is truly the Son of ADONAI. Repent and Believe. Receive Grace, the Forgiveness of your Sins, receive Eternal Life, a new heart, mind and spirit
and then come and be Immersed in water.
Believe and then Immerse!
I was sprinkled into catholicism as an infant. I neither Believed or was Immersed. Talk about LIES and OPPRESSION!
Romans 6 Paul states that during Baptism into Jesus we are planted into His death--we are dead to sin-the wages of sin is death.
When we are raised out of the water we are raised in the likeness of His resurrection and we are made to drink His Spirit--we are filled with the Holy Ghost--made alive in Christ.
And I purposely chose a very specific topic so that neither of us would be tempted to stray from the subject. I also picked one with which both would be very familiar and is very documentable from both sacred and profane history. You have been debating ignorant Protestants who affirm "faith only" salvation - that's easy, too easy. Even the weakest smatterer could refute their "faith only" arguments.
Actually, I added the use of testimony of non-apostolic, non-inspired early Christians or historians for your benefit. You can certainly modify that. That the RCC now uses mechanical instruments cannot be denied, so we are dicussing whether it has the authority to do so from either the NT or early apostolic tradition. Or were the instruments added much later, with no scriptural nor "traditional" authority - just added for no good reason.
Your gonna have to clarify what your talking about What subject meaning Salvation , priest , confession, Mary , worship , mass Rosary , saints what do you want to debate ?
Sorry .. it's on page 2, Why don't you try this one: Resolved, the Roman Catholic Church derives its authority for the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship from either the New Testament or the traditions of the early "church fathers." By "early", let's say prior to 300 AD. How's that? Fair enough?" I just copied and pasted it.
Where did you get that from protestant word , listen I am prepared to justify the catholic church through mass, priest, Mary Honor , rosary , salvation... are you not educated in these areas?Now listen i am at a comment limit per 15 minutes so I will be back i want a challenge
I issued you one - twice. If I got that "protestant" word, I got it from you - I don't use it, don't believe in it, think it's ridiculous, and never claimed to be one. I simply picked a topic for discussion because we are not going to disagree much at all on salvation. So I chose instrumental music in worship. I deny the proposition. I supppose you affirm it. I'll recopy and repaste it.
If you want to debate on this subject , Y&our going to have to make it a little more specific Tell me exactly your argument for instrumental worship what exactly is your quarrel.I am having difficulty following you on this subject for I never even thought about it in debate before and feel its doesn't matter one way or the other.
Here it is again: Resolved, the Roman Catholic Church derives its authority for the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship from either the New Testament or the traditions of the early "church fathers." By "early", let's say prior to 300 AD. How's that? Fair enough?" I can debate you on salvation, but I think it will be over technicalities - yet educational. I'll do that if you prefer. And I have to bowl tonight (we're in 1st place), and won't be back until around 9 central.
I'll even debate you from the position of "salvation by faith only" - even though I vehemently deny it. True, I would feel very uncomfortable - and we both believe essentially the same thing. Whatever the case - whatever you want - I promise you will not see one single slur, not one derogatory remark, nothing of the sort. I feel the instrumental music question to be of more value, but if you want the best "faith only" shots fired your way, I can do it. It's your site - I am a guest.
I am here to learn. And either way, I will. The challenge is own the RCC's use of the organ and other instruments. If that's unacceptable, choose another and I shall agree to it and do my best. Either way, my goal is to learn.
That's why I suggested: "Resolved, the Roman Catholic Church derives its authority for the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship from either the New Testament or the traditions of the early "church fathers." By "early", let's say prior to 300 AD. How's that? Fair enough?" I thought it was very fair, and I will deny it. Will you affirm it? Or is that something just done with no authority at all - somebody just made it up? THAT was what I asked, but you did not respond.
Many of you believe that COnstintine made the catholic church , in 300 , this is false he only embraced it , his mother was a saint She found the actual cross Jesus was crucified on .Jesus started the universal church universal means catholic. A protestant is one claiming to be Christian but against the catholic church.
No, I am totally in favor of the New Testament church - I am not Protestant at all. I prefer the New Testament church in its simplicity. I'll pick the one below on instrumental music because it is easy for both of us. The way it is worded, you have the affirmative if you want it, and the first affirmative is to be presented first. If any objections, then let me know and we'll modify it.
Your anti catholic and claim to be a Christian , your a protestant there is know escaping that it is what it is.If you are in favor of the New testament church and what it says then you of course would be in favor of the church but you are not or we wouldnt be in argument.
I am most in favor of the New Testament church as established on the Day of Pentecost. I said I am just a Christian and Christian only. That's all I seek to be: that's all they were in the 1st century. No, I am not a Protestant - if I were, I would say so. I do not belong to any denomination: such things are unknown to the NT, so why would I want to get mixed up with them?
I dont know why this is so hard to explain you claim to be Christian , you claim to be against the catholic church , you are a protestant I am sorry but the term means that you protest against the catholic church.Its ok but just so you know The catholic church was the first Christian church.
I'm not against a catholic (universal) church as such, and I believe the Bible teaches such. I believe the disciples were first called "Christians" at Antioch, and that's justtttt what I wanna be called. I believe Paul said, "If any man suffer as a Christian..." OK, that's what I want to be. As I said, I strive to be a Christian and a Christian only - I care not for human names or creeds. I added the "early post-apostolic Christian" part for your benefit because I know you value traditions.
The first church was founded by Jesus the universal(catholic) church.Those churches you mentioned were protestant denominations that broke off of the catholic church I stated to you in my message that the subject of musical instruments does not interest me .
Oh, I nearly forgot and suppose it's irrelevant to the subject suggested for debate, but I am under the impression that the first congregation or church built by Christ was in Jerusalem and spread from there, and it was simply called "the church." Later, it is referred to as the church of God, church of The Firstborn, churches of Christ, etc. That's about all I'd call it: the church of God, the church, the church of Christ. To call it "Baptist" or "Methodist" is, I believe, disrespectful.
as long as it is proper form (a correct Trinitarian baptism) and proper matter (flowing water), then the baptism is valid
the verse you quoted says nothing about a full immersion if that is what you are getting at
John could have cupped his hands to fill with water and poured it on His Head... what if the Jordan was only ankle deep where they went... how would that have worked?
and you of course are using your own bias in your interp tc... there is nothing wrong with baptism by full immersion... in fact, it was the way i was baptized
as long as there is proper form ( in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit) and matter (flowing water) with the right intention, then the baptism is valid... though for the life of me i have no idea why you would want to do a full immersion baptism on a baby
one has nothing to do with the other planset... it is the sacrament we are talking about... not when it should be done... if baptism removes the taint of original sin, (as it does) then it should be done as soon as possible ... just as His Church teaches (as well as OTHER ecclesial communities)
why do you baptize babys? incase they die young? what about abortions and miscarriages then?
continuing repentance at a confession "booth" thats nowhere mentioned in scripture.. you must be Born again.. practice righteousness in life and live for Christ..
um sir.. im not a protestant.. martin luther, calvin spurgeon were false teachers just like the catholic church fathers..
purgatory is a lie.. and you cant pray to saints to pray to God to let people out of hell.. its manmade doctrine your following and traditions of men (Colossians 2:8)
no false teaching pagan recieved the authority from Lord Jesus Christ or any true apostle of his.. Peter and Paul would not hand it over to Ignatius or clement, they wrote lies..
if you are not in communion with His Church, then you are protesting something
i am truly sorry with either your catechesis was bad or you just did not ACCEPT the TRUTH that can be found ONLY in His Church planset
and just so you know... you can't pray anyone out of hell ... if you are in hell , you are there forever... i guess that's one MORE thing that you don't know about the faith
well i heard that necromancy or whatever, that they actually pray for people in hell.. none the less, whats with the Skeloton relics man? mhh..
own understanding? no i rely on Jesus Christ teachings.. you rely on MEN to teach you as a catholic.. your trust is in Man (1 John 2:27)
who were the apostles, they were men who learned from what? Christ word, thats what i do.. you Learn From mans word.. and Tradition of man, and fellowship with it..
i'm saying you are following YOUR (or your ecclesial community) idea of what is taught in His Word ... and as we know , that's what caused over 37k ecclesial communities to splinter from the Body of Christ, all thinking that "they" have the "truth"
so why are you not obedient to His Commands ? He tells us we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood so that we may have life in us and He will raise us up on the last day... the ONLY place you can do that is HIS CHURCH
you are aware that His Church existed for almost 400 years before the Catholic Church councils (yes, you can thank us for that also) determined which books were actually INSPIRED by God and put them in the Canon of Holy Scripture... now how do you think all the believers were able to get the TRUTH up until then... it was His Church, which the bible tells us is the pillar and foundation of TRUTH
planset... for "Catholic Church" being an empty word ... it's interesting that the bishop of Antioch, where believers of the Way were FIRST called Christians had this to say at the end of the 1st century or very beginning of the 2nd
`Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church'' Ignatius of Antioch,
not at all... ever heard that the priest acts In Persona Christi , by virtue of his Holy Orders
so, would you at least answer my question about your catechesis..were you really brought up in the faith? i'm guessing no, since there is so much that you are confused about
you were baptized Catholic (a good thing), but did you ever make your first communion? how about confirmation? my guess is maybe for the first and no for the 2nd
sir, if your looking upon the Bishop as you would upon the Lord HIMSELF, then you are an idolater and your soul is on its way to hell(Revelation 21:8) you need to repent today.
and as a kid i had communion, confirmation, CCD for years, i was an altar boy as well, thank Christ im not anymore..
thanks for the honesty.. it is once again a shame that you learned so little in your catechesis ... had you REALLY learned about the faith, maybe you would have not made the egregious error of turning your back on our Lord by leaving His Church
Catholicism teaches a false Christ and a false Gospel, lies, idolatry.. if your trying to justify looking upon a bishop "Man" as you would upon the lord himself, thats idolatry sir.. theres no justifying that..
as far as i know, the Gospel is that Jesus was born, Jesus was crucified, Jesus was resurrected , then after 40 days on final instruction for His Priest, He ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father .. now exactly WHAT is false about that? what were YOU taught ?
btw... in order to be an idolater, i would actually have to worship the bishop... since that is a ludicrous possibility as no Catholic that i know of has any problem at all recognizing the difference between the spiritual head of a diocese and the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity
tell you what planset... see if that site where you got this quote actually referenced it... i'd LOVE to read it in context... that "therefore" had to follow something wouldn't you think?
For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household,[4] as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself, standing, as he does, before the Lord.
makes quite a bit of difference in the understanding doesn't it?
well if you mix Lies in with the doctrine and try to justify it by bending verses... False Christs are preached out in the world.. lies.. what i gave you of ignatius was one of MANY of his and other "early church father" quotes that are lies and false teaching.. they were false teachers, and thats your trust? Man? and that context still say to look upon the bishop as you would upon the LORD HIMSELF.. you actually would do that? like looking at Christ the same as a Mortal man bishop in RCC?
really? so it's your contention there is no CHurch of our Lord in the first 2nd or 3rd cecnturies... nor Catholic CHurch Councils which established what was and was not inspired and should be put in the bible? really???
then WHY did you try to use a quote that you admit is alie... to try to discredit the Church of our Lord... seems like you logic is a little whack if you ask me
what are you talking about? if a "catholic church father" you trust was a liar.. is that who you call a man of God.. one who promotes a lie in epistle or whatever? did paul promote lies in scripture? did peter in scripture? no, yet the E.C.F's did...
there was no lie in that writing planset... that you do not understand it is certainly not my fault
it sounds to me that since the ECF's did not believe what you believe then that automatically makes them liars.... hmmmmmmmmm where is the logical fallacy in that?
the thing that continues to amaze me is that you say you were brought up Catholic and yet you do not look at things from a Catholic viewpoint... makes me wonder who or what it was that made you decide to leave the Fullness of Truth found ONLY in the Church of our Lord for something that pales in comparison
and once again i point out that it is YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the comment that is lacking here ... and since you allegedly were Catholic, it is even more puzzling why you continue to persist in showing how little you understood about the faith that you left... though it is making more and more sense ... you were easily deceived into believing something OTHER THAN the TRUTH , because you did NOT understand THE TRUTH
sir, i wont look upon the Bishop as i would upon the LORD HIMSLEF in ANY CONTEXT.. i look upon God as God and only GOD that way.. so theres no being decieved there.. the RCC is not the truth, you put your trust in historical tradition it seems to think so.. not Gods word and how RCC is against it.. (Colossians 2:8)
since the Church predated the canon of Holy Scripture by almost 400 years...and then the Catholic Councils were responsible for determining what was actually INSPIRED and should be included, i think we have a pretty good handle on God's Word... we are certainly the only entity AUTHORIZED to interpret the Word properly... when it is not interpreted with the mind of the Church , then the interp is just private speculation... which has led to over 37k ecclesial communities out there
actually whatever books were chosen of the bible, God made them do that.. it wasnt on there will.. (Romans 11:36) and did you exist back then? no.. so whos your trust in? Man? tradition of Man? "historical documents of Man"? exactly..
so the interpretation is only Private according to the RCC way of it is what your saying? whats the bible say about that? (2 Peter 1:20-21)
ah...so you agree those books determined to be inspired by the Councils in the 4th century were indeed the books that should be in the bible ... becauue God led them to know they were the ones that were inspired ...then why did the protestants decided to remove 7 books and parts of 2 others ... weren't they taking a HUGE RISK by going against what John said in revelation 22:19
you mean books like the tobit???? thats not inspired.. infact Jews dont even use those books.. those are added, thats why you should get rid of those books.. today...
check the greek testament for comparison on KJN/NKJV/NASB early Church fathers did NOT have the Holy Ghost.. and those denominations are wrong if they have false teachings.. the church Christ purchased is NOT, repeat NOT the Catholic Church..
and yet from your very mouth you stated that God told them which books were inspired..you can't have it both ways you know..if they got it right on the 27 books of the NT,then they also got it right on the 46 COMPLETE books of the OT
just keep lying to yourself planset..should you ever wish to take Cardinal John Newman, a convert to the faith himself, up on his admonition, maybe you will see the truth
he said to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant..praying you will find the TRUTH
first off, im not a protestant. regardless if you want to call me one.. im a Christian.. infact, i "protest" against protestants AND the Catholics, i disagree with them.. so what am i? im a Christian.. and you can throw whatever "history quotes" or whatever at me.. point blank, YOU WERENT THERE, so whos your trust in that that even happend? (MAN), thats who.
and God let all that happend.. the bible today, the greel manuscripts.. its all put there by God. my bible i own was put there by God
actually check the Gree NT manuscripts.. and i want to be in Christs church, thats exactly why im not in the RCC church, its no the church of Christ.. also, im not a protestant, i disagree with protestants.. so im a christian, not a Catholic.. the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.(Acts 11:26)
i am aware where members of the Way were first called Christian... and yet you seem to think that less than 1 generation after that , Ignatius, as Bishop of the Church of our Lord in Antioch was a liar ...
may our Lord remove the scales from your eyes and the hardness from your heart and grant you the GRACE to come into the FULLNESS of TRUTH that can be found ONLY in His Church , and the humility to accept that GRACE... or may He have mercy on your soul
The Apocrypha is a group of writings (or books) that are contained in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (called the Septuagint, abbreviated LXX), but are not in the Hebrew Old Testament (which should be a big clue towards understanding their spurious nature)
those are the deuterocanonical books planset... apocrypha are books that were not determined to be inspired by the 3 or 4 Church Councils who determined what the Canon of Holy Scripture was
let me ask you this so YOU can catch a clue...why would you accept what the jews decided was scripture and not what the Christians decided was scripture???
its not in the hebrew.. who was Abraham, Moses, Isaac? so ADDED books to the O.T. that you believe are TRUE word of God, its actually added.. did the Jews have those books for there scripture before Christ came.. when it was the old covenant? plus i looked into problems with the Added books, so the 66 books of the bible are inspired.. you should look up on that..
already have...that's why i KNOW that Jesus quoted from those books,and that is one of the reasons that the CHRISTIAN bible contains them..again, when it comes to the bible, why would you accept what the jews determined were scripture , and not what the NEW COVENANT CHURCH decided..if you obviously accept the NT as inspired by God, then you MUST also accept the OT books as being inspired by God..problems?only that you don't accept what is inspired by God as scripture is the problem that you have
Actually the Apocrapha are the books never making to the Bible . protestants seem to think that the Apocrapha is the 7 books in the catholic Bible not in the KJV or any other protestant version they are wrong.The Alexandrian version Jesus used as well as the Hebrew.
Challenge me on any subject in private or here,I am ready I want to be able to type a big quanity of words at a time so Hit me in private and I will answer all to point of you not only questioning your own faith but seriously considering conversion to the one true church the catholic(universal)church
I'll challenge you, anytime that's convenient for you, and allow you to choose the subject. All I ask is that the basis for the study be the scriptures alone - not traditions, not later additions: the Bible alone will be our guide - we shall see if you agree to that.
lets try your favorite subject salvation You believe by faith alone i believe otherwise your move . Oh and by the way know where in the Bible does solo scripture exist .That is a made up tradition by Luther .
If you claim to be Christian , and do not agree with the Catholic church, then you are a protestant and a member of one of the 45000 + protestant denominations who all claim to be Christian. A protestant protests against the catholic church so do you there for your a protestant.
show me the term Pope, Nun, Catholic, Purgatory, or transubstantiation in the bible.. give me the chapter and verse...
do you want to see where it says Christian? (1 Peter 4:16; Acts 11:26)
Catholics are idolaters, if you are an idolater, your on your way to hell(Rev 21:8), if you follow the pope, you are on your way to hell(John 10:5), Repent, and turn to the true Jesus Christ. Flee from the false Christ that the RCC teaches (2Cr 11:4)
Pope means vicar of Christ The first Pope is in the Bible his name is Peter who Jesus appointed Nuns are woman giving their lives to God and make a vow of chastity . Catholic means universal and that is the church Jesus founded.Purgatory 1Peter3:19 in it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison .
I can show you where they are: write them on the front inside cover or someplace - that's about the only was you'll "get them in the Bible" - while you're at it write "archbishop, cardinal, monk, and even the name Roman Catholic Church, indulgences, etc" - pretty soon you'll just have a whole different Bible.
That's YOUR definition: actually the order of churches is: (1) the New Testament Church which Jesus established, (2) The Roman Catholic church (of which the Bible knows nothing), and the Greek church (also of which the Bible knows nothing).
Actually heretic in fact the Catholic church knows the bible we put it together. Also The catholic Miscellany recently had an article on the Pope addressing that every catholic should read and understand scripture.I know and study scripture you claim to however I have the truth.
No, you didn't put it together: the early Christians did. If the RCC knows the Bible, then I'd suggest they follow it - just an humble suggestion. I'll glady debate the topic of salvation, but feel that we are going to share the same views. Go ahead and try if you want.
Why don't you try this one: Resolved, the Roman Catholic Church derives its authority for the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship from either the New Testament or the traditions of the early "church fathers." By "early", let's say prior to 300 AD. How's that? Fair enough?
Try 33ad . The fathers began with Jesus and the apostles who are the church fathers. And if you dont agre with your protestan brothers on faith alone then what de3nomination are you? I was under teh impresion taht you all agreed on that one (baptist presbyterian,Lutheran .....)
I am not a member of any denomination - I believe them (the concept) to be completely wrong. I seek to be a Christian and a Christian only - to say that I have Protestant "brothers" would be a slight stretch. Try AD 33? The church began in AD 33 in Jerusalem just as was prophesied. I'd be happy to just stick with Jesus and the apostles. You said that I affirm salvation by faith alone; well, that was mistake #1, and it would be fruitless to debate "salvation." So I suggested another subject.
Well if you believe that faith is not all one needs and that not all faithful will go to heaven that one must account for their sins then we dont have a debate on salvation in the future .Lets do another you pick it but one at time your not the only one I debate.
I'm NOT anti-catholic at all. I hope the church is universal. I said twice that any debate on salvation would be pretty lame; that's why I suggested another subject. Apparently, that subject is outside of your comfort zone. You have apparently successfully debated actual Protestants who believe in salvation by faith only. The suggested subject is very legitimate, but you have yet to even acknowledge whether you can debate it at all. The ball is in your court.
We are not idolaters(I believe I taught you this lesson) WE honor not worship Mary all one would have to do is come to one mass to know we are the true church and the church Jesus intended to have on earth not 45000+protestant denominations you belong to You speak against Christ you will go to Hell
if you are not a member of His Church , the Body of Christ, then you are "protestant"... if you were not protesting something about His Church , then you would be in it
those 73 books in the bible have been there since the 4th century ... you can't be a hypocrite and accept the NT as inspired w/o accepting the 46 books of the OT as inspired...contrary to popular belief, your KJV didn't fly from the heavens leather bound with gold leaf pages and the Words of Jesus in red
so it is your contention that all those that interpret the bible were "moved by the Holy Ghost".... if that is so, why do you have over 37k ecclesial communities out there, all splintered from His Church , ALL believing it is THEIR interpretation that is correct, even though they ALL believe they are being led by the Holy Ghost
the Holy Ghost is NOT about chaos planset..and there is only ONE TRUTH..i'll give you 3 guesses where you can find that TRUTH..it is in the Church instituted by Jesus
I made a web site about salvation. It will add to what you already know. Please stop by and read 'Salvation According to Scripture' and let me know what you think. You can use the message board to respond.
(Just a note) Chrisianity was born in Judaism. Jesus is Jewish. Baptism originated in Judiasm, i.e. mikvah, ritual bath. Now that This is made clear, let's move on to faith. Faith in not reduced to belief. Faith involves action. Therefore, belief is not sufficient for salvation. Actions are required. (James 2:24) This man is right. Baptism is not a work of man, but a work of God. There is a scripture for this in the epistles. Finally, the demons believe in Jesus as Son of God and tremble. Saved?
The true baptism, is by faith alone,we all must be baptised at the Jordan river in faith in Christ water is just symbolic,john baptised by water but jesus baptised by spirit.....it's our faith not actual water dunking lol...
I should also mention John baptised by water because he never had the spirit yet! therefore he did it symbolic with water because water is considered the most holy thing(clean thing) outside of God himself...water baptism is just another form of steps in your faith but you can reach full salvation through your true baptism in faith in Christ...john just did the next best thing symbolicialy
after all i know many people who have been water dunked lol who have no idea who Jesus is! are they saved ? but yet have no faith...
John did it with water because it was symbolic,after all john could not give one the holy spirit, only Christ could give the Spirit John knew this....remeber the theif on the cross! he was saved by his faith! after all he recieved no water baptism(examples of this in scripture are endless.
symbolic steps strengthens faith but does not save one!
How do you KNOW the thief had not been baptized? You assume so but Scripture does not tell us.
What we do know is that the thief ACTED on his belief in Christ. See he did not simply believe...he ACTED by REPENTING confessing Jesus...see FAITH is an ACTION word NOT just simply belief...what if this thief had not SAID anything but simply had faith? Would we be saying that he was saved today?
The old covenant did not require baptism. The Holy Spirit had not been loosed yet. etc etc...
Faith is your action! the theif acted by his own words,if he said nothing Christ who knows everyones heart including the theif's knew how he felt before speaking,Jesus himself said it was your "faith" that made you whole! countless scriptures speaks of a faith saving encounters with Christ no water! I am not against the water baptism after all Christ himself allowed John to Baptise Him,as well his disiples also baptised ......
bruiser333 you are mistaken and i would hope you would repent for stating that John did not have the holy ghost, have you not read in the scriptures St.Luke 1:15, John was born with the Holy Ghost!!! I also know that the "father?" in the video while talking about baptism, baptize incorrect. the correct way is Acts2:38,10:44-48,19:1-5,22:16. JESUS CHRIST is the Father,he was in the Son,he is the Holy Spirit, thats where you get the name JESUS CHRIST!! Peace
This guy says that we have to prove we love God by baptism. This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. As if God won't be able to tell whether or not we love Him based on our heart or other actions.
This is sad. He doesn't understand. All that Scripture studying and no relationship with Christ.
I just watched jezuzfreek777's "is baptism necessary" and I've got to say, he provides a stronger point towards the significance of baptism, btw i was baptized as a child through catholicism, however, it seemed pointless due to the fact i didn't understand the purpose of my baptism, isn't it more important to be baptized understanding the reason and purpose first? it should be the individual's own decision to be baptized not someone elses.
Although not Roman Catholic, Father Nathan is an ordained priest in an organized church. He is a member of the Communion of Convergence Churches. It is an unusual mix of both catholic and protestant ideas & teachings.
I would like to apologize to Father Nathan for all my rants.
I do hope that he does clarify somewhere on this channel that he is NOT an RC priest so as to pre-empt any future confusion about the exact nature of his priesthood and ordination.
The Romans did not break Jesus' legs b/c He was already dead. The Romans broke the thieves' legs b/c they were still alive. Therefore, the thief, who Jesus (God -- 2nd person of the Trinity) promised salvation died in the New Covenent. Water baptism is not necessary. If water baptism were necessary, then there would be no exceptions. Case closed. Bible wins.
you can go to heaven and not be baptised....being batptised is being obedient to God which believers should do, personally i still need to do it, but if i dont get baptised i will still go to heaven
Oh and I forgot 1 more thing. It is however quite bad NOT to get baptized if you HAVE the chance to do so. I mean that if you had the chance to testify to others that you have accepted God but do not is blasphemous.
Baptism as an infant also does not make sense, considering the fact that the act of baptism and the testimony to all those who witness as a sign of acceptance of God. How does an infant who doesn't really know who God is yet accept Him as his Lord and Saviour.
But if say you accept Christ in your death bed and ask for forgiveness for your sins but could not be baptized cause he died 2 seconds later. Does he go to heaven or hell? Obviously if he did truly mean that he accepted Christ he will be with the Father and Christ in heaven.
And no you do not NEED to be baptized to be saved. But it is actually a symbol to all who witness your baptism and a testimony to others that you have accepted Christ as your Lord and Saviour.
jesusfreek first of all just wanted to lay out the fact that there might be people out there who oppose the validity and does not want to argue that fact.
if you have told one lie,your a liar.if you have stolen even once,your a theif.if you have looked with lust,you are an adulterer and you have to face GOD on judgment day! rev.21v8-says all liars will have their part in the lake of fire! you must repent or you will perish!
And again, for Lydia's household, the other example you used for infant baptism. Why must we assume that this household contains infants? Would it not make more sense for each of these people of her household to also have repented of their sins just as peter had required in the previous example?
From one's perspective to another's...so it goes. When Peter speaks of the promise being for their children as well...back up just a bit and read what comes before that. Why would you assume that these children wouldn't have to 1)understand what they are hearing(if they're there), and 2)"repent and be baptized..FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS"?
I believe the Bible is the word of God and that if we love him we will keep his commandments. All of them. That is why I cannot condone keeping Sunday as the Sabbath. I also believe that we should be baptized because the Bible says that we need to. It is quite clear.
Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church's teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).
This man "Father Nathan" is not a catholic priest. He is a 23 year old kid who, for at least the past year, has been trying to pass himself off as a priest.
Want proof?
Check with the diocese of Pensacola/Tallahasse Florida.
The parish he talks about, St. Marks, is an abondoned building he fixed up and made "his church" it is not a parish or part of a diocese.
yep sounds like a bunch of fuzz......hehe, hows that scripture comin...you know the one that says......."freely you have received, freely give"?? or does that elude you??
leadstring66 6 months ago
brainwashed pagens....LOL. hows the christmas tree doin, and the easter eggs?? they stink yet??
leadstring66 6 months ago
BAPTISM is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church: the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.
TrainmasterCurt 11 months ago
I say good video, it needs God's plan of salvation according to Acts 2:38. This is the way the church got started and the Jews, Gentiles, and Samaritans all came the same way. Acts 2:4, 2:38, 10:44--48, 19:1-6, Mark 16:16, Romans 6:3-5, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:27, Ephesians 4:5-6. 1 Peter 3:21. One can't escape baptism of the water and spirit. There's no sinner's prayer in the Bible. We have to come the way God set it up on Pentecost. The Bible way is the only way. man can't change it.
rossdaboss1959 1 year ago
The Gospel of Jesus Christ, that he taught to his apostles, is still, "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the NAME of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." That's it, in its most simplest form.
No Hail Mary's. no Our Father's, no believe in a trinity or be condemned.
ThePhnxman1 1 year ago
and(((((( they went down both into the water))))))), and both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when(((((( they were come up out of the water,)))))) Acts Chapter 8, beginning with verse 36,
dewerbylhserf 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And Philip said, 'If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest'. And he answered and said, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God'. And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and ((((they went down both into the water)))), and both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, Acts Chapter 8, beginning with verse 36,
dewerbylhserf 1 year ago
And when they were come ((( up out of the water,))))) THAT IS THE BIBLE !!!
dewerbylhserf 1 year ago
And Philip said, 'If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest'. And he answered and said, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God'. And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down both into the water, and both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, Acts Chapter 8, beginning with verse 36,
dewerbylhserf 1 year ago
When God speaks and makes a decree He speaks by His Living Word and He is bound to His own promises and divine purposes. We cannot go into God's presence without a promise from His Word.
dewerbylhserf 1 year ago
The good news is that Jesus is the Lamb of God; the perfect sacrifice for all mankind. If you simply come to Jesus and believe His Word you will be forgiven. There is a cry in the heart of God to draw His people into His love and peace. All you need is found in Jesus the Lamb of God!
dewerbylhserf 1 year ago
there is a right way, the bible specify immersion that's not being sprinkled, Jesus himself was fully immersed underneath the water not sprinkled so there is a right way and and a wrong way the bible speaks of the correct way and if your gonna fully obey Jesus then i think you should be baptized the way he was,
reggie02062 1 year ago
@FatherNathan
BTW, you posed a fantastic question at the end of the video. If someone doesn't even believe that baptism is essential - why would they care about the mode of baptism in a particular denomination?
It appears that some simply try to find opportunities to attack others simply for self-gratification.
God Bless.
DefendingMormonism 2 years ago
@FatherNathan
Though you and I obviously have disagreements on certain points of doctrine, and even in the mode of baptism, I appreciate your conviction, and have come to know how much in common I have with Catholics. God Bless.
DefendingMormonism 2 years ago
baptism doth also now save us...BY THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST
believe he is resurrected be saved be baptized to show you are saved
Romans 10:9-That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
God Bless
Cblevins0020 2 years ago
@Cblevins0020 That verse does not say by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Of course as Catholics we believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected and bought for us salvation. No one says you don't have to confess Jesus as Lord ALSO to be saved. We just don't believe confession alone is part of our salvation process.
FatherNathan 2 years ago
@FatherNathan YOU NEED TO READ THE BIBLE
dewerbylhserf 1 year ago
@Mr. Nathan -- We preach the Gospel, and the Gospel alone to be saved. You talk about the Gospel, and teach another form of salvation. But then, "A man cannot give what he doesn't have." (C.M.Villa)
ThePhnxman1 1 year ago
this is the reason why the church in this day and age is nothing but lukewarm wishy washy
leadstring66 2 years ago
Do you fear the commandment ....thou shalt not add or take away from the word in which i command you??
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. Matt 3:11
"For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" Matthew 26:28
you obviouslly dont if you accept that
\/
leadstring66 2 years ago
John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sin. Mark 1:4
And he said unto them. This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many. Mark 14:22-24
leadstring66 2 years ago
i dont see anything there that says, believe and baptize to be saved do you??
leadstring66 2 years ago
@leadstring66 Mark 16:15 And he said to them, Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
FatherNathan 2 years ago
@leadstring66 Christ will baptise you with Fire this is the requirement only.And that is by Grace alone.When we start worrying of outward salvation then we are seeking a false way it is of Spirit and repentance remember He is intrested what is on the inside of the bowl not the outside.And He can search the Heart know it's intention to humble in Spirit and repent is priceless to cry out a hundred hail mary's is in vain.You are saved by Grace there is nothing you can do to earn it.
korzon 1 year ago
@leadstring66 Remeber John said i baptise in water but the one who will come after me will baptise in Fire Thats the baptism you realy wan't and this is what John was speaking of.They were also baptising in the name of Abraham because they were Jews and non jews converting to Christianity for the new Covanant.What would be more important being done at birth or doing under youre own addmitance and acceptance when you grow up?Or is this something that is all in the Package deal with being Chosen?
korzon 1 year ago
this is the Testimony of Jesus Christ from and Apostle
18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
leadstring66 2 years ago
LOL, i suggest you go look up in matthew, you know the scripture your cult likes to pervert to say peter is the head of your church??
"Who is authorized to bind on earth, before you make conclusions, especially about the validity of scripture.
those who cant tell a perversion of the Testimony of Jesus Christ will surly perish.....because you do not respect or fear the commandment to....."not add or take away from the word in which i command thee."
leadstring66 2 years ago
Water Immersion will not Save you only a Genuine Heart Repentance will lead you to the Grace of His Father
Yeshua says to Believe, belief what? Belief in Him that He is truly the Son of ADONAI. Repent and Believe. Receive Grace, the Forgiveness of your Sins, receive Eternal Life, a new heart, mind and spirit
and then come and be Immersed in water.
Believe and then Immerse!
I was sprinkled into catholicism as an infant. I neither Believed or was Immersed. Talk about LIES and OPPRESSION!
Christian3269 2 years ago
Romans 6 Paul states that during Baptism into Jesus we are planted into His death--we are dead to sin-the wages of sin is death.
When we are raised out of the water we are raised in the likeness of His resurrection and we are made to drink His Spirit--we are filled with the Holy Ghost--made alive in Christ.
we are the church
we are members of His body
are name is written in the book of life
we are joint heirs with Christ
we are sons in a royal priesthood
we are reborn and regenerated
wilby1414 3 years ago
And I purposely chose a very specific topic so that neither of us would be tempted to stray from the subject. I also picked one with which both would be very familiar and is very documentable from both sacred and profane history. You have been debating ignorant Protestants who affirm "faith only" salvation - that's easy, too easy. Even the weakest smatterer could refute their "faith only" arguments.
bjobe1964 3 years ago
Actually, I added the use of testimony of non-apostolic, non-inspired early Christians or historians for your benefit. You can certainly modify that. That the RCC now uses mechanical instruments cannot be denied, so we are dicussing whether it has the authority to do so from either the NT or early apostolic tradition. Or were the instruments added much later, with no scriptural nor "traditional" authority - just added for no good reason.
bjobe1964 3 years ago
Your gonna have to clarify what your talking about What subject meaning Salvation , priest , confession, Mary , worship , mass Rosary , saints what do you want to debate ?
onclave6 3 years ago
Sorry .. it's on page 2, Why don't you try this one: Resolved, the Roman Catholic Church derives its authority for the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship from either the New Testament or the traditions of the early "church fathers." By "early", let's say prior to 300 AD. How's that? Fair enough?" I just copied and pasted it.
bjobe1964 3 years ago
Where did you get that from protestant word , listen I am prepared to justify the catholic church through mass, priest, Mary Honor , rosary , salvation... are you not educated in these areas?Now listen i am at a comment limit per 15 minutes so I will be back i want a challenge
onclave6 3 years ago
I issued you one - twice. If I got that "protestant" word, I got it from you - I don't use it, don't believe in it, think it's ridiculous, and never claimed to be one. I simply picked a topic for discussion because we are not going to disagree much at all on salvation. So I chose instrumental music in worship. I deny the proposition. I supppose you affirm it. I'll recopy and repaste it.
bjobe1964 3 years ago
If you want to debate on this subject , Y&our going to have to make it a little more specific Tell me exactly your argument for instrumental worship what exactly is your quarrel.I am having difficulty following you on this subject for I never even thought about it in debate before and feel its doesn't matter one way or the other.
onclave6 3 years ago
Here it is again: Resolved, the Roman Catholic Church derives its authority for the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship from either the New Testament or the traditions of the early "church fathers." By "early", let's say prior to 300 AD. How's that? Fair enough?" I can debate you on salvation, but I think it will be over technicalities - yet educational. I'll do that if you prefer. And I have to bowl tonight (we're in 1st place), and won't be back until around 9 central.
bjobe1964 3 years ago
I'll even debate you from the position of "salvation by faith only" - even though I vehemently deny it. True, I would feel very uncomfortable - and we both believe essentially the same thing. Whatever the case - whatever you want - I promise you will not see one single slur, not one derogatory remark, nothing of the sort. I feel the instrumental music question to be of more value, but if you want the best "faith only" shots fired your way, I can do it. It's your site - I am a guest.
bjobe1964 3 years ago
I am here to learn. And either way, I will. The challenge is own the RCC's use of the organ and other instruments. If that's unacceptable, choose another and I shall agree to it and do my best. Either way, my goal is to learn.
bjobe1964 3 years ago
That's why I suggested: "Resolved, the Roman Catholic Church derives its authority for the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship from either the New Testament or the traditions of the early "church fathers." By "early", let's say prior to 300 AD. How's that? Fair enough?" I thought it was very fair, and I will deny it. Will you affirm it? Or is that something just done with no authority at all - somebody just made it up? THAT was what I asked, but you did not respond.
bjobe1964 3 years ago
Many of you believe that COnstintine made the catholic church , in 300 , this is false he only embraced it , his mother was a saint She found the actual cross Jesus was crucified on .Jesus started the universal church universal means catholic. A protestant is one claiming to be Christian but against the catholic church.
onclave6 3 years ago
No, I am totally in favor of the New Testament church - I am not Protestant at all. I prefer the New Testament church in its simplicity. I'll pick the one below on instrumental music because it is easy for both of us. The way it is worded, you have the affirmative if you want it, and the first affirmative is to be presented first. If any objections, then let me know and we'll modify it.
bjobe1964 3 years ago
Your anti catholic and claim to be a Christian , your a protestant there is know escaping that it is what it is.If you are in favor of the New testament church and what it says then you of course would be in favor of the church but you are not or we wouldnt be in argument.
onclave6 3 years ago
I am most in favor of the New Testament church as established on the Day of Pentecost. I said I am just a Christian and Christian only. That's all I seek to be: that's all they were in the 1st century. No, I am not a Protestant - if I were, I would say so. I do not belong to any denomination: such things are unknown to the NT, so why would I want to get mixed up with them?
nikeshoxman 3 years ago
I dont know why this is so hard to explain you claim to be Christian , you claim to be against the catholic church , you are a protestant I am sorry but the term means that you protest against the catholic church.Its ok but just so you know The catholic church was the first Christian church.
onclave6 3 years ago
I'm not against a catholic (universal) church as such, and I believe the Bible teaches such. I believe the disciples were first called "Christians" at Antioch, and that's justtttt what I wanna be called. I believe Paul said, "If any man suffer as a Christian..." OK, that's what I want to be. As I said, I strive to be a Christian and a Christian only - I care not for human names or creeds. I added the "early post-apostolic Christian" part for your benefit because I know you value traditions.
bjobe1964 3 years ago
The first church was founded by Jesus the universal(catholic) church.Those churches you mentioned were protestant denominations that broke off of the catholic church I stated to you in my message that the subject of musical instruments does not interest me .
onclave6 3 years ago
Oh, I nearly forgot and suppose it's irrelevant to the subject suggested for debate, but I am under the impression that the first congregation or church built by Christ was in Jerusalem and spread from there, and it was simply called "the church." Later, it is referred to as the church of God, church of The Firstborn, churches of Christ, etc. That's about all I'd call it: the church of God, the church, the church of Christ. To call it "Baptist" or "Methodist" is, I believe, disrespectful.
bjobe1964 3 years ago
you look like obi-wan
metalmilitia1987 3 years ago
I'm glad someone actually knows what they're talking about. Thank you for posting this Father.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."
TrentHollis09 3 years ago
baby baptism is "sprinkling of water" on the head is it not?
look at real baptism by water Matthew 3:16
planset333 3 years ago
as long as it is proper form (a correct Trinitarian baptism) and proper matter (flowing water), then the baptism is valid
the verse you quoted says nothing about a full immersion if that is what you are getting at
John could have cupped his hands to fill with water and poured it on His Head... what if the Jordan was only ankle deep where they went... how would that have worked?
faithful827 3 years ago
re: faithful
The very word baptize means to "whelm" or "immerse" and when Jesus was baptized he "WENT UP straightway from the water"...
went up from NOT waded out of...
what a lame explanation you give...surely if you believe people were sprinkled from cupped hands you can give a verse yes?
I also read where Phillip and the Ethiopian went DOWN into the water...
We are BURIED with Christ in baptism and RAISED to walk in newness of life...Rom 6:4
NOTHING "ankle-deep" about it!
TruthChamp 3 years ago
and you of course are using your own bias in your interp tc... there is nothing wrong with baptism by full immersion... in fact, it was the way i was baptized
as long as there is proper form ( in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit) and matter (flowing water) with the right intention, then the baptism is valid... though for the life of me i have no idea why you would want to do a full immersion baptism on a baby
faithful827 3 years ago
well, was Jesus baptized as a baby, or when he was grown? think about that..
planset333 3 years ago
one has nothing to do with the other planset... it is the sacrament we are talking about... not when it should be done... if baptism removes the taint of original sin, (as it does) then it should be done as soon as possible ... just as His Church teaches (as well as OTHER ecclesial communities)
faithful827 3 years ago
why not let them repent first? makes biblical sense that way.. think about it.. baby baptism is very unbiblical (Proverbs 30:5-6)
i was baptized a baby "catholic" but i didnt know the True Christ till recently in life..
planset333 3 years ago
that is what confirmation is for .. to receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit after you have had a chance to understand the faith
were you not informed that by going to confession , you were suppose to REPENT of your sins and make a resolution to not to repeat them
faithful827 3 years ago
after? repentance comes first...
why do you baptize babys? incase they die young? what about abortions and miscarriages then?
continuing repentance at a confession "booth" thats nowhere mentioned in scripture.. you must be Born again.. practice righteousness in life and live for Christ..
did you know purgatory is a lie.
catholicism has commandments of men
(Matthew 15:9)
planset333 3 years ago
were you not told in your catechesis what the sacrament of baptism actually was?
you have been misled by the errors of protestantism planset...
1) we entrust them to the mercy of God
2)read John 20:23
3) too many verses to list.. purgatory is a revealed truth of the Church ...it is YOU who are confused
4) those men received the AUTHORITY from our Lord ... He told them "he who hears you, hears Me" ...why aren't YOU listening?
faithful827 3 years ago
um sir.. im not a protestant.. martin luther, calvin spurgeon were false teachers just like the catholic church fathers..
purgatory is a lie.. and you cant pray to saints to pray to God to let people out of hell.. its manmade doctrine your following and traditions of men (Colossians 2:8)
no false teaching pagan recieved the authority from Lord Jesus Christ or any true apostle of his.. Peter and Paul would not hand it over to Ignatius or clement, they wrote lies..
planset333 3 years ago
if you are not in communion with His Church, then you are protesting something
i am truly sorry with either your catechesis was bad or you just did not ACCEPT the TRUTH that can be found ONLY in His Church planset
and just so you know... you can't pray anyone out of hell ... if you are in hell , you are there forever... i guess that's one MORE thing that you don't know about the faith
faithful827 3 years ago
so i take it you rely on your OWN understanding of the faith ? and you know that you are correct in that understanding for what reason?
and if you are in an ecclesial community...aren't you accepting THEIR teaching and beliefs... isn't that following MAN'S doctrine?
faithful827 3 years ago
well i heard that necromancy or whatever, that they actually pray for people in hell.. none the less, whats with the Skeloton relics man? mhh..
own understanding? no i rely on Jesus Christ teachings.. you rely on MEN to teach you as a catholic.. your trust is in Man (1 John 2:27)
who were the apostles, they were men who learned from what? Christ word, thats what i do.. you Learn From mans word.. and Tradition of man, and fellowship with it..
planset333 3 years ago
as i said... i'm sorry your catechesis was so bad... did you even go to CCD in high school... didn't you parents teach you anything?
you are relying on your OWN understanding... are you a theologian? what are your qualifications? by whose authority do you interpret the bible?
the APostle's were taught by Christ Himself...since they were a dull lot, He was there to correct them when necessary
then He sent the Holy Spirit so His CHurch could be led into ALL TRUTH..protecting Her from error
faithful827 3 years ago
so are you saying Christ isnt here to correct me now? (1 John 2:27) so who corrects you? man? and Mans interpretation? (2 Peter 1:20)
i believe in Jesus Christ, and follow Christ (John 1:1)
your church is not the Church mentioned in the Bible.. infact "Catholic Church" is an empty word..
planset333 3 years ago
i'm saying you are following YOUR (or your ecclesial community) idea of what is taught in His Word ... and as we know , that's what caused over 37k ecclesial communities to splinter from the Body of Christ, all thinking that "they" have the "truth"
so why are you not obedient to His Commands ? He tells us we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood so that we may have life in us and He will raise us up on the last day... the ONLY place you can do that is HIS CHURCH
faithful827 3 years ago
you are aware that His Church existed for almost 400 years before the Catholic Church councils (yes, you can thank us for that also) determined which books were actually INSPIRED by God and put them in the Canon of Holy Scripture... now how do you think all the believers were able to get the TRUTH up until then... it was His Church, which the bible tells us is the pillar and foundation of TRUTH
faithful827 3 years ago
planset... for "Catholic Church" being an empty word ... it's interesting that the bishop of Antioch, where believers of the Way were FIRST called Christians had this to say at the end of the 1st century or very beginning of the 2nd
`Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church'' Ignatius of Antioch,
1st c. A.D
faithful827 3 years ago
therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. - Ignatius
idolatry... in this alone, Ignatius promotes a damning lie (Revelation 21:8).
planset333 3 years ago
not at all... ever heard that the priest acts In Persona Christi , by virtue of his Holy Orders
so, would you at least answer my question about your catechesis..were you really brought up in the faith? i'm guessing no, since there is so much that you are confused about
you were baptized Catholic (a good thing), but did you ever make your first communion? how about confirmation? my guess is maybe for the first and no for the 2nd
faithful827 3 years ago
sir, if your looking upon the Bishop as you would upon the Lord HIMSELF, then you are an idolater and your soul is on its way to hell(Revelation 21:8) you need to repent today.
and as a kid i had communion, confirmation, CCD for years, i was an altar boy as well, thank Christ im not anymore..
planset333 3 years ago
thanks for the honesty.. it is once again a shame that you learned so little in your catechesis ... had you REALLY learned about the faith, maybe you would have not made the egregious error of turning your back on our Lord by leaving His Church
faithful827 3 years ago
Catholicism teaches a false Christ and a false Gospel, lies, idolatry.. if your trying to justify looking upon a bishop "Man" as you would upon the lord himself, thats idolatry sir.. theres no justifying that..
planset333 3 years ago
as i said planset... there is no worship
what false Christ is it that you refer to?
as far as i know, the Gospel is that Jesus was born, Jesus was crucified, Jesus was resurrected , then after 40 days on final instruction for His Priest, He ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father .. now exactly WHAT is false about that? what were YOU taught ?
faithful827 3 years ago
btw... in order to be an idolater, i would actually have to worship the bishop... since that is a ludicrous possibility as no Catholic that i know of has any problem at all recognizing the difference between the spiritual head of a diocese and the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity
faithful827 3 years ago
tell you what planset... see if that site where you got this quote actually referenced it... i'd LOVE to read it in context... that "therefore" had to follow something wouldn't you think?
faithful827 3 years ago
oh my...look what we have here
For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household,[4] as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself, standing, as he does, before the Lord.
makes quite a bit of difference in the understanding doesn't it?
faithful827 3 years ago
well if you mix Lies in with the doctrine and try to justify it by bending verses... False Christs are preached out in the world.. lies.. what i gave you of ignatius was one of MANY of his and other "early church father" quotes that are lies and false teaching.. they were false teachers, and thats your trust? Man? and that context still say to look upon the bishop as you would upon the LORD HIMSELF.. you actually would do that? like looking at Christ the same as a Mortal man bishop in RCC?
planset333 3 years ago
really? so it's your contention there is no CHurch of our Lord in the first 2nd or 3rd cecnturies... nor Catholic CHurch Councils which established what was and was not inspired and should be put in the bible? really???
faithful827 3 years ago
then WHY did you try to use a quote that you admit is alie... to try to discredit the Church of our Lord... seems like you logic is a little whack if you ask me
faithful827 3 years ago
what are you talking about? if a "catholic church father" you trust was a liar.. is that who you call a man of God.. one who promotes a lie in epistle or whatever? did paul promote lies in scripture? did peter in scripture? no, yet the E.C.F's did...
planset333 3 years ago
there was no lie in that writing planset... that you do not understand it is certainly not my fault
it sounds to me that since the ECF's did not believe what you believe then that automatically makes them liars.... hmmmmmmmmm where is the logical fallacy in that?
faithful827 3 years ago
the thing that continues to amaze me is that you say you were brought up Catholic and yet you do not look at things from a Catholic viewpoint... makes me wonder who or what it was that made you decide to leave the Fullness of Truth found ONLY in the Church of our Lord for something that pales in comparison
faithful827 3 years ago
"we should look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself"
thats the quote thats a lie.. NO! we should NOT look upon a bishop "man" as we would upon the Lord himself..
planset333 3 years ago
and once again i point out that it is YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the comment that is lacking here ... and since you allegedly were Catholic, it is even more puzzling why you continue to persist in showing how little you understood about the faith that you left... though it is making more and more sense ... you were easily deceived into believing something OTHER THAN the TRUTH , because you did NOT understand THE TRUTH
faithful827 3 years ago
sir, i wont look upon the Bishop as i would upon the LORD HIMSLEF in ANY CONTEXT.. i look upon God as God and only GOD that way.. so theres no being decieved there.. the RCC is not the truth, you put your trust in historical tradition it seems to think so.. not Gods word and how RCC is against it.. (Colossians 2:8)
planset333 3 years ago
since the Church predated the canon of Holy Scripture by almost 400 years...and then the Catholic Councils were responsible for determining what was actually INSPIRED and should be included, i think we have a pretty good handle on God's Word... we are certainly the only entity AUTHORIZED to interpret the Word properly... when it is not interpreted with the mind of the Church , then the interp is just private speculation... which has led to over 37k ecclesial communities out there
faithful827 3 years ago
actually whatever books were chosen of the bible, God made them do that.. it wasnt on there will.. (Romans 11:36) and did you exist back then? no.. so whos your trust in? Man? tradition of Man? "historical documents of Man"? exactly..
so the interpretation is only Private according to the RCC way of it is what your saying? whats the bible say about that? (2 Peter 1:20-21)
planset333 3 years ago
ah...so you agree those books determined to be inspired by the Councils in the 4th century were indeed the books that should be in the bible ... becauue God led them to know they were the ones that were inspired ...then why did the protestants decided to remove 7 books and parts of 2 others ... weren't they taking a HUGE RISK by going against what John said in revelation 22:19
faithful827 3 years ago
you mean books like the tobit???? thats not inspired.. infact Jews dont even use those books.. those are added, thats why you should get rid of those books.. today...
check the greek testament for comparison on KJN/NKJV/NASB early Church fathers did NOT have the Holy Ghost.. and those denominations are wrong if they have false teachings.. the church Christ purchased is NOT, repeat NOT the Catholic Church..
planset333 3 years ago
and yet from your very mouth you stated that God told them which books were inspired..you can't have it both ways you know..if they got it right on the 27 books of the NT,then they also got it right on the 46 COMPLETE books of the OT
just keep lying to yourself planset..should you ever wish to take Cardinal John Newman, a convert to the faith himself, up on his admonition, maybe you will see the truth
he said to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant..praying you will find the TRUTH
faithful827 3 years ago
surely you are aware that the bible contained 73 books from the 4th century when the Canon was established aren't you?
surely you are aware that those books were not removed from the protestant bible until the late 1700s by the london bible society aren't you?
faithful827 3 years ago
first off, im not a protestant. regardless if you want to call me one.. im a Christian.. infact, i "protest" against protestants AND the Catholics, i disagree with them.. so what am i? im a Christian.. and you can throw whatever "history quotes" or whatever at me.. point blank, YOU WERENT THERE, so whos your trust in that that even happend? (MAN), thats who.
and God let all that happend.. the bible today, the greel manuscripts.. its all put there by God. my bible i own was put there by God
planset333 3 years ago
your following a church with Doctrines of devils, and seducing spirits.. (1 Tim 4:1-6)
i would never join RCC.. not that "BRAUD" way that leads to hell
planset333 3 years ago
then may God have mercy on your soul
faithful827 3 years ago
actually check the Gree NT manuscripts.. and i want to be in Christs church, thats exactly why im not in the RCC church, its no the church of Christ.. also, im not a protestant, i disagree with protestants.. so im a christian, not a Catholic.. the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.(Acts 11:26)
planset333 3 years ago
i am aware where members of the Way were first called Christian... and yet you seem to think that less than 1 generation after that , Ignatius, as Bishop of the Church of our Lord in Antioch was a liar ...
may our Lord remove the scales from your eyes and the hardness from your heart and grant you the GRACE to come into the FULLNESS of TRUTH that can be found ONLY in His Church , and the humility to accept that GRACE... or may He have mercy on your soul
faithful827 3 years ago
The Apocrypha is a group of writings (or books) that are contained in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (called the Septuagint, abbreviated LXX), but are not in the Hebrew Old Testament (which should be a big clue towards understanding their spurious nature)
planset333 3 years ago
those are the deuterocanonical books planset... apocrypha are books that were not determined to be inspired by the 3 or 4 Church Councils who determined what the Canon of Holy Scripture was
let me ask you this so YOU can catch a clue...why would you accept what the jews decided was scripture and not what the Christians decided was scripture???
faithful827 3 years ago
its not in the hebrew.. who was Abraham, Moses, Isaac? so ADDED books to the O.T. that you believe are TRUE word of God, its actually added.. did the Jews have those books for there scripture before Christ came.. when it was the old covenant? plus i looked into problems with the Added books, so the 66 books of the bible are inspired.. you should look up on that..
planset333 3 years ago
already have...that's why i KNOW that Jesus quoted from those books,and that is one of the reasons that the CHRISTIAN bible contains them..again, when it comes to the bible, why would you accept what the jews determined were scripture , and not what the NEW COVENANT CHURCH decided..if you obviously accept the NT as inspired by God, then you MUST also accept the OT books as being inspired by God..problems?only that you don't accept what is inspired by God as scripture is the problem that you have
faithful827 3 years ago
Actually the Apocrapha are the books never making to the Bible . protestants seem to think that the Apocrapha is the 7 books in the catholic Bible not in the KJV or any other protestant version they are wrong.The Alexandrian version Jesus used as well as the Hebrew.
onclave6 3 years ago
Challenge me on any subject in private or here,I am ready I want to be able to type a big quanity of words at a time so Hit me in private and I will answer all to point of you not only questioning your own faith but seriously considering conversion to the one true church the catholic(universal)church
onclave6 3 years ago
I'll challenge you, anytime that's convenient for you, and allow you to choose the subject. All I ask is that the basis for the study be the scriptures alone - not traditions, not later additions: the Bible alone will be our guide - we shall see if you agree to that.
bjobe1964 3 years ago
lets try your favorite subject salvation You believe by faith alone i believe otherwise your move . Oh and by the way know where in the Bible does solo scripture exist .That is a made up tradition by Luther .
onclave6 3 years ago
It's not MY move: I believe anything BUT salvation by faith alone - I deny it, totally, and don't know where you came up with it. So it's your move.
bjobe1964 3 years ago
And I will be discussing from the point of view of the church of Christ.
bjobe1964 3 years ago
If you claim to be Christian , and do not agree with the Catholic church, then you are a protestant and a member of one of the 45000 + protestant denominations who all claim to be Christian. A protestant protests against the catholic church so do you there for your a protestant.
onclave6 3 years ago
show me the term Pope, Nun, Catholic, Purgatory, or transubstantiation in the bible.. give me the chapter and verse...
do you want to see where it says Christian? (1 Peter 4:16; Acts 11:26)
Catholics are idolaters, if you are an idolater, your on your way to hell(Rev 21:8), if you follow the pope, you are on your way to hell(John 10:5), Repent, and turn to the true Jesus Christ. Flee from the false Christ that the RCC teaches (2Cr 11:4)
planset333 3 years ago
Pope means vicar of Christ The first Pope is in the Bible his name is Peter who Jesus appointed Nuns are woman giving their lives to God and make a vow of chastity . Catholic means universal and that is the church Jesus founded.Purgatory 1Peter3:19 in it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison .
onclave6 3 years ago
I can show you where they are: write them on the front inside cover or someplace - that's about the only was you'll "get them in the Bible" - while you're at it write "archbishop, cardinal, monk, and even the name Roman Catholic Church, indulgences, etc" - pretty soon you'll just have a whole different Bible.
bjobe1964 3 years ago
That's YOUR definition: actually the order of churches is: (1) the New Testament Church which Jesus established, (2) The Roman Catholic church (of which the Bible knows nothing), and the Greek church (also of which the Bible knows nothing).
bjobe1964 3 years ago
Actually heretic in fact the Catholic church knows the bible we put it together. Also The catholic Miscellany recently had an article on the Pope addressing that every catholic should read and understand scripture.I know and study scripture you claim to however I have the truth.
onclave6 3 years ago
No, you didn't put it together: the early Christians did. If the RCC knows the Bible, then I'd suggest they follow it - just an humble suggestion. I'll glady debate the topic of salvation, but feel that we are going to share the same views. Go ahead and try if you want.
bjobe1964 3 years ago
Why don't you try this one: Resolved, the Roman Catholic Church derives its authority for the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship from either the New Testament or the traditions of the early "church fathers." By "early", let's say prior to 300 AD. How's that? Fair enough?
bjobe1964 3 years ago
Try 33ad . The fathers began with Jesus and the apostles who are the church fathers. And if you dont agre with your protestan brothers on faith alone then what de3nomination are you? I was under teh impresion taht you all agreed on that one (baptist presbyterian,Lutheran .....)
onclave6 3 years ago
I am not a member of any denomination - I believe them (the concept) to be completely wrong. I seek to be a Christian and a Christian only - to say that I have Protestant "brothers" would be a slight stretch. Try AD 33? The church began in AD 33 in Jerusalem just as was prophesied. I'd be happy to just stick with Jesus and the apostles. You said that I affirm salvation by faith alone; well, that was mistake #1, and it would be fruitless to debate "salvation." So I suggested another subject.
bjobe1964 3 years ago
Well if you believe that faith is not all one needs and that not all faithful will go to heaven that one must account for their sins then we dont have a debate on salvation in the future .Lets do another you pick it but one at time your not the only one I debate.
onclave6 3 years ago
That's states my position perfectly - that's why I said you and I would have a boring discussion on the salvation subject.
bjobe1964 3 years ago
There has not been an anti-catholic to date who has not wanted to argue me on salvation
onclave6 3 years ago
I'm NOT anti-catholic at all. I hope the church is universal. I said twice that any debate on salvation would be pretty lame; that's why I suggested another subject. Apparently, that subject is outside of your comfort zone. You have apparently successfully debated actual Protestants who believe in salvation by faith only. The suggested subject is very legitimate, but you have yet to even acknowledge whether you can debate it at all. The ball is in your court.
nikeshoxman 3 years ago
Sorry, didn't know my son was signed in, although I'm not sure what a nikeshoxman is. Anyway, that was all typed by me, bjobe1964.
bjobe1964 3 years ago
Or can you affirm that? - I will deny it
bjobe1964 3 years ago
We are not idolaters(I believe I taught you this lesson) WE honor not worship Mary all one would have to do is come to one mass to know we are the true church and the church Jesus intended to have on earth not 45000+protestant denominations you belong to You speak against Christ you will go to Hell
onclave6 3 years ago
if you are not a member of His Church , the Body of Christ, then you are "protestant"... if you were not protesting something about His Church , then you would be in it
those 73 books in the bible have been there since the 4th century ... you can't be a hypocrite and accept the NT as inspired w/o accepting the 46 books of the OT as inspired...contrary to popular belief, your KJV didn't fly from the heavens leather bound with gold leaf pages and the Words of Jesus in red
faithful827 3 years ago
so it is your contention that all those that interpret the bible were "moved by the Holy Ghost".... if that is so, why do you have over 37k ecclesial communities out there, all splintered from His Church , ALL believing it is THEIR interpretation that is correct, even though they ALL believe they are being led by the Holy Ghost
the Holy Ghost is NOT about chaos planset..and there is only ONE TRUTH..i'll give you 3 guesses where you can find that TRUTH..it is in the Church instituted by Jesus
faithful827 3 years ago
and i suppose whatever ecclesial community you have fallen into now has that "truth"... see my previous post
faithful827 3 years ago
TC... you might want to take a look at this tract from Catholic Answers ... it will enlighten you greatly regarding the word "baptizo"
catholic(dot)com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only(dot)asp
faithful827 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I made a web site about salvation. It will add to what you already know. Please stop by and read 'Salvation According to Scripture' and let me know what you think. You can use the message board to respond.
Talk Soon. wisewilby c0m
wilby141414 3 years ago
Great response :)
Haver you ever received a response from Mr. Freek?
God bless
Pax
Agila1 3 years ago 4
(Just a note) Chrisianity was born in Judaism. Jesus is Jewish. Baptism originated in Judiasm, i.e. mikvah, ritual bath. Now that This is made clear, let's move on to faith. Faith in not reduced to belief. Faith involves action. Therefore, belief is not sufficient for salvation. Actions are required. (James 2:24) This man is right. Baptism is not a work of man, but a work of God. There is a scripture for this in the epistles. Finally, the demons believe in Jesus as Son of God and tremble. Saved?
Haverim799700 3 years ago
The true baptism, is by faith alone,we all must be baptised at the Jordan river in faith in Christ water is just symbolic,john baptised by water but jesus baptised by spirit.....it's our faith not actual water dunking lol...
bruiser333 4 years ago
I should also mention John baptised by water because he never had the spirit yet! therefore he did it symbolic with water because water is considered the most holy thing(clean thing) outside of God himself...water baptism is just another form of steps in your faith but you can reach full salvation through your true baptism in faith in Christ...john just did the next best thing symbolicialy
bruiser333 4 years ago
after all i know many people who have been water dunked lol who have no idea who Jesus is! are they saved ? but yet have no faith...
John did it with water because it was symbolic,after all john could not give one the holy spirit, only Christ could give the Spirit John knew this....remeber the theif on the cross! he was saved by his faith! after all he recieved no water baptism(examples of this in scripture are endless.
symbolic steps strengthens faith but does not save one!
bruiser333 4 years ago
How do you KNOW the thief had not been baptized? You assume so but Scripture does not tell us.
What we do know is that the thief ACTED on his belief in Christ. See he did not simply believe...he ACTED by REPENTING confessing Jesus...see FAITH is an ACTION word NOT just simply belief...what if this thief had not SAID anything but simply had faith? Would we be saying that he was saved today?
The old covenant did not require baptism. The Holy Spirit had not been loosed yet. etc etc...
TruthChamp 4 years ago
Faith is your action! the theif acted by his own words,if he said nothing Christ who knows everyones heart including the theif's knew how he felt before speaking,Jesus himself said it was your "faith" that made you whole! countless scriptures speaks of a faith saving encounters with Christ no water! I am not against the water baptism after all Christ himself allowed John to Baptise Him,as well his disiples also baptised ......
bruiser333 3 years ago
RE: bruiser333
And again I ask...how do you know the thief had not been baptized?
Not that it matters because he was saved under the Old Covenant but to speak where the Bible does not is dangerous don't ya think?
TruthChamp 4 years ago
So what does it mean in 2Cor5:17 to be IN Christ? How/why/when are we IN Christ?
Can you show me Scripturally how or when this happens and can you explain to me what IN Christ means?
TruthChamp 4 years ago
the church if full of mysticism or in other words bs.
ukidding 3 years ago
Spiritually a part of him, which is when we become christians
jaseywacey 3 years ago
bruiser333 you are mistaken and i would hope you would repent for stating that John did not have the holy ghost, have you not read in the scriptures St.Luke 1:15, John was born with the Holy Ghost!!! I also know that the "father?" in the video while talking about baptism, baptize incorrect. the correct way is Acts2:38,10:44-48,19:1-5,22:16. JESUS CHRIST is the Father,he was in the Son,he is the Holy Spirit, thats where you get the name JESUS CHRIST!! Peace
bo74146 3 years ago
This guy says that we have to prove we love God by baptism. This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. As if God won't be able to tell whether or not we love Him based on our heart or other actions.
This is sad. He doesn't understand. All that Scripture studying and no relationship with Christ.
BnaiHaShem 4 years ago
I just watched jezuzfreek777's "is baptism necessary" and I've got to say, he provides a stronger point towards the significance of baptism, btw i was baptized as a child through catholicism, however, it seemed pointless due to the fact i didn't understand the purpose of my baptism, isn't it more important to be baptized understanding the reason and purpose first? it should be the individual's own decision to be baptized not someone elses.
AilemaAdasop 4 years ago
Although not Roman Catholic, Father Nathan is an ordained priest in an organized church. He is a member of the Communion of Convergence Churches. It is an unusual mix of both catholic and protestant ideas & teachings.
I would like to apologize to Father Nathan for all my rants.
I do hope that he does clarify somewhere on this channel that he is NOT an RC priest so as to pre-empt any future confusion about the exact nature of his priesthood and ordination.
GraceBeMine 4 years ago
The Romans did not break Jesus' legs b/c He was already dead. The Romans broke the thieves' legs b/c they were still alive. Therefore, the thief, who Jesus (God -- 2nd person of the Trinity) promised salvation died in the New Covenent. Water baptism is not necessary. If water baptism were necessary, then there would be no exceptions. Case closed. Bible wins.
zkueker88 4 years ago
No you lost, MK 16:16, 1 pET 3:21 says it saves you.Case closed, bible wins
chrismichael1 3 years ago
you can go to heaven and not be baptised....being batptised is being obedient to God which believers should do, personally i still need to do it, but if i dont get baptised i will still go to heaven
ihateconsequences 4 years ago
Jesus Christ IS and always WAS God. He (Jesus) had the Authority to save the Theif on the Cross. No Man is GOD except the MAN Jesus Christ
Mark 16:16 Words of Jesus Christ....READ THEM
James 2:26 Faith AND Works READ THEM
Even the Old Testament taught WORKS
Noah had to Build the Arc (Works)
Calvin was a FRAUD and DECEIVER
jofo817 4 years ago
Oh and I forgot 1 more thing. It is however quite bad NOT to get baptized if you HAVE the chance to do so. I mean that if you had the chance to testify to others that you have accepted God but do not is blasphemous.
Pmak 4 years ago
Baptism as an infant also does not make sense, considering the fact that the act of baptism and the testimony to all those who witness as a sign of acceptance of God. How does an infant who doesn't really know who God is yet accept Him as his Lord and Saviour.
Thanks for your time. And God Bless.
Pmak 4 years ago
But if say you accept Christ in your death bed and ask for forgiveness for your sins but could not be baptized cause he died 2 seconds later. Does he go to heaven or hell? Obviously if he did truly mean that he accepted Christ he will be with the Father and Christ in heaven.
Pmak 4 years ago
And no you do not NEED to be baptized to be saved. But it is actually a symbol to all who witness your baptism and a testimony to others that you have accepted Christ as your Lord and Saviour.
Pmak 4 years ago
jesusfreek first of all just wanted to lay out the fact that there might be people out there who oppose the validity and does not want to argue that fact.
Pmak 4 years ago
Well done Father, good response.
cialovesyou
altmm 4 years ago
if you have told one lie,your a liar.if you have stolen even once,your a theif.if you have looked with lust,you are an adulterer and you have to face GOD on judgment day! rev.21v8-says all liars will have their part in the lake of fire! you must repent or you will perish!
VUTRUDOIN 4 years ago
And again, for Lydia's household, the other example you used for infant baptism. Why must we assume that this household contains infants? Would it not make more sense for each of these people of her household to also have repented of their sins just as peter had required in the previous example?
imanoutkast 4 years ago
From one's perspective to another's...so it goes. When Peter speaks of the promise being for their children as well...back up just a bit and read what comes before that. Why would you assume that these children wouldn't have to 1)understand what they are hearing(if they're there), and 2)"repent and be baptized..FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS"?
imanoutkast 4 years ago
I believe the Bible is the word of God and that if we love him we will keep his commandments. All of them. That is why I cannot condone keeping Sunday as the Sabbath. I also believe that we should be baptized because the Bible says that we need to. It is quite clear.
grumpyturtle1971 4 years ago
Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Church's teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).
vint7107 4 years ago
This man "Father Nathan" is not a catholic priest. He is a 23 year old kid who, for at least the past year, has been trying to pass himself off as a priest.
Want proof?
Check with the diocese of Pensacola/Tallahasse Florida.
The parish he talks about, St. Marks, is an abondoned building he fixed up and made "his church" it is not a parish or part of a diocese.
This guy is not even a practicing Catholic.
GraceBeMine 4 years ago
You don't offer this troubled young man support, you distance yourself from him...Thats very christian of you!
BiblicalMax 4 years ago
BibBaby-LOL LOL LOL What color is the sky in your world????????
You are the LAST person who should be advising people how to behave like a "christian".
I don't see you being very "christian" to anyone, ESPECAILY Nathan.
GraceBeMine 4 years ago