381
News:
If you are a new member, don't forget to post in the "Introduce Yourself"
section of the forum, as it is a requirement for new members! 
NOTE: If you have trouble logging in, click the
"Login" link above the username/password boxes.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
382
Introduce Yourself / Re: An introduction
« on: October 14, 2021, 09:44:28 AM »
It's been about a week. I guess he didn't want to talk with us. Just another weird one that comes in, says something random, and apparently disappears. 
383
What's New @ CLE / (WEEKLY TEACHING) Psychology: Hoodwinked by the Devil p20
« on: October 11, 2021, 04:36:30 PM »384
Introduce Yourself / Re: An introduction
« on: October 09, 2021, 10:34:19 AM »
Hi John, there is a section highlighted on the forum titled, **New Member? Click Here!**, and you should read that first. It is not a requirement to be a poetic author to join in discussion with us, but if you click that link and read it, you will find the following:
Please don't just say "Hello." This forum is not an impersonal social media site. Keep in mind that we do not know who you are, and so writing a bit about yourself, your beliefs, how you found this site, why you joined, (if you are a Christian, include the testimony of your conversion of repentance and faith unto Christ), etc; all those types of details will help us get to know you a bit better, and we hope you enjoy conversing with born again Christians here.
Anyone can say they have "faith," but that doesn't tell us anything about what they believe, so more details on those matters would be helpful.
Please don't just say "Hello." This forum is not an impersonal social media site. Keep in mind that we do not know who you are, and so writing a bit about yourself, your beliefs, how you found this site, why you joined, (if you are a Christian, include the testimony of your conversion of repentance and faith unto Christ), etc; all those types of details will help us get to know you a bit better, and we hope you enjoy conversing with born again Christians here.
Anyone can say they have "faith," but that doesn't tell us anything about what they believe, so more details on those matters would be helpful.
385
What's New @ CLE / (WEEKLY TEACHING) Psychology: Hoodwinked by the Devil p19
« on: October 04, 2021, 05:23:49 PM »386
What's New @ CLE / (WEEKLY TEACHING) Psychology: Hoodwinked by the Devil p18
« on: September 27, 2021, 12:53:59 PM »387
Wild Emails @ CLE / Telegram Chat Full of Blind Churchgoers
« on: September 23, 2021, 04:19:15 PM »
In a Telegram chatroom, that is full of churchgoers, a man named Craig posted the following:
This whole tradegy has converted me from 'atheist' to born again Christian. The world is witnessing proof that the Holy Bible is true. If you cannot see that yet, you soon will.
The next couple of hundreds comments were all "Amen!" and "Praise Jesus!" -- you know, the typically church-ianity phrases. And yet, not one person addressed the Biblical problem. So I did.
If this whole tragedy is what "converted" you to Jesus Christ, then you are NOT born again in Jesus Christ. It's shocking how many people here seem to not understand the basics of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is NOT how the Bible says a man is born again.
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
-Gal 3:23-25
It is the hearing of the law of God which brings a man to repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow) of his sin, in which he acknowledges the truth of this own corruption, and then cries out to the Lord Jesus Christ to save him from his own wickedness. You don't gain eternal life because you felt bad over a tragedy and decided to change your mind on some political issues; that is NOT Gospel of Jesus Christ, and you all should be ashamed that you do not understand this.
But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
-Mat 13:23
It's amazing how many people here do not understand the Gospel. I wish I could give a link here, but I can't, so go to my website creationliberty * com and search the keyword 'million'. There is a short book (free-to-read) I wrote called Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell. You need to understand what Christ said, that MANY (not few) would come to Him on the day of judgment, claiming they served Him, but He will turn them away to everlasting fire; this is the sermon on the mount:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-Mat 7:21-23
I have to write out my website that way because links get shadow banned. Soon after, a "Karen" showed up with the name Debbie, and responded:
How do YOU know that Craig and many others DIDN'T examine themselves when they confessed their sin of an unrepentant heart and disbelief in Jesus?? Please don't beat up our young-in-the faith Christian brothers/sisters because they didn't write a novel about their salvation experience. Allow The Holy Spirit to convince, convict, challenge and change them, please. You're giving believers a black eye by being so judgemental and dogmatic when you don't know another's heart.
To which, I responded:
Did you read what was said? Did he say he came to Jesus Christ because of his sin? No, that is not what was originally posted. Did you see how I used the Scripture to show you the problem? You flat-out ignored (i.e. denied) how the Holy Spirit, through the Bible, says that a man comes to Christ.
I look to the Lord God for instruction on how a man is saved, not public opinion. Where do you look? Apparently, you do not look to Jesus Christ because you hate righteous judgement:
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
-1Co 2:15
Do you not realize that the word 'judge' means to discern between truth and lies? If you do not want people here distinguishing between truth and falsehood, the you are in the wrong place, and you have no business calling yourself a "Christian."
judge (v): to compare facts or ideas, and perceive their agreement or disagreement, and thus to distinguish truth from falsehood
In your hypocrisy, you accused me of being "judgmental," and yet, you decided to judge me and determine (in unrightousness) what is in my heart. We who are born again in Christ are called to judge righteous judgment. You say that I cannot know what is in another man's heart, and that, once again, proves that you do not follow Jesus Christ because He said that we can:
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
-Mat 15:18
I want that young man to hear the truth of God's Word, but you obviously don't care about his soul. At least I care enough about him, and about you, to tell you the truth, but everyone here (including you Debbie) is blocking truth from being seen with your rhetoric. Kinda' sounds familiar doesn't it? It's how someone can present evidence of a matter, and yet, we see a mass of people who won't listen to reason?
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
-Isa 1:18
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
-Isa 5:20
Go to creationliberty * com and keyword search 'million' to read Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell. I know people here hate me for saying these things, but that's because they hate Jesus Christ first, so if you claim to follow Him, then hear His warning:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. MANY will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-Mat 7:21-23
END OF DISCUSSION... so far.
This is why I'm telling people that I see an even greater enemy arising after this so-called "Great Awakening," which I think from a spiritual perspective is going to be a Great Darkness that is going to fall on this nation like we have never seen before. How long before it takes root in the U.S., I don't know, but we need to keep an eye out for the danger because these churchgoers will not hear God's Word.
This whole tradegy has converted me from 'atheist' to born again Christian. The world is witnessing proof that the Holy Bible is true. If you cannot see that yet, you soon will.
The next couple of hundreds comments were all "Amen!" and "Praise Jesus!" -- you know, the typically church-ianity phrases. And yet, not one person addressed the Biblical problem. So I did.
If this whole tragedy is what "converted" you to Jesus Christ, then you are NOT born again in Jesus Christ. It's shocking how many people here seem to not understand the basics of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is NOT how the Bible says a man is born again.
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
-Gal 3:23-25
It is the hearing of the law of God which brings a man to repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow) of his sin, in which he acknowledges the truth of this own corruption, and then cries out to the Lord Jesus Christ to save him from his own wickedness. You don't gain eternal life because you felt bad over a tragedy and decided to change your mind on some political issues; that is NOT Gospel of Jesus Christ, and you all should be ashamed that you do not understand this.
But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
-Mat 13:23
It's amazing how many people here do not understand the Gospel. I wish I could give a link here, but I can't, so go to my website creationliberty * com and search the keyword 'million'. There is a short book (free-to-read) I wrote called Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell. You need to understand what Christ said, that MANY (not few) would come to Him on the day of judgment, claiming they served Him, but He will turn them away to everlasting fire; this is the sermon on the mount:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-Mat 7:21-23
I have to write out my website that way because links get shadow banned. Soon after, a "Karen" showed up with the name Debbie, and responded:
How do YOU know that Craig and many others DIDN'T examine themselves when they confessed their sin of an unrepentant heart and disbelief in Jesus?? Please don't beat up our young-in-the faith Christian brothers/sisters because they didn't write a novel about their salvation experience. Allow The Holy Spirit to convince, convict, challenge and change them, please. You're giving believers a black eye by being so judgemental and dogmatic when you don't know another's heart.
To which, I responded:
Did you read what was said? Did he say he came to Jesus Christ because of his sin? No, that is not what was originally posted. Did you see how I used the Scripture to show you the problem? You flat-out ignored (i.e. denied) how the Holy Spirit, through the Bible, says that a man comes to Christ.
I look to the Lord God for instruction on how a man is saved, not public opinion. Where do you look? Apparently, you do not look to Jesus Christ because you hate righteous judgement:
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
-1Co 2:15
Do you not realize that the word 'judge' means to discern between truth and lies? If you do not want people here distinguishing between truth and falsehood, the you are in the wrong place, and you have no business calling yourself a "Christian."
judge (v): to compare facts or ideas, and perceive their agreement or disagreement, and thus to distinguish truth from falsehood
In your hypocrisy, you accused me of being "judgmental," and yet, you decided to judge me and determine (in unrightousness) what is in my heart. We who are born again in Christ are called to judge righteous judgment. You say that I cannot know what is in another man's heart, and that, once again, proves that you do not follow Jesus Christ because He said that we can:
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
-Mat 15:18
I want that young man to hear the truth of God's Word, but you obviously don't care about his soul. At least I care enough about him, and about you, to tell you the truth, but everyone here (including you Debbie) is blocking truth from being seen with your rhetoric. Kinda' sounds familiar doesn't it? It's how someone can present evidence of a matter, and yet, we see a mass of people who won't listen to reason?
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
-Isa 1:18
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
-Isa 5:20
Go to creationliberty * com and keyword search 'million' to read Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell. I know people here hate me for saying these things, but that's because they hate Jesus Christ first, so if you claim to follow Him, then hear His warning:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. MANY will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-Mat 7:21-23
END OF DISCUSSION... so far.
This is why I'm telling people that I see an even greater enemy arising after this so-called "Great Awakening," which I think from a spiritual perspective is going to be a Great Darkness that is going to fall on this nation like we have never seen before. How long before it takes root in the U.S., I don't know, but we need to keep an eye out for the danger because these churchgoers will not hear God's Word.
388
What's New @ CLE / Re: (BOOK PUBLISHED) Corruptions of Christianity: Seventh-day Adventism
« on: September 23, 2021, 09:21:18 AM »
Haha! Good point.
389
What's New @ CLE / Re: (BOOK PUBLISHED) Corruptions of Christianity: Seventh-day Adventism
« on: September 22, 2021, 11:34:34 AM »
I just wanted to comment to say that it has taken me almost three full weeks of formatting (not including the editing) to get this done. This has been a very stressful three weeks because I have reformatted this book THREE times to try and get it right. There were so many problems, I don't want to go over it, but a lot of work went into this that you guys don't know about.
390
What's New @ CLE / (BOOK PUBLISHED) Corruptions of Christianity: Seventh-day Adventism
« on: September 22, 2021, 11:21:30 AM »
Corruptions of Christianity: Seventh-Day Adventism is now available to purchase in paperback and Kindle.
Click the following link to get more details:
http://creationliberty.com/store.php#religionadvent
Paperback: $35
Kindle: $23
And, as always, it is free-to-read here at creationliberty.com.
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/religionadvent.php
I understand that some of you will hate the fact that I have published this on Amazon's site, knowing that they are a deep state company, and I share the same sentiments. However, I cannot simply switch to another publisher right now for MANY reasons. If you do not understand those reasons, I would encourage you to write a full-length book that is hundreds of pages long with complete research and references, format it and self-publish it (without any staff to do it for you), and then you can have a discussion with me about how you would be able to handle transferring six books to a new platform; let me know when you get that done, and we'll talk about it.
Click the following link to get more details:
http://creationliberty.com/store.php#religionadvent
Paperback: $35
Kindle: $23
And, as always, it is free-to-read here at creationliberty.com.
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/religionadvent.php
I understand that some of you will hate the fact that I have published this on Amazon's site, knowing that they are a deep state company, and I share the same sentiments. However, I cannot simply switch to another publisher right now for MANY reasons. If you do not understand those reasons, I would encourage you to write a full-length book that is hundreds of pages long with complete research and references, format it and self-publish it (without any staff to do it for you), and then you can have a discussion with me about how you would be able to handle transferring six books to a new platform; let me know when you get that done, and we'll talk about it.
391
What's New @ CLE / (WEEKLY TEACHING) Psychology: Hoodwinked by the Devil p17
« on: September 20, 2021, 05:28:35 PM »392
General Discussion / Re: About Activities with Pagan Origins
« on: September 19, 2021, 07:37:15 PM »Quote
Hello again, first up i wanna apologize to Mr. Johnson if ive ever annoyed him with my response.i didnt quite understood what he meant rhe first time when he meant to give Examples of media. But to answer his question im going to keep it simple and say :
"The Alphabet Song" (A,B,C...) for music, and Snowwhite or films (a disney film with the witch being the villain,not hero)
As for Rowan, thank you for your response because it really hits the nail on the head on my Question. You made good biblical points thatll help me make informed decisions on what media i shall consume
When I said that I cannot answer your questions without more information, it is not to say that I could not answer your question with Scripture as Rowan did, and I'm sure Rowan knew this since I have taught on these subjects before. What I believe Rowan failed to see was that I was trying to get you to understand WHY you were asking this question, which is FAR more important than the answer, and now that he has done that, I have lost the line of questioning I wanted to go down with you to help you understand it.
For example, is it wrong for me to eat eggs benedict? Is it sin if choose to buy an off-brand of paper towels? Have I committed wickedness by stretching my body so I can do the splits? These questions are ENDLESS. If God wanted to create a list of do's and dont's for everything, the Bible would be far more than 10,000 volumes long, and you would never be able to read it all.
By not pointing out any particular sin in your original question, you were, in your mind, creating a sin that did not exist. I wanted you to look into Scripture, or at least, into your mind of what you know of Scripture, to select a particular sin that you thought you might be guilty of doing, and by selecting idolatry, you have now, essentially, associated a spiritual crime with music in general, which is very strange.
So let's get back to the reason you were asking the question, emphasizing a general "sin" that did not exist in Scripture.
Would it be a sin to enjoy listening to secular /non-worship songs (and by extension, watching movies/reading books), as long as it doesnt promote sin or a message that goes against what the bible teaches?
The simple answer to that is that it depends on your reason for listening to it, just as it is wrong to look on a naked woman who is not your wife, unless you're doing it for some justifiable reason, like performing surgery to save her life. The reason I did not answer you in this way is because this is something I believe you already understand, and that's based on the details of your question. (e.g. as long as it doesnt promote sin)
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
-James 4:17
I won't bother to repeat the verses Rowan quoted because you have already read them, however, why were you asking this question? Was it because you believe that if you listen to a bad song you are going to go to hell? I doubt that, otherwise, you likely would not be on this forum because, it is presumed, that you believe in repentance and faith unto salvation in Jesus Christ.
So the only other reason you would ask this question is because you believe something you are listening to is not pleasing to God, which means your REAL question is: "Can I listen to [X] without God being upset with me?"
That is a very different question, but one that, once again, you can already answer because I can tell based on your question. You know it is wrong to create music that has lyrics that goes against what the Bible teaches, and you know that it is wrong to fill your mind with music that promotes sin, otherwise, you would not have added those stipulations into your question. This means that you already know that you are judging what songs you should or should not listen to based on your convictions from the Holy Spirit based on the knowledge He has given you of Scripture, and so that means, in the end, your question was actually pointless because you already answered it.
So my answer to you is that I am not your priest. I am not your dad. I am not here to tell you what you should or should not listen to in your household. You are responsible to God for what you say and do. If I simply answered you in that matter without attempting to get to the heart of what you were asking, you would have thought that I was annoyed with your response, when in fact, I was simply trying to get to provide more information so you could see why you were asking it.
The purpose of this is to, hopefully, show you that, in the future, you don't have to come to us to get list of rules of do's and dont's, like "Is it a sin to list to the alphabet song?" These types of questions are absurd because they are typically thought up by those who are looking for a list of laws/rules to make themselves feel "holy," when in fact, those who have been set an liberty by the Lord Jesus Christ has been freed from the law, only that we ought to study the Word of God so that the Holy Spirit can discipline us individually, because what is right or wrong for me to listen to is not the same as what is right or wrong for you to listen to, and vice versa.
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
-Gal 5:13
I hope that was helpful.
393
General Discussion / Re: About Activities with Pagan Origins
« on: September 19, 2021, 12:39:28 PM »
Did you realize you just repeated your last post? The only thing you said differently is that you are asking if it is IDOLATRY specifically to listen to a song. I can't answer your question unless you give me an example.
394
General Discussion / Re: About Activities with Pagan Origins
« on: September 19, 2021, 08:36:39 AM »
I can't answer that question unless you point to a specific sin in the Bible that you are referring to.
395
General Discussion / Re: About Activities with Pagan Origins
« on: September 18, 2021, 10:45:10 PM »
I spent a long time answering that question by writing a book about it, which is available free-to-read on the website.
Christian Music: For The Love of Money
Christian Music: For The Love of Money
396
What's New @ CLE / (WEEKLY TEACHING) Psychology: Hoodwinked by the Devil p16
« on: September 13, 2021, 12:58:51 PM »397
Wild Emails @ CLE / Re: Scientist Turned Preacher of Works-Doctrine
« on: September 10, 2021, 10:07:12 AM »
This is the reason I was so suspicious of his response to my first letter. I spent over an hour writing my first letter to him, and he didn't hardly say anything in response to it, which was strange because he formulated his first letter just like an argument. (i.e. We agree on this, however, we don't agree on that.) So when I explained to the him that his understanding of it was limited because of the focus on the one verse instead of the whole, I also purposely did NOT mention the word 'repentance', but said their was a missing component, just to see what he would do. (I was trying to bait out some of his doctrine to I could see what he believed.)
Of course, he made no mention of this, nor asked what I was referring to, and that was another red flag. So I started seeing a pattern of him making arguments that he would not respond to, and he started asking loaded questions instead of asking questions looking for information, all while he would not respond to my questions looking for information from him, and Rowan's post only confirmed more of my suspicions.
Of course, I didn't go near as far as Rowan did in looking at the website, because I stopped as soon as I saw the section that said they went to non-501c3 home churches after the COVID lockdowns. I tried to handle that as peacefully with him as I could, but that was a major red flag to me because when it takes a scam-demic to get someone to do the right thing, instead of them just reading Scripture and then doing the right then, that shows me they're not following Jesus Christ in liberty, they're only following that which they are forced to do by the state wayward practices.
By the way, when I mentioned "loaded question," I mean this:
"Do you deny this scripture? Do you deny what James wrote too?"
I was explaining to him that his interpretation of Eze 18:24 was incorrect, meaning that he was denying Romans 3 that I had quoted to him earlier. (i.e. Romans says there is none righteous, but Ray refused to even acknowledge that because it went against his beliefs and teachings.) So, instead of asking me what my interpretation was, he went on the attack to ask a loaded question. He just kept repeating Eze 18:24 (in a very childish manner), and then asking ridiculous questions. Did he think I was going to respond to him and say "I deny Scripture?" No, that was not his intention. These were questions not meant to have an answer, but rather, they were statements, accusations with a question mark added to the end of them, meaning that he was arguing and directly saying, "You deny Scripture. You deny what James wrote." They were childish accusations because he did not want to tell me what he believed, and if he was SO certain that he had the truth in what he believed, then why was he hiding his doctrine from me? (i.e. I believe he was scared to have that conversation with me because, based on the first letter, he knows I knew enough Scripture to blow his arguments out of the water.)
Finally, I would say that Rowan's argument about Ecclesiastes is pretty sound. I'm going to have to consider that for a while. I didn't go too deep on that issue because, frankly, if I had made that argument, it still wouldn't have solved the problem because I am not certain that Ray believed that repentance is godly sorrow; it seems like he believed it was turning from sin, and that would have done nothing to turn him away from his false doctrine. Even if he believed in the correct definition of repentance, he still continued down the works path, which means his sorrow was worldly, it was not godly in the first place.
Of course, he made no mention of this, nor asked what I was referring to, and that was another red flag. So I started seeing a pattern of him making arguments that he would not respond to, and he started asking loaded questions instead of asking questions looking for information, all while he would not respond to my questions looking for information from him, and Rowan's post only confirmed more of my suspicions.
Of course, I didn't go near as far as Rowan did in looking at the website, because I stopped as soon as I saw the section that said they went to non-501c3 home churches after the COVID lockdowns. I tried to handle that as peacefully with him as I could, but that was a major red flag to me because when it takes a scam-demic to get someone to do the right thing, instead of them just reading Scripture and then doing the right then, that shows me they're not following Jesus Christ in liberty, they're only following that which they are forced to do by the state wayward practices.
By the way, when I mentioned "loaded question," I mean this:
"Do you deny this scripture? Do you deny what James wrote too?"
I was explaining to him that his interpretation of Eze 18:24 was incorrect, meaning that he was denying Romans 3 that I had quoted to him earlier. (i.e. Romans says there is none righteous, but Ray refused to even acknowledge that because it went against his beliefs and teachings.) So, instead of asking me what my interpretation was, he went on the attack to ask a loaded question. He just kept repeating Eze 18:24 (in a very childish manner), and then asking ridiculous questions. Did he think I was going to respond to him and say "I deny Scripture?" No, that was not his intention. These were questions not meant to have an answer, but rather, they were statements, accusations with a question mark added to the end of them, meaning that he was arguing and directly saying, "You deny Scripture. You deny what James wrote." They were childish accusations because he did not want to tell me what he believed, and if he was SO certain that he had the truth in what he believed, then why was he hiding his doctrine from me? (i.e. I believe he was scared to have that conversation with me because, based on the first letter, he knows I knew enough Scripture to blow his arguments out of the water.)
Finally, I would say that Rowan's argument about Ecclesiastes is pretty sound. I'm going to have to consider that for a while. I didn't go too deep on that issue because, frankly, if I had made that argument, it still wouldn't have solved the problem because I am not certain that Ray believed that repentance is godly sorrow; it seems like he believed it was turning from sin, and that would have done nothing to turn him away from his false doctrine. Even if he believed in the correct definition of repentance, he still continued down the works path, which means his sorrow was worldly, it was not godly in the first place.
398
Wild Emails @ CLE / Scientist Turned Preacher of Works-Doctrine
« on: September 09, 2021, 08:08:56 PM »
Here are some preliminary links you can look at if you want to know what I found when I searched for this man. The following is his home church link:
https://www.housechurchconnect.com/places/united-states/indiana/south-bend/church/michiana-home-christian-fellowship/
It says:
We are a small group of Christians meeting in homes on Sunday mornings at 10:30. We are a new non-501c3 house Christian church that has been meeting since our old churches shut down due to the coronavirus panic and plan to continue even if things return to normal. Gods people meeting in worship is essential! Every meeting, we sing hymns with piano, have group prayer, hold communion, bible teaching and a fellowship meal. Everyone is welcome to participate. We do not collect a tithe, sometimes we may collect for an offering for a missionary or for the poor. Key verses illustrating what we believe: John 3:3, Matthew 10:22, Matthew 28:19, Matthew 22:37-40, Proverbs 22:6, Hebrews 8:10, Hebrews 10:25, 2 Timothy 3:16, 1 Peter 3:21, 2 Corinthians 12:9, James 2:26, Proverbs 16:18.
The following are some of the published science papers he has from Trine University.
https://vixra.org/pdf/1107.0038v1.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291030521_Counterexample_to_the_Born_Rule
https://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0165v1.pdf
Keep in mind, Ray did NOT provide me any of this information. I had to find it myself.
RAYMOND FROM IN:
Dear Chris, I've listened to your audio on baptism several times and have a few comments on it if you care to listen. I was taught originally that when Jesus told Nicodemus that you must be born of the water and the Spirit that water meant baptism. I was also aware that others taught, like you, that this meant the birth water that comes out during natural childbirth. But this seemed absurd to me because why would Jesus mention natural childbirth since everyone goes through this process anyway; i.e it is trivial. Then it occurred to me that you cannot be born a second time unless you are born a first time. This is why He mentioned this. Now it makes perfect sense to me, and thank you for shedding light on this.
However this does weaken your example concerning the thief on the cross. One can say that since Jesus did not give the command to baptize until -after- the resurrection, then that example does not apply. Now you did mention that it is written
Mar_16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
and that it does not say "he that believeth not or is not baptized shall be damned" but simply "he that believeth not shall be damned." So logically this leaves open the cases where someone gets saved but is not baptized. Those cases are up to God to decide. With that said I do believe that there are people in Heaven who were not baptized because of either inability to get baptized or because they were taught falsely. But those who know that this is a commandment of God and do not do it, are in danger of Hell. I think it is more than an ordinance violation (think jaywalking or spitting gum on the sidewalk).
Finally, I'm surprised you did not mention this verse in your discussion on baptism:
1Pe_3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
PS. I have a question for you: do you think King Solomon was saved in the end or did he die in his sins?
Dear Chris, I've listened to your audio on baptism several times and have a few comments on it if you care to listen.
No idea who you are, so it makes it difficult sometimes because when I don't know what someone believes concerning the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it's hard to just take in anyone's opinion on the matter. However, that being said, a quick search shows me that you seem to be teaching good things among your church, which is rare. (It's sad that it took the fraudulent COVID scam for Christians to wake up to that fact, instead of understanding through Scripture, but at least there are some Christians gaining good understanding from the circumstances.) I can't tell what you teach on a number of basic principles though, so I'll just have to read your letter and try to discern the best I can.
I was taught originally that when Jesus told Nicodemus that you must be born of the water and the Spirit that water meant baptism. I was also aware that others taught, like you, that this meant the birth water that comes out during natural childbirth. But this seemed absurd to me because why would Jesus mention natural childbirth since everyone goes through this process anyway; i.e it is trivial. Then it occurred to me that you cannot be born a second time unless you are born a first time. This is why He mentioned this. Now it makes perfect sense to me, and thank you for shedding light on this.
Okay, but I'm waiting for the "buuuut..." or "however..." because people don't typically take the time to write me unless they want to argue something. *detective emoji*
However
There it is.
this does weaken your example concerning the thief on the cross. One can say that since Jesus did not give the command to baptize until -after- the resurrection, then that example does not apply. Now you did mention that it is written
Mar_16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Not at all, because, again, we have to take precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little.
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
-Isa 28:9-10
This means that the fullness of a doctrine cannot be assessed in Mark 16:16 alone, which is not to say that I'm accusing you of cherrying pick Scriptures, please do not misunderstand; I'm simply pointing out that those who cherry pick cannot understand this verse, and often put unnecessary guidelines on others because of their lack of understanding and misinterpretations.
The bottom line is this: Baptism is an action. It is a ritual. It is something that takes physical effort to be done, and it requires more than one person to accomplish. It falls under the category of works, no matter how one might try to explain it, and there is no other verse than can be used to say that it is not a work.
So knowing that works are not required for salvation...
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
-Eph 2:8-9
... then we know that baptism cannot be a requirement for salvation either, which leaves us the obvious question: Why did Jesus Christ say that those who believe AND are baptized shall be saved, when no one can be saved by works? You focused your letter on one extreme of the criminal being crucified with Christ, but now let's go to the other extreme in Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8.
If you go to verse 13, you will notice that Simon believed the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and he was baptized, but he was not saved.
Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
-Acts 8:21
If we take the interpretation that you are using in Mark 16:16, then there would be a serious contradiction here, which is why you are writing to me (I presume). However, there is no contradiction because baptism is not a crux of salvation. Rather, baptism is (or perhaps, can be) evidence of obedience to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is why Jesus said those who believe and are baptized. So when a man is saved, and then learns that he needs to be baptized by the commandment of Jesus Christ, he is obedient to what Christ has told Him to do, and because there are many who have believe, but are not saved (John 8:31-45), then that leaves us with curiosity that something is missing in this equation. If a man can be saved without baptism, but can also be unsaved with belief AND baptism... there is a missing component to all this somewhere in Scripture.
I discuss that missing component in greater detail here:
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/whymillions.php
Our focus should not be baptism as much as it should be on that missing component. That missing component determines whether or not a man's baptism is legitimate. Even witches and Satanists perform baptisms (as do the many false church-ianity denominations around the world), but none of them have what I talk about in that teaching.
and that it does not say "he that believeth not or is not baptized shall be damned" but simply "he that believeth not shall be damned." So logically this leaves open the cases where someone gets saved but is not baptized. Those cases are up to God to decide. With that said I do believe that there are people in Heaven who were not baptized because of either inability to get baptized or because they were taught falsely. But those who know that this is a commandment of God and do not do it, are in danger of Hell. I think it is more than an ordinance violation (think jaywalking or spitting gum on the sidewalk).
But not because of works. Again, there is a missing component here somewhere, and if you want to know more about that missing component concerning the Gospel of Salvation, the link above will provide more details.
Finally, I'm surprised you did not mention this verse in your discussion on baptism:
1Pe_3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
There are a lot of verses I have missed in various teachings I've done over the years. I am certainly no master of Scripture, so it happens. However, the verse itself does not say that baptism gives a man salvation, because even the verse itself says that baptism does not cleanse a man from unrighteousness, which demonstrates that the salvation being talked about are given those who have a heart that is obedient to Christ because of the transformation of the Holy Ghost within them. It says that baptism is the response of someone who is obedient to conscience of the Holy Ghost within him (i.e. AFTER he is regenerated), which is why there needs to be discernment concerning the testimony of those who claim to be of Christ, so we can determine if a man did it out of obedience, or if he did it out of works to fallaciously believe that his own physical effort in a bathtub would cleanse his spiritual wickedness. (i.e. Physical remedies do not solve spiritual problems, as I have mentioned many times in the book/audio series I did exposing the fraudulent practice of psychology.)
PS. I have a question for you: do you think King Solomon was saved in the end or did he die in his sins?
I suppose I would do what Jesus did when He was teaching and answer that question with a question: Does God forsake those He loves when they do wrong?
And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon (1Ch 22:9): and the LORD loved him.
-2Sa 12:24
Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
-Rom 8:37-39
Have a great day. *detective emoji*
Chris, you wrote the following in response to my question about Solomon:
"I suppose I would do what Jesus did when He was teaching and answer that question with a question: Does God forsake those He loves when they do wrong?"
Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live?
Okay, now this is crossing the line into cherry picking, instead of studying precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little. Your Scripture (without any comment) was very indicative of a major fallacy of doctrine, namely, that a man can be righteous of himself.
What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
-Rom 3:9-10
You have access to what I teach, but I do not have access to what you teach, and you did not respond to hardly ANYTHING I wrote to you. (i.e. Did you write to me to have a conversation?) So be straight-forward with me, so we're not beating around the bush: Do you teach that man must do work to be saved? That should make this process a lot faster and easier. *detective emoji*
Chris, sorry for the delay; something came up & I was very busy yesterday.
You say that because I gave you Ez 18:24 I was "cherry picking." How so? Chris, I have some training in scientific method. There, "cherry-picking" refers to selectively sampling data that supports a thesis, and ignoring data that contradicts a thesis (like the global warming fanatics do, and is considered fraud). I did not give you a thesis, all I did was give you a datum (Ez 18:24) that contradicts your thesis, which you couched in a question, suggesting that God forgave Solomon because he loved him, as the scripture says, which of course is true, because the scripture cannot be broken. Now if there is one thing that one will remember from your teaching, if one remembers anything at all, it is that God gives grace to the humble. God loved Solomon and gave him grace, and the Holy Spirit to write the Proverbs no less. But later on, he married a multitude of strange wives, abused the people, and passed his son through the fire. These are qualities not indicative of a humble and contrite spirit. So what would God have to do, ignore that and continue to give him grace anyway, or apply the principle in Ezekiel 18:24? If God ignores the principle in Ezekiel 18:24, then His word is not true. So He must apply it, unless Solomon did repent of his evil works, which I have not found evidence of in scripture. As you have said in your teaching multiple times, "God is not a respecter of persons."
I apologize, I did not comment about what you wrote on baptism since I did not have anything to say about what you wrote.
I hope you don't think I am one of those who is trying to tear you down. I just want to find out what is the truth. There is an underlying reason why I asked you about Solomon, but it is not necessarily about works. You do agree, speaking of works, that when you go before the judgment seat, that you will be judged according to your works? This does not contradict what Paul wrote about not being saved by works. Unlike scientific data, the bible never contradicts itself. There is a way to resolve such seeming disparities, I have faith in that, but you cannot get at the truth by ignoring or diminishing one verse over another.
Chris, sorry for the delay; something came up & I was very busy yesterday.
You say that because I gave you Ez 18:24 I was "cherry picking." How so?
Hang on, let me show you the heart of the problem with your next statement.
Chris, I have some training in scientific method.
And there is the problem. As soon as I pointed out the contradiction in your argument, you turned to the rudiments (i.e. first teachings) of the world, instead of simply looking at the Scripture and discussing the interpretations of it.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
-Col 2:8
Perhaps this might be offensive to you, but when you say you have "training in scientific method," I could care less. I wouldn't care if you have 15 different religious or scientific PhDs. Such vain, worldly things is not how one is able to interpret Scripture because it must be done through the Spirit of God, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, not comparing spiritual things with "scientific method."
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1Co 2:13-14
There, "cherry-picking" refers to selectively sampling data that supports a thesis, and ignoring data that contradicts a thesis (like the global warming fanatics do, and is considered fraud). I did not give you a thesis, all I did was give you a datum (Ez 18:24) that contradicts your thesis, which you couched in a question,
Here is what I just read from you, "Chris, you countered my argument with correlating Scripture and sound reason, and so instead of answering that, I'm going to try and puff myself up to make myself sound REALLY smart and intimidating." Ray, this isn't my first rodeo, if you get my meaning. (Although, at this point, I'm not sure you will because you didn't when I mentioned cherry picking.) When you're done putting on a show, let's get back to the Scriptural discussion we were having.
suggesting that God forgave Solomon because he loved him, as the scripture says, which of course is true, because the scripture cannot be broken.
Scripture cannot be broken, but you're still rejecting God's love for Solomon for some reason, so let's get to the point.
Now if there is one thing that one will remember from your teaching, if one remembers anything at all, it is that God gives grace to the humble. God loved Solomon and gave him grace, and the Holy Spirit to write the Proverbs no less. But later on, he married a multitude of strange wives, abused the people, and passed his son through the fire. These are qualities not indicative of a humble and contrite spirit. So what would God have to do, ignore that and continue to give him grace anyway, or apply the principle in Ezekiel 18:24?
I'm still waiting for you to ask the question you need to ask. It's fair to say that one cannot know something for certain without evidence of it, but that's not the point of this discussion.
If God ignores the principle in Ezekiel 18:24, then His word is not true. So He must apply it, unless Solomon did repent of his evil works, which I have not found evidence of in scripture. As you have said in your teaching multiple times, "God is not a respecter of persons."
Okay, so you haven't asked the question you need to ask because... hmm... maybe I should explain it this way since you want to turn to worldly education for justification: What you argued is a logical fallacy called a false dilemma. Essentially, it's when a person presents two options, and does not consider that there are other possibilities, which, once you think about it, is kinda' like cherry picking. (i.e. ignoring data that contradicts) So your options are as follows:
1. God ignores His Word to bring a man to heaven.
2. God follows His Word to send a man to hell.
However, you never once even considered the possibility that you might not understand what Ezekiel 18:24 means.
3. Ezekiel 18:24 is not talking about a man having to live righteously to be saved. So instead of looking at the New Testament Scripture I gave you (i.e. the fulfillment of the prophets, like Ezekiel), asking, "Chris, how do you believe we interpret Eze 18:24?" you instead tried to puff yourself up by talking about the scientific method and your personal knowledge, and then claimed there was no way out of your argument. I needed to address that first because not only is that the wrong approach to Scripture, it's not going to work with me.
So, what is the proper interpretation of Eze 18:24? I'm not going to tell you if you're not going to ask me because, frankly, these emails are starting to cross the line over into the area of wasting my time, and I've got projects I'm working on right now.
I apologize, I did not comment about what you wrote on baptism since I did not have anything to say about what you wrote.
Okay, that's fair. However, from my perspective, it made it seem like I wrote all that for no reason, or perhaps even that you were making an argument and then did not care about the response. (i.e. If there is no conversation, there is no point to email.)
I hope you don't think I am one of those who is trying to tear you down. I just want to find out what is the truth.
Ehhhh... from this letter, it doesn't sound like it. That was a lot of puffing up, not trying to find the truth. I'm all for iron sharpening iron, but what you did at the beginning of your last letter was something else entirely. I'm just trying to get to the heart of the matter, and I hope that, somewhere in the next paragraph, you will answer the question I asked you.
There is an underlying reason why I asked you about Solomon, but it is not necessarily about works. You do agree, speaking of works, that when you go before the judgment seat, that you will be judged according to your works? This does not contradict what Paul wrote about not being saved by works. Unlike scientific data, the bible never contradicts itself. There is a way to resolve such seeming disparities, I have faith in that, but you cannot get at the truth by ignoring or diminishing one verse over another.
And you didn't answer my question. Hmm. That's odd. So I asked a very simple "yes or no" question, which you did not bother to answer, and I have no access to any teachings or statements of faith from you at all. I am left to deduce what you really believe by what you say in these letters. All I know is that based on the letters you have written to me, something is off, but I can't put my finger on it because I don't have enough information. However, I have no interest in trying to play a guessing game any further, so let me address this last paragraph one step at a time, and hopefully, we'll be done.
There is an underlying reason why I asked you about Solomon, but it is not necessarily about works.
So why don't you just ask that underlying question so we're not wasting each others' time? I prefer people who are direct, and don't beat around the bush.
You do agree, speaking of works, that when you go before the judgment seat, that you will be judged according to your works?
No. That's not what the Bible teaches. Those who are not of Christ will have to go before the Great White Throne judgment seat to give account for their wicked deeds, but Christians will not have to go to that same judgment. I actually addressed that point recently in Chapter 3 of Corruptions of Christianity: Seventh-day Adventism because Ellen White believed that EVERYONE (whether saved or not) would have to go to the Great White Throne of God and be judged by their works, and that is incorrect.
This does not contradict what Paul wrote about not being saved by works.
Incorrect.
Unlike scientific data, the bible never contradicts itself.
And yet, you were referring to the "scientific method" to defend spiritual arguments. Hmm.
There is a way to resolve such seeming disparities, I have faith in that, but you cannot get at the truth by ignoring or diminishing one verse over another.
Could not have said that better; I just wish you would read what you just said carefully. I gotta' get back to work. Again, have a great day. *detective emoji*
"And there is the problem. As soon as I pointed out the contradiction in your argument"
What argument? You provided me with a thesis; i.e. that Solomon was saved because God loved him, in spite of his lack of repentence. So I gave you a scripture, Ezekiel 18:24, which says, again, the following,
Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
Do you deny this scripture? Do you deny what James wrote too?
Jas_4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
Is there now a special exemption for Solomon?
Like you, I followed Kent Hovind for a while, and I use his teachings about origins quite alot, but I always had my suspicions about the man since he is an arrogant know-it-all. He should examine himself, and I think you need to as well.
Good day.
What argument? You provided me with a thesis; i.e. that Solomon was saved because God loved him, in spite of his lack of repentence. So I gave you a scripture, Ezekiel 18:24, which says, again, the following,
Hmm. Your comment there is really interesting because you first said:
unless Solomon did repent of his evil works, which I have not found evidence of in scripture
But there is no evidence that Solomon did NOT repent either. Yet, without evidence, you concluded that he did NOT repent, even though the Scripture doesn't say that, because that is what you want to believe. (i.e. a presupposition)
And still, I have no videos, audios, or writings to determine what you are teaching on a regular basis because you haven't provided any of that for me to see.
I have no statements of faith from you on various basic Christian doctrines.
I have no answer to my question on whether or not you teach works unto salvation.
Therefore, I am forced to conclude that you do indeed teach heretical works-doctrine concerning salvation. Or, at the very least, you teach the heresy that if people sin, then they lose their salvation. And because of that, I want to make it clear to you (so there is no confusion) that I am not yoked together with you, because you and I believe two different doctrines on salvation.
Do you deny this scripture? Do you deny what James wrote too?
And that proved my point. You didn't ask me what the interpretation of Eze 18:24 is, because you don't want to know. Furthermore, you definitely don't want to believe that you don't understand it. (i.e. How dare some young dumb kid like me, question you, the knower of science.) THAT is why I didn't bother to explain it to you without you asking about it first because I suspected you didn't want to hear it anyway, and I knew I would be wasting my time. The more you talk, the more you're proving my points.
Jas_4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
Is there now a special exemption for Solomon?
No, but we do not have evidence one way or another. The only evidence we were provided is that God loved him, and that he sinned. So if those two factors determine that a man is destined for hell (according to your teaching), then we're all destined for hell without hope, and God made a mistake in loving anyone (including Solomon). I will not join you in that unbiblical and ridiculous ideology.
Like you, I followed Kent Hovind for a while, and I use his teachings about origins quite alot, but I always had my suspicions about the man since he is an arrogant know-it-all. He should examine himself, and I think you need to as well.
So I offered to explain Eze 18:24, and you refused it, and you conclude that I am the one who is arrogant? Then, I asked you a basic yes or no question about your teaching on the Gospel of Salvation, which you refused to answer, and I'm the one who is arrogant?
arrogant (adj): assuming; making or having the disposition to make exorbitant claims of rank or estimation; giving one's self an undue degree of importance; haughty; conceited
There is only one person between the two of us that tried to puff himself up in an undue degree of importance. (e.g. Responding to spiritual matters with: "Chris, I have some training in scientific method.") My response to that is that I pray the Lord Jesus Christ would bless you and your family with all your needs throughout the rough coming months, and I hope that He shows you as much mercy as He has shown me. Have a wonderful day. *detective emoji*
Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
-1Pe 3:9
END OF DISCUSSION
But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
-Eze 18:24
Now, I'll explain to everyone else the meaning of this verse. Ray took this verse as a man is righteous of his own works, but notice that the first line says that the righteous turns away from HIS righteousness. That's key. We already know from Romans 3 that there are none righteous, and that righteousness can only be achieved through the grace of God, so because we know that, we also know that the phrase "his righteousness" is referring to how he views himself, or even how society views him, similar to how someone is a pastor or priest, and immediately upon hearing this, people around them think they are somehow "holy" or "righteous" because of their person.
Such a man who is held to a higher standard than the average criminal, and when such a man commits iniquity, doing the abominations that a man who society views as wicked (and who the pastor condemns as wicked) does, then he is FAR worse than the criminal. Shall that man live? Or in others words, shall that man have eternal life? By no means.
Ray took this to mean that man walked in the righteousness of God and then turned to iniquity, but that is not what this is saying, and he did not want me to explain this to him. Some online records indicate that he is 53, and since I am only 39, once again, I'm just some young dumb kid... but apparently, I'm a young dumb kid that he has listened to quite a bit. Well, at least until now.
https://www.housechurchconnect.com/places/united-states/indiana/south-bend/church/michiana-home-christian-fellowship/
It says:
We are a small group of Christians meeting in homes on Sunday mornings at 10:30. We are a new non-501c3 house Christian church that has been meeting since our old churches shut down due to the coronavirus panic and plan to continue even if things return to normal. Gods people meeting in worship is essential! Every meeting, we sing hymns with piano, have group prayer, hold communion, bible teaching and a fellowship meal. Everyone is welcome to participate. We do not collect a tithe, sometimes we may collect for an offering for a missionary or for the poor. Key verses illustrating what we believe: John 3:3, Matthew 10:22, Matthew 28:19, Matthew 22:37-40, Proverbs 22:6, Hebrews 8:10, Hebrews 10:25, 2 Timothy 3:16, 1 Peter 3:21, 2 Corinthians 12:9, James 2:26, Proverbs 16:18.
The following are some of the published science papers he has from Trine University.
https://vixra.org/pdf/1107.0038v1.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291030521_Counterexample_to_the_Born_Rule
https://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0165v1.pdf
Keep in mind, Ray did NOT provide me any of this information. I had to find it myself.
RAYMOND FROM IN:
Dear Chris, I've listened to your audio on baptism several times and have a few comments on it if you care to listen. I was taught originally that when Jesus told Nicodemus that you must be born of the water and the Spirit that water meant baptism. I was also aware that others taught, like you, that this meant the birth water that comes out during natural childbirth. But this seemed absurd to me because why would Jesus mention natural childbirth since everyone goes through this process anyway; i.e it is trivial. Then it occurred to me that you cannot be born a second time unless you are born a first time. This is why He mentioned this. Now it makes perfect sense to me, and thank you for shedding light on this.
However this does weaken your example concerning the thief on the cross. One can say that since Jesus did not give the command to baptize until -after- the resurrection, then that example does not apply. Now you did mention that it is written
Mar_16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
and that it does not say "he that believeth not or is not baptized shall be damned" but simply "he that believeth not shall be damned." So logically this leaves open the cases where someone gets saved but is not baptized. Those cases are up to God to decide. With that said I do believe that there are people in Heaven who were not baptized because of either inability to get baptized or because they were taught falsely. But those who know that this is a commandment of God and do not do it, are in danger of Hell. I think it is more than an ordinance violation (think jaywalking or spitting gum on the sidewalk).
Finally, I'm surprised you did not mention this verse in your discussion on baptism:
1Pe_3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
PS. I have a question for you: do you think King Solomon was saved in the end or did he die in his sins?
Dear Chris, I've listened to your audio on baptism several times and have a few comments on it if you care to listen.
No idea who you are, so it makes it difficult sometimes because when I don't know what someone believes concerning the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it's hard to just take in anyone's opinion on the matter. However, that being said, a quick search shows me that you seem to be teaching good things among your church, which is rare. (It's sad that it took the fraudulent COVID scam for Christians to wake up to that fact, instead of understanding through Scripture, but at least there are some Christians gaining good understanding from the circumstances.) I can't tell what you teach on a number of basic principles though, so I'll just have to read your letter and try to discern the best I can.
I was taught originally that when Jesus told Nicodemus that you must be born of the water and the Spirit that water meant baptism. I was also aware that others taught, like you, that this meant the birth water that comes out during natural childbirth. But this seemed absurd to me because why would Jesus mention natural childbirth since everyone goes through this process anyway; i.e it is trivial. Then it occurred to me that you cannot be born a second time unless you are born a first time. This is why He mentioned this. Now it makes perfect sense to me, and thank you for shedding light on this.
Okay, but I'm waiting for the "buuuut..." or "however..." because people don't typically take the time to write me unless they want to argue something. *detective emoji*
However
There it is.
this does weaken your example concerning the thief on the cross. One can say that since Jesus did not give the command to baptize until -after- the resurrection, then that example does not apply. Now you did mention that it is written
Mar_16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Not at all, because, again, we have to take precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little.
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
-Isa 28:9-10
This means that the fullness of a doctrine cannot be assessed in Mark 16:16 alone, which is not to say that I'm accusing you of cherrying pick Scriptures, please do not misunderstand; I'm simply pointing out that those who cherry pick cannot understand this verse, and often put unnecessary guidelines on others because of their lack of understanding and misinterpretations.
The bottom line is this: Baptism is an action. It is a ritual. It is something that takes physical effort to be done, and it requires more than one person to accomplish. It falls under the category of works, no matter how one might try to explain it, and there is no other verse than can be used to say that it is not a work.
So knowing that works are not required for salvation...
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
-Eph 2:8-9
... then we know that baptism cannot be a requirement for salvation either, which leaves us the obvious question: Why did Jesus Christ say that those who believe AND are baptized shall be saved, when no one can be saved by works? You focused your letter on one extreme of the criminal being crucified with Christ, but now let's go to the other extreme in Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8.
If you go to verse 13, you will notice that Simon believed the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and he was baptized, but he was not saved.
Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
-Acts 8:21
If we take the interpretation that you are using in Mark 16:16, then there would be a serious contradiction here, which is why you are writing to me (I presume). However, there is no contradiction because baptism is not a crux of salvation. Rather, baptism is (or perhaps, can be) evidence of obedience to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is why Jesus said those who believe and are baptized. So when a man is saved, and then learns that he needs to be baptized by the commandment of Jesus Christ, he is obedient to what Christ has told Him to do, and because there are many who have believe, but are not saved (John 8:31-45), then that leaves us with curiosity that something is missing in this equation. If a man can be saved without baptism, but can also be unsaved with belief AND baptism... there is a missing component to all this somewhere in Scripture.
I discuss that missing component in greater detail here:
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/whymillions.php
Our focus should not be baptism as much as it should be on that missing component. That missing component determines whether or not a man's baptism is legitimate. Even witches and Satanists perform baptisms (as do the many false church-ianity denominations around the world), but none of them have what I talk about in that teaching.
and that it does not say "he that believeth not or is not baptized shall be damned" but simply "he that believeth not shall be damned." So logically this leaves open the cases where someone gets saved but is not baptized. Those cases are up to God to decide. With that said I do believe that there are people in Heaven who were not baptized because of either inability to get baptized or because they were taught falsely. But those who know that this is a commandment of God and do not do it, are in danger of Hell. I think it is more than an ordinance violation (think jaywalking or spitting gum on the sidewalk).
But not because of works. Again, there is a missing component here somewhere, and if you want to know more about that missing component concerning the Gospel of Salvation, the link above will provide more details.
Finally, I'm surprised you did not mention this verse in your discussion on baptism:
1Pe_3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
There are a lot of verses I have missed in various teachings I've done over the years. I am certainly no master of Scripture, so it happens. However, the verse itself does not say that baptism gives a man salvation, because even the verse itself says that baptism does not cleanse a man from unrighteousness, which demonstrates that the salvation being talked about are given those who have a heart that is obedient to Christ because of the transformation of the Holy Ghost within them. It says that baptism is the response of someone who is obedient to conscience of the Holy Ghost within him (i.e. AFTER he is regenerated), which is why there needs to be discernment concerning the testimony of those who claim to be of Christ, so we can determine if a man did it out of obedience, or if he did it out of works to fallaciously believe that his own physical effort in a bathtub would cleanse his spiritual wickedness. (i.e. Physical remedies do not solve spiritual problems, as I have mentioned many times in the book/audio series I did exposing the fraudulent practice of psychology.)
PS. I have a question for you: do you think King Solomon was saved in the end or did he die in his sins?
I suppose I would do what Jesus did when He was teaching and answer that question with a question: Does God forsake those He loves when they do wrong?
And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon (1Ch 22:9): and the LORD loved him.
-2Sa 12:24
Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
-Rom 8:37-39
Have a great day. *detective emoji*
Chris, you wrote the following in response to my question about Solomon:
"I suppose I would do what Jesus did when He was teaching and answer that question with a question: Does God forsake those He loves when they do wrong?"
Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live?
Okay, now this is crossing the line into cherry picking, instead of studying precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little. Your Scripture (without any comment) was very indicative of a major fallacy of doctrine, namely, that a man can be righteous of himself.
What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
-Rom 3:9-10
You have access to what I teach, but I do not have access to what you teach, and you did not respond to hardly ANYTHING I wrote to you. (i.e. Did you write to me to have a conversation?) So be straight-forward with me, so we're not beating around the bush: Do you teach that man must do work to be saved? That should make this process a lot faster and easier. *detective emoji*
Chris, sorry for the delay; something came up & I was very busy yesterday.
You say that because I gave you Ez 18:24 I was "cherry picking." How so? Chris, I have some training in scientific method. There, "cherry-picking" refers to selectively sampling data that supports a thesis, and ignoring data that contradicts a thesis (like the global warming fanatics do, and is considered fraud). I did not give you a thesis, all I did was give you a datum (Ez 18:24) that contradicts your thesis, which you couched in a question, suggesting that God forgave Solomon because he loved him, as the scripture says, which of course is true, because the scripture cannot be broken. Now if there is one thing that one will remember from your teaching, if one remembers anything at all, it is that God gives grace to the humble. God loved Solomon and gave him grace, and the Holy Spirit to write the Proverbs no less. But later on, he married a multitude of strange wives, abused the people, and passed his son through the fire. These are qualities not indicative of a humble and contrite spirit. So what would God have to do, ignore that and continue to give him grace anyway, or apply the principle in Ezekiel 18:24? If God ignores the principle in Ezekiel 18:24, then His word is not true. So He must apply it, unless Solomon did repent of his evil works, which I have not found evidence of in scripture. As you have said in your teaching multiple times, "God is not a respecter of persons."
I apologize, I did not comment about what you wrote on baptism since I did not have anything to say about what you wrote.
I hope you don't think I am one of those who is trying to tear you down. I just want to find out what is the truth. There is an underlying reason why I asked you about Solomon, but it is not necessarily about works. You do agree, speaking of works, that when you go before the judgment seat, that you will be judged according to your works? This does not contradict what Paul wrote about not being saved by works. Unlike scientific data, the bible never contradicts itself. There is a way to resolve such seeming disparities, I have faith in that, but you cannot get at the truth by ignoring or diminishing one verse over another.
Chris, sorry for the delay; something came up & I was very busy yesterday.
You say that because I gave you Ez 18:24 I was "cherry picking." How so?
Hang on, let me show you the heart of the problem with your next statement.
Chris, I have some training in scientific method.
And there is the problem. As soon as I pointed out the contradiction in your argument, you turned to the rudiments (i.e. first teachings) of the world, instead of simply looking at the Scripture and discussing the interpretations of it.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
-Col 2:8
Perhaps this might be offensive to you, but when you say you have "training in scientific method," I could care less. I wouldn't care if you have 15 different religious or scientific PhDs. Such vain, worldly things is not how one is able to interpret Scripture because it must be done through the Spirit of God, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, not comparing spiritual things with "scientific method."
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1Co 2:13-14
There, "cherry-picking" refers to selectively sampling data that supports a thesis, and ignoring data that contradicts a thesis (like the global warming fanatics do, and is considered fraud). I did not give you a thesis, all I did was give you a datum (Ez 18:24) that contradicts your thesis, which you couched in a question,
Here is what I just read from you, "Chris, you countered my argument with correlating Scripture and sound reason, and so instead of answering that, I'm going to try and puff myself up to make myself sound REALLY smart and intimidating." Ray, this isn't my first rodeo, if you get my meaning. (Although, at this point, I'm not sure you will because you didn't when I mentioned cherry picking.) When you're done putting on a show, let's get back to the Scriptural discussion we were having.
suggesting that God forgave Solomon because he loved him, as the scripture says, which of course is true, because the scripture cannot be broken.
Scripture cannot be broken, but you're still rejecting God's love for Solomon for some reason, so let's get to the point.
Now if there is one thing that one will remember from your teaching, if one remembers anything at all, it is that God gives grace to the humble. God loved Solomon and gave him grace, and the Holy Spirit to write the Proverbs no less. But later on, he married a multitude of strange wives, abused the people, and passed his son through the fire. These are qualities not indicative of a humble and contrite spirit. So what would God have to do, ignore that and continue to give him grace anyway, or apply the principle in Ezekiel 18:24?
I'm still waiting for you to ask the question you need to ask. It's fair to say that one cannot know something for certain without evidence of it, but that's not the point of this discussion.
If God ignores the principle in Ezekiel 18:24, then His word is not true. So He must apply it, unless Solomon did repent of his evil works, which I have not found evidence of in scripture. As you have said in your teaching multiple times, "God is not a respecter of persons."
Okay, so you haven't asked the question you need to ask because... hmm... maybe I should explain it this way since you want to turn to worldly education for justification: What you argued is a logical fallacy called a false dilemma. Essentially, it's when a person presents two options, and does not consider that there are other possibilities, which, once you think about it, is kinda' like cherry picking. (i.e. ignoring data that contradicts) So your options are as follows:
1. God ignores His Word to bring a man to heaven.
2. God follows His Word to send a man to hell.
However, you never once even considered the possibility that you might not understand what Ezekiel 18:24 means.
3. Ezekiel 18:24 is not talking about a man having to live righteously to be saved. So instead of looking at the New Testament Scripture I gave you (i.e. the fulfillment of the prophets, like Ezekiel), asking, "Chris, how do you believe we interpret Eze 18:24?" you instead tried to puff yourself up by talking about the scientific method and your personal knowledge, and then claimed there was no way out of your argument. I needed to address that first because not only is that the wrong approach to Scripture, it's not going to work with me.
So, what is the proper interpretation of Eze 18:24? I'm not going to tell you if you're not going to ask me because, frankly, these emails are starting to cross the line over into the area of wasting my time, and I've got projects I'm working on right now.
I apologize, I did not comment about what you wrote on baptism since I did not have anything to say about what you wrote.
Okay, that's fair. However, from my perspective, it made it seem like I wrote all that for no reason, or perhaps even that you were making an argument and then did not care about the response. (i.e. If there is no conversation, there is no point to email.)
I hope you don't think I am one of those who is trying to tear you down. I just want to find out what is the truth.
Ehhhh... from this letter, it doesn't sound like it. That was a lot of puffing up, not trying to find the truth. I'm all for iron sharpening iron, but what you did at the beginning of your last letter was something else entirely. I'm just trying to get to the heart of the matter, and I hope that, somewhere in the next paragraph, you will answer the question I asked you.
There is an underlying reason why I asked you about Solomon, but it is not necessarily about works. You do agree, speaking of works, that when you go before the judgment seat, that you will be judged according to your works? This does not contradict what Paul wrote about not being saved by works. Unlike scientific data, the bible never contradicts itself. There is a way to resolve such seeming disparities, I have faith in that, but you cannot get at the truth by ignoring or diminishing one verse over another.
And you didn't answer my question. Hmm. That's odd. So I asked a very simple "yes or no" question, which you did not bother to answer, and I have no access to any teachings or statements of faith from you at all. I am left to deduce what you really believe by what you say in these letters. All I know is that based on the letters you have written to me, something is off, but I can't put my finger on it because I don't have enough information. However, I have no interest in trying to play a guessing game any further, so let me address this last paragraph one step at a time, and hopefully, we'll be done.
There is an underlying reason why I asked you about Solomon, but it is not necessarily about works.
So why don't you just ask that underlying question so we're not wasting each others' time? I prefer people who are direct, and don't beat around the bush.
You do agree, speaking of works, that when you go before the judgment seat, that you will be judged according to your works?
No. That's not what the Bible teaches. Those who are not of Christ will have to go before the Great White Throne judgment seat to give account for their wicked deeds, but Christians will not have to go to that same judgment. I actually addressed that point recently in Chapter 3 of Corruptions of Christianity: Seventh-day Adventism because Ellen White believed that EVERYONE (whether saved or not) would have to go to the Great White Throne of God and be judged by their works, and that is incorrect.
This does not contradict what Paul wrote about not being saved by works.
Incorrect.
Unlike scientific data, the bible never contradicts itself.
And yet, you were referring to the "scientific method" to defend spiritual arguments. Hmm.
There is a way to resolve such seeming disparities, I have faith in that, but you cannot get at the truth by ignoring or diminishing one verse over another.
Could not have said that better; I just wish you would read what you just said carefully. I gotta' get back to work. Again, have a great day. *detective emoji*
"And there is the problem. As soon as I pointed out the contradiction in your argument"
What argument? You provided me with a thesis; i.e. that Solomon was saved because God loved him, in spite of his lack of repentence. So I gave you a scripture, Ezekiel 18:24, which says, again, the following,
Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
Do you deny this scripture? Do you deny what James wrote too?
Jas_4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
Is there now a special exemption for Solomon?
Like you, I followed Kent Hovind for a while, and I use his teachings about origins quite alot, but I always had my suspicions about the man since he is an arrogant know-it-all. He should examine himself, and I think you need to as well.
Good day.
What argument? You provided me with a thesis; i.e. that Solomon was saved because God loved him, in spite of his lack of repentence. So I gave you a scripture, Ezekiel 18:24, which says, again, the following,
Hmm. Your comment there is really interesting because you first said:
unless Solomon did repent of his evil works, which I have not found evidence of in scripture
But there is no evidence that Solomon did NOT repent either. Yet, without evidence, you concluded that he did NOT repent, even though the Scripture doesn't say that, because that is what you want to believe. (i.e. a presupposition)
And still, I have no videos, audios, or writings to determine what you are teaching on a regular basis because you haven't provided any of that for me to see.
I have no statements of faith from you on various basic Christian doctrines.
I have no answer to my question on whether or not you teach works unto salvation.
Therefore, I am forced to conclude that you do indeed teach heretical works-doctrine concerning salvation. Or, at the very least, you teach the heresy that if people sin, then they lose their salvation. And because of that, I want to make it clear to you (so there is no confusion) that I am not yoked together with you, because you and I believe two different doctrines on salvation.
Do you deny this scripture? Do you deny what James wrote too?
And that proved my point. You didn't ask me what the interpretation of Eze 18:24 is, because you don't want to know. Furthermore, you definitely don't want to believe that you don't understand it. (i.e. How dare some young dumb kid like me, question you, the knower of science.) THAT is why I didn't bother to explain it to you without you asking about it first because I suspected you didn't want to hear it anyway, and I knew I would be wasting my time. The more you talk, the more you're proving my points.
Jas_4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
Is there now a special exemption for Solomon?
No, but we do not have evidence one way or another. The only evidence we were provided is that God loved him, and that he sinned. So if those two factors determine that a man is destined for hell (according to your teaching), then we're all destined for hell without hope, and God made a mistake in loving anyone (including Solomon). I will not join you in that unbiblical and ridiculous ideology.
Like you, I followed Kent Hovind for a while, and I use his teachings about origins quite alot, but I always had my suspicions about the man since he is an arrogant know-it-all. He should examine himself, and I think you need to as well.
So I offered to explain Eze 18:24, and you refused it, and you conclude that I am the one who is arrogant? Then, I asked you a basic yes or no question about your teaching on the Gospel of Salvation, which you refused to answer, and I'm the one who is arrogant?
arrogant (adj): assuming; making or having the disposition to make exorbitant claims of rank or estimation; giving one's self an undue degree of importance; haughty; conceited
There is only one person between the two of us that tried to puff himself up in an undue degree of importance. (e.g. Responding to spiritual matters with: "Chris, I have some training in scientific method.") My response to that is that I pray the Lord Jesus Christ would bless you and your family with all your needs throughout the rough coming months, and I hope that He shows you as much mercy as He has shown me. Have a wonderful day. *detective emoji*
Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
-1Pe 3:9
END OF DISCUSSION
But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
-Eze 18:24
Now, I'll explain to everyone else the meaning of this verse. Ray took this verse as a man is righteous of his own works, but notice that the first line says that the righteous turns away from HIS righteousness. That's key. We already know from Romans 3 that there are none righteous, and that righteousness can only be achieved through the grace of God, so because we know that, we also know that the phrase "his righteousness" is referring to how he views himself, or even how society views him, similar to how someone is a pastor or priest, and immediately upon hearing this, people around them think they are somehow "holy" or "righteous" because of their person.
Such a man who is held to a higher standard than the average criminal, and when such a man commits iniquity, doing the abominations that a man who society views as wicked (and who the pastor condemns as wicked) does, then he is FAR worse than the criminal. Shall that man live? Or in others words, shall that man have eternal life? By no means.
Ray took this to mean that man walked in the righteousness of God and then turned to iniquity, but that is not what this is saying, and he did not want me to explain this to him. Some online records indicate that he is 53, and since I am only 39, once again, I'm just some young dumb kid... but apparently, I'm a young dumb kid that he has listened to quite a bit. Well, at least until now.
399
Introduce Yourself / Re: Hello, everyone. New member. Testimony
« on: September 07, 2021, 10:30:51 AM »
So, a couple months ago, I had to transfer all my "unlisted" YouTube videos to "listed," otherwise, YouTube was going to delete them. These are videos I used in a bunch of my articles and books. It made it look like I uploaded a lot of new videos, when I didn't do that at all. One of them happened to have the comments opened. I must have forgotten to lock it, and I noticed it when I was searching for something in my older videos because I'm doing research on what I am writing at the moment.
This guy, Seth, left some comments. Now, the reason I am posting this is to, once again, prove to you guys WHY we do things the way we do them here. Here are his comments from that YT video, which, for context, is about a man being unlawfully arrested by a police officer:
After a new visitor logged in and shared his heart, wanting to find fellowship, instead he found error filled pharisees falsely judging every word that he texted and was under immediate attack from a gang of wolves (as is the common tradition in your forum) Christopher Johnson has this to say "Well, he got logged in a few times after we wrote these responses. He did not say anything. It's now been three days since he last logged in. I guess I'm not sure what the point of all this was. It seemed like he wanted to talk to us, but now it seems like he doesn't? I guess I don't understand."
Let me help you idiot! You're a F****g ***hole to every single person that comes there looking for fellowship. How dense can you be?
It's really no mystery at all
Was the officer's name Christopher? That would not surprise me
This video is much like how you treat anyone that comes into your forum. You literally do exactly what crooked cops do and you can't even see the irony in it. Bravo turd
Now do you see why he did not come back here? If we had just welcomed him into this community without ever questioning the strange things he was saying, how much trouble and grief would he have caused here?
A scorner loveth not one that reproveth him: neither will he go unto the wise.
-Pro 15:12
We don't get to see what happens behind the scenes a lot of times, and so we have to use our discernment to understand a matter and be vigilant to judge between good and evil, between sound doctrine and false gospel. If we don't, then we are just inviting leaven into the church, and it is important for Seth to understand that there is a clear line of distinction between him and the church, between his beliefs and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
We tried to explain to him the truth, he rejected it, and you can see the truth of what is in his heart much more clearly now.
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
-Mat 15:18
I hope that helps others in the future understand why we do what we do.
This guy, Seth, left some comments. Now, the reason I am posting this is to, once again, prove to you guys WHY we do things the way we do them here. Here are his comments from that YT video, which, for context, is about a man being unlawfully arrested by a police officer:
After a new visitor logged in and shared his heart, wanting to find fellowship, instead he found error filled pharisees falsely judging every word that he texted and was under immediate attack from a gang of wolves (as is the common tradition in your forum) Christopher Johnson has this to say "Well, he got logged in a few times after we wrote these responses. He did not say anything. It's now been three days since he last logged in. I guess I'm not sure what the point of all this was. It seemed like he wanted to talk to us, but now it seems like he doesn't? I guess I don't understand."
Let me help you idiot! You're a F****g ***hole to every single person that comes there looking for fellowship. How dense can you be?
It's really no mystery at all
Was the officer's name Christopher? That would not surprise me
This video is much like how you treat anyone that comes into your forum. You literally do exactly what crooked cops do and you can't even see the irony in it. Bravo turd
Now do you see why he did not come back here? If we had just welcomed him into this community without ever questioning the strange things he was saying, how much trouble and grief would he have caused here?
A scorner loveth not one that reproveth him: neither will he go unto the wise.
-Pro 15:12
We don't get to see what happens behind the scenes a lot of times, and so we have to use our discernment to understand a matter and be vigilant to judge between good and evil, between sound doctrine and false gospel. If we don't, then we are just inviting leaven into the church, and it is important for Seth to understand that there is a clear line of distinction between him and the church, between his beliefs and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
We tried to explain to him the truth, he rejected it, and you can see the truth of what is in his heart much more clearly now.
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
-Mat 15:18
I hope that helps others in the future understand why we do what we do.
400