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.


Topics - creationliberty

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 32
341
Tithe is NOT a Christian Requirement p9
In part 9, we finish going over Creflo Dollar's hypocrisy, and we talk about statistics and studies that have been conducted on how few pastors have really been called by God, but are satisfied to profit from it anyway.

342
Bible Discussion / Analysis of Brian Moonan's Repentance Teaaching
« on: February 18, 2020, 05:50:04 PM »
This is coming from Brian's radio blog on the subject of repentance which can be found here:
https://www.blogtalkradio.com/kjv-prepper/2018/08/21/truthdealer-radio-episode-27-repentance-and-faith-both-gifts-of-god

Once again, I would highly recommend for anyone reading this to check out the doctrine I have available on repentance. It will clear up any confusion on the matter.
Is Repentance Part of Salvation?

As the audio begins, it is the typical radio intro he does. I don't personally care for it, but that's not a big deal. I just want to emphasize that he emphasizes an importance on the truth over all else.

@2:30 - Brian says that if something is not in the Word of God, then it will not be approved by God, and I agree with that. I'm just waiting for him to begin presenting his definitions for repentance, which is something he said he would discuss in this broadcast.

@2:40 - I think he made an error there because I believe he was trying to quote from 1Th 5:21, which says "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." However, he said "test all things," which is what new-age bible versions teach. There can be a big difference between testing something and proving something. It was probably just a slip of the tongue back from when he might have learned from a new-age version before he switched to the King James, so I just wanted to clarify.

@3:50 - If you listen carefully, Brian starts out by correctly pointing out the false doctrines of various preachers, including Steven Anderson, who teach that you do not need to repent of your sins. Brian then continues on to say that those men teach that "you don't need to turn from your sin."
First of all, you guys know I have my teaching on Wolves in Costume: Steven L. Anderson, in which I demonstrate that Anderson is not of Christ, but in Anderson's defense, he does NOT teach that people do not need to turn from their sin. He teaches that people do not need to turn from their sin to be saved, and on that point, I actually agree with Anderson because to teach that a man must turn from sin to be saved is to teach WORKS-salvation doctrine.
Secondly, Brian has, through the slip of his tongue again, stated what he believes the word 'repent' means before he has given his listeners a clear definition of it and backed it up. So, in my mind, it is misleading to state things in that way, because it begins to IMPLY (not prove) that repentance means "turn from sin."

@4:30 - This is where things start to get really confusing because Brian does seem to believe that people should have godly sorrow of their wrongdoing, which is repentance, but then as he continues to talk about it, he does not seem to believe that repentance itself is grief and godly sorrow. I mean, he states clearly that he believes people should look at their sin and grieve. I agree with that, but that itself is repentance, and so I have, for a long time, thought Brian to be in the camp of those that are confused about it based on things he has been taught in the past, rather than just too-quickly labeling and accusing him of being a false teacher.

@6:40 - I'm not sure that Brian understands what sanctification is. I can't tell from this. He says that sanctification is God "molding and shaping us," but sanctification is to set something apart for a holy use. There is difference between internal and external sanctification, I understand, but defining sanctification as "God shaping us" is rather vague and I am not sure I can agree with him on that. This is not to say that God does not shape or mold us, don't misunderstand what I mean; I am simply addressing the definition of the word 'sanctify'.

@7:40 - This is confusing me again because now Brian is teaching not turning away from sin, and forsaking sin, which he started to teach, but now is teaching "being WILLING to turn from sin." I can't tell what position he is taking yet.

@8:15 - Brian says that repentance and conversion go together, and I strongly agree with that. However, that is making me wonder what Brian thinks the word 'covert' means in Scripture. The word 'convert' means "to turn" or "to change," so if he thinks that repent means "to turn" what does he think conversion means? He can't believe that the word convert also means to turn because that would make his statement nonsensical. You can't say that 'repent' and 'convert' go together if you believe they mean the same thing because that redundant. It would be like saying clouds and water go together; that's redundant nonsense that no one would normally say because clouds are water. Therefore, if he thought 'repent' and 'convert' meant the same thing, he would not say "they go together."

@10:20 - I think Brian believes that 'convert' means "to believe." So here's a breakdown so far of Brian's definitions:
convert = to believe
repent   = to turn
sanctify = to shape


In reality, here are the definitions found in Scripture:
convert = to turn, to change
repent   = to grieve
sanctify = to set apart


@11:50 - Brian just used the word 'repent' and the definition "to change" interchangeably in the same sentence. So, it seems that Brian has fallen in the trap that many preachers have fallen into, which is confusing 'conversion' with 'repentance', and because of that, they will end up leading many people down a false road of works doctrine.

@12:20 - Wait a second... Brian just defined 'convert' as "to turn from sin." I agree with that, but that's how he defines 'repent' as well. Is Brian really blinded to all this? I didn't think he would use such words redundantly as he does, or at least, I didn't think he would believe the Bible was using those words redundantly. There are places where the Bible defines words by using them together in the same sentence, but the verses Brian has quoted so far are not the places where the Bible is defining the terms.

@13:30 - Brian still says you can't have one without the other, meaning that you cannot repentance without conversion, or conversion without repentance. I agree, but for completely different reasons because what Brian is saying, according to his own definitions, does not make sense. Ultimately, Brian is saying: "You can't have turning from sin without turning from sin." That's nonsense, and I'm not sure that hardly any of his listeners are catching this.

@15:00 - Okay, there is a problem here, and I'm trying to figure out what's going on, so I'm not sure I can write this out very clearly right now. He's saying on the one hand that you have to turn from sin to be saved, but then on the other hand, saying that God is the one who does it for you. Well, if God does it for you, then if you aren't turning from sin, that would be God's fault, not yours. Brian, if you ever read this, your doctrine makes no sense, and I hope you would be willing to hear what I'm teaching on this. Feel free to analyze what I'm teaching in the same way I am analyzing what you are teaching.

@16:20 - Wait, what?! Did he just say that "they turned God's grace into lasciviousness?" Maybe I misunderstood him, but I don't think Brian knows what lasciviousness is either. Lasciviousness is an unregulated indulgence in lust of the flesh, and although Jack Hyles was a fornicator, that had no contextual relevance to what Brian was talking about. I cannot make sense of that.

@17:10 - I will not say 'Amen' along with Brian on that because he is still teaching that men must turn from the sin to be saved. He and I both fervently preach that repentance is necessary for salvation, but because we both believe they mean two different things, that means he and I are teaching two different gospels, and which gospel is the truth, I'll leave that for all of you to decide, but I will not stand in agreement with Brian until he comes to correction on his error.

@17:45 - Brian is saying that we should not go out and scream "repent or perish!" to people, but the sad part about that is that Brian had to say that to his listening audience, and it's because he does not understand what repentance means, just as those who scream and rail don't understand what it means either. Once you understand that repentance is grief and godly sorrow of sin, then you don't have to tell them not to rail and scream because the message of repentance is a gentle message automatically. Rebuking sin itself can sometimes be very sharp, but godly sorrow is a calm message.

I made it to his commercial break, and I think I'm going to stop there. If our church wants to discuss this on our Thursday meetup, we can do so.

343
What's New @ CLE / (VIDEO) CLE Update Feb 15, 2020
« on: February 15, 2020, 04:05:21 PM »

344
What's New @ CLE / (BOOK) The Biblical Understanding of Weddings & Marriage
« on: February 13, 2020, 01:51:36 PM »
The Biblical Understanding of Weddings & Marriage

I know I completely rewrote this book last year, but I have spent the past couple of months renovating it entirely all over again, and it is much longer than it was before, even though it is still seven chapters. I wanted to polish this as much as I could in preparation for an audio teaching on this subject, and so I hope some of you might be willing to read through it and tell me if you think I left out anything you think was important.










345
Tithe is NOT a Christian Requirement p8
In part 8, we finish up exposing Ed Young, and then we go into details about the millions of dollars Creflo Dollar extorts from his congregations.

346
Tithe is NOT a Christian Requirement p7
In part 7, we continue exposing Ed Young's greed, heresy, and hypocrisy, and we find out how much money some pastors really make.

347
Tithe is NOT a Christian Requirement p6
In part 6, we begin to rebuke the false and greedy doctrines of heretic and extortioner Edwin B. Young of Fellowship Church.

348
Bible Discussion / Is Sam Adams a Good Preacher? (I don't think so)
« on: January 24, 2020, 07:44:05 PM »
I have heard this man's name mentioned in various places on the internet and in personal conversations people have written me about, but I didn't have any mind to look him up until today. I found an audio teaching he did on repentance, and I want to check him out. This will be an analysis of this teaching, and I hope it's beneficial to others.
https://www.sermonaudio.com/saplayer/playpopup.asp?SID=919171256240

To preface, I looked up information on Sam Adams, and in short, his general information can be found here.
http://www.independencebaptist.com/our-pastor.html
  • Bible teacher since 1991, beginning at Northwest Christian Church in Tampa, Florida
  • Co-Founder of the Faith Baptist Fellowship Church in Tampa in 1996
  • Adult Bible Class Teacher at Landmark Baptist Church, Brooksville, Florida from 2001-2004
  • Pastor of Independence Baptist Church (formerly Freedom Baptist Church) in Ocala, Florida since August 2008
There are a few discrepancies I have with that page, but those are matters I can be patient with, so there is nothing seriously wrong so far. (i.e. I don't expect everyone to have everything correct in all matters. -1Co 13:12)

@2:00 - I am already bored, and starting to get impatient because, instead of talking about the teaching, he's talking about a storm and eating ice cream. That's vanity they can discuss later; this is time for doctrine. This is already starting to sound like typical vain church-ianity preachers to me. I hope that will change soon.

@2:50 - I have to commend his firm stance in calling Trump out for his compromising position in general. I did not hear any specifics in that statement, but I can get behind the fact based on Trumps pre-election comments about him claiming to be a Christian, but then turning around and telling everyone that he has never asked forgiveness for sin.

@8:00 - So far so good; he has not defined repentance, but he has made true statements, and called out the heresies of men like Jack Hyles and Steven Anderson. I suppose he and I have done the same research because I have never heard Sam Adams before, and he has probably never heard me teach.

@16:00 - As far as I know, I still have no objections to anything he has said so far, but I'm optimistically cautious because he has not defined the word 'repent' yet. I have this growing suspicion, based on things he is implying, that he believe that 'repent' means "to turn from sin."

@19:30 - So for the first part of his teaching, he kept saying "repentance of sin" over and over, and that's because he was quoting from Scripture, but now, he has shifted to repeating the phrase "repentance FROM sin," which is falling back into his false definition of repentance, namely, that he believes the word 'repent' means "to turn." He has condemned Jack Hyles and Steven Anderson for their erroneous definition of repentance, but then Sam Adams has the same error they have, and they all adopted it from church-ianity instead of going to the context of the Word.

@25:00 - Again, the only reason I can agree with Adams' doctrine is because he is preaching from the same verses that I preach from, but he has not defined what he means by 'repentance', and that is why I believe this teaching is not good.

@26:00 - Okay, here we go! Adams says that the following verse is the best definition of repentance in the entire Bible:
To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
-Acts 26:18

So yes, my suspicion was correct; Sam Adams believes that the word 'repent' means "to turn," and even though he states at the beginning that salvation is by grace through faith, I do not believe him because he is teaching that a man must turn from his sin to be saved. (Even heretics like Anderson can figure that much out.) That's works doctrine. I cannot yoke together with such a man because he does not understand the humility and grief that is repentance.
Those of you who know my teachings also know that I teach we Christians must turn from sin, and that we cannot live any longer in sin (and that those who claim to be of Christ but live in sin are hypocrites and liars), but to be saved, a man must come to grief and sorrow of his sin, by which God will open his eyes and turn him away from sin.

@27:00 - He said that repentance and salvation were in the same verse, but that was deceptive because he was answering to Steven Anderson's argument that the specific words 'repent' and 'salvation' were not in the same verse. So he addressed that argument, but then used Acts 26:18 to answer it, which not only gives an incorrect definition of repentance, but also does not answer what Anderson claimed. That was a bit deceptive.

@30:00 - I found what he said here very blind because, whereas he believes that 'repent' means "to turn from sin," he was oblivious to the verse he was quoting:
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
-Acts 3:19

If 'repent' meant "to turn from sin," then our sins are blotted out of the book of life by turning from sin. That's totally antithetical to everything the Bible teaches us. Rather, come to godly sorrow of your wrongdoing and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, which is what converts (i.e. turns and changes) a man, and then your sins will be blotted out by His grace.

The sad thing is that, listening to this, I find Sam Adams to be a man that has spent a lot of time in the Scriptures, but still does not have a full understanding of the Gospel.

@33:40 - Now we can see where Sam Adams is drawing his doctrine from. He is not drawing his meaning and interpretation of Scripture from the context of Scripture itself, but rather, he is drawing it from lexicons, concordances, and other Greek grammar dictionaries. To that point, I will now stop listening to the rest of his teaching because I have heard enough.

If anyone wants to learn the problem with that, please go to this teaching:
The Dangers of Using Lexicons and Concordances

If anyone wants to learn the truth of the Gospel of Jesus and His doctrine on repentance, here is my audio teaching on repentance:
https://youtu.be/NEI_H3QUb7Q?t=20

Until Sam Adams stops preaching works-based doctrine, I cannot endorse or support him in any way, and he is no different than the hypocrites that he points out if he will not hear the truth of the Word of God. I am thankful that he preaches that men should turn from sin, but I cannot say that this man is of Christ when he preaches that a man must turn from sin to receive grace, as that is no different than the antichrist doctrine of the Catholic Church.

His website bio has no salvation testimony on it. It just says he was saved in 1987. I cannot draw any information from that. It's mostly just his credentials, which is typical of most church-ianity pastors. Therefore, we have no evidence to see if he was actually saved, or if he turned from sin (without repentance) and thought he was saved by his works, while hypocritically teaching grace.

349
Here's the video clip; it's only about 3 minutes long.
https://youtu.be/iMl0ty6evhU

At the very end, listen carefully. I had to hear it twice because I was not sure if I heard Gates right. He states that if development of healthcare and vaccines continue, the world population can decrease by 15%.

However, Gates' statement backs up the teaching I did on vaccines:
The United Vacci-Nations

350
Tithe is NOT a Christian Requirement p5
In part 5, we learn about the problem with calling it "tithes and offerings," as well as the corrupt origin of the "seed-faith" doctrine that has become popular today.


351
Wild Emails @ CLE / A Woman Calls Me 'Satan'
« on: January 20, 2020, 01:17:21 AM »

DEBRA FROM USA

Dear Mr. Johnson,
In one of your articles you say that Melchisdec was not the Son of God, but an ordinary man based upon the words, "like unto the Son of God."

That phrase is also used in the bk of Revelation in ref. to an angel. It's also the same as the "angel of the Lord" which is a kind of veiled ref. to Jesus Himself, the "angel of the Lord" is Jesus.

Now for clear proof that Melcisidec was in fact a pre-incarnate Jesus ---
Heb 7:24  but this man, because he continues forever, has the intransmissible priesthood.
Heb 7:25  Therefore he is able also to save to the uttermost those that come unto God by him, seeing he ever lives to make intercession for them.
Heb 7:26  For it was expedient that we have such a high priest, who is holy, innocent, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens,
Heb 7:27  who needs not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for the people's; for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
Heb 7:28  For the law makes men high priests who have weakness; but the word of the oath, which was after the law, has made perfect a Son forever.

These scriptures prove without a shadow of a doubt that Melchisidec was another Pre-incarnate manifestation of Jesus Christ, or at the very least, a "type" of Christ. Don't see how anyone could view it otherwise - "he continues FOREVER," "is able to SAVE those who come to God through Him," is "innocent, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made HIGHER THAN THE HEAVENS, "he offered up HIMSELF."

Think that's ample proof of who Melchisidec was. Please amend your article re Melchisidec, lest you loose credibility as a bible teacher.



Dear Ms. Debra from the vague "USA,"
Let's not stand on pretense. You did not write me to discuss this with me, and you did not write me to understand the matter. I hope you will at least be that honest with yourself. Your error is actually in the very verses you quoted to me, and they provide further evidence to support what I am teaching is correct, but I'm not going to waste my time explaining those details to someone (such as yourself) who has no interest in understanding them, so that being the case, please take your false doctrine back to whoever taught it to you, and leave us in peace. I pray the Lord Jesus Christ would bless you and your family with all your needs throughout the coming week, and I hope you have a great day.


Well your very defensive and tert reply isn't what I would expect from a minister who's interested in finding the truth or in even HEARING or SEEING what's ACTUALLY there in the Word! You FALSELY ACCUSE ME OH SATAN OF NOT BEING INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING THE TRUTH WITH YOU - Oh, I didn't realize that was the reason I wrote to you!

Your nasty reply tells me that YOU ARE NOT A MAN OF GOD at all. I will prompty remove your site from my bookmarks and never contact you again. I will also WARN anyone to whom I sent your URL about your nasty, mean-spirited, false accusing manner.

Debra, a true servant of the Most High.

"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars - their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." Rev 21:8



Excellent, thank you for doing that. It does not bother me if you want to tell people that I'm of the Devil; I'm actually quite used to that. I'm glad you're departing from us in peace. I hope you have a great day and that the Lord Jesus Christ would richly bless you with as much mercy and longsuffering as He has given me.
Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
-1 Peter 3:9


END OF EXCHANGE

First, I would like to point out that she is quoting from a new-age bible version, which means that when she said she was going to un-bookmark the website (assuming she was not lying about it being bookmarked in the first place), it is likely that she probably found the our website a few days ago (or weeks ago at the most) because if she is studying from new-age bibles, she has not been through hardly any of my teachings. It was only a matter of a short time before she would have written me more objections on various doctrines, expecting me to adapt to her feelings and opinions.

It is not only nearly pointless to try and discuss the meaning of these Scriptures with someone who does not care for the preserved Word of God, but also, this is the first time I have ever received any contact from this woman as far as I know. She started out her first letter with the following phrases:
--These scriptures prove without a shadow of a doubt
--Don't see how anyone could view it otherwise
--Think that's ample proof


And then she ended with a command/threat:
--Please amend your article... lest you loose credibility as a bible teacher.

That is not a woman who is interested in discussing the subject. Her letter was a full expectation that I should bow to her demands concerning what I teach. I am in a servant's position, but I serve the Lord Jesus Christ first and foremost, so if anyone thinks I that just because I am correctable, therefore I am automatically gullible and subservient to the whim of every potential listener, then that person lacks understanding of what we are called to do in ministry.

Her all-caps rage at the fact that I called her out on the truth of her letter is not something I was surprised by. When I opened her letter to read the response, I said to myself, "Yep, that sounds about right." However, I am not going to return the evil and railing to her, in hopes that one day, she might see that I did not retaliate during her wrath, and that might be an example set to her that could benefit the Lord Jesus Christ in some way; that she might come to repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing).

352
Tithe is NOT a Christian Requirement p4
Extortioners Becoming Pastors

353
What's New @ CLE / (REVISED) Does the Bible Teach Basic Sanitation?
« on: January 07, 2020, 05:23:33 PM »
Does the Bible Teach Basic Sanitation?

This is a short article I wrote very early on to answer atheist scoffers that claimed basic sanitation was only discovered recently. That's absurd. Someone wrote me recently and pointed out that I had made an incorrect statement about one of the verses. I corrected that, and in the process, I decided to re-write the entire thing. It's a lot cleaner now, not so messy, and it has a lot more thorough explanations. Now that I'm thinking about it, it likely needs even more work as there are numerous sanitation practices that could be discussed throughout Scripture. However, this is a short article to answer the skeptics.

354
Tithe is NOT a Christian Requirement p3
In part 3, we discover the origin of 'storehouse tithing', and that it was invented to put away charity unto the poor in order to allow preachers to maintain luxury.

355
Bible Discussion / Faked "Speaking in Tongues" For Pizza
« on: January 06, 2020, 01:16:00 AM »
The title is referring to this video:
https://youtu.be/RVQFhGD9Zn4

Of course, the young man in this video is obviously deceived into believing that women have teaching authority over the church in Scripture, and he's deceived into thinking that the so-called "speaking in tongues" of the Pentecostals is something more than Satanic gibberish. However, he has a testimony about when he was 11-years-old among those gibberish-speaking cultists, being nearly forced to fake some gibberish to please them so he could go get some pizza.

Hilarious presentation, but also sad, knowing how many are being deceived by false religious beliefs and practices.

356
Exposing the Heresies of Edwardpf123 (Youtube Preacher)
Recorded Dec 30, 2019, approx 3hrs 20min

Tim and I go into the details of Edward's doctrine, and reveal the contradictions and heresies that he teaches. Read the description for more details and references to all the information available so you can see the sources yourself.

There is an mp3 audio download available if you would prefer. Click here:
http://creationliberty.com/audio.php#2
If you would like to download it, right click the download button on the side and click "SAVE LINK AS..."

357
Tithe is NOT a Christian Requirement p2
Pastors and churchgoers are rejecting the priesthood of Melchisedec in Christ to live under the order of Aaron and the Levites.

358
It's finally done, and available for purchase on paperback and Kindle.

BOOK DESCRIPTION: Mental disorders do not exist. The entire concept of a so-called "mental illness" is a farce created first by Sigmund Freud, and later used by pharmaceutical manufacturers to sell more drugs, which are no more effective than snake oil, no more safe than snake venom. This book not only proves that psychology and psychiatry are not legitimate fields of scientific research, but more importantly, this book will also prove that psychology will lead people away from repentance (i.e. godly sorrow) of sin (2Co 7:9-10) and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Mark 1:15) for the remission (i.e. forgiveness) of sins (Luke 24:47), and that the philosophy (i.e. way of thinking) of psychology and psychiatry are in direct conflict against the philosophy of the Word of God.

"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." -Colossians 2:8




381 PAGES

PAPERBACK ($29.95): https://www.amazon.com/dp/1677754028

KINDLE ($14:99): https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0838MGH5W

(Matchbook should be available, meaning that you can get a copy of the Kindle free if you bought the paperback.)

As always, the book is free to read on the website, and free to download and print on PDF if you prefer (click the red PDF button at the top of the page): http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/psychology.php


I know many of you have still not opened this book to read it (on the website), because it is quite long, but I want to remind everyone that many of you were indifferent to the teaching I did on feminism until we went over it in detail, and now many of you believe it to be a serious plague of corrupt philosophy in our homes; I believe that once you read this, you will believe the same about psychology, and the infestation of so-called "Christian" psychology that many pastors have been trained in while getting their degrees. Silindile, Lorraine, and I all worked very hard on this to get it done, so I hope it's helpful to you and your families.

360
Wild Emails @ CLE / Catholic Coward and Scoffer Slaps and Runs
« on: December 17, 2019, 02:53:39 PM »
The following letter was sent to me with a fake email address, in which this coward, in a very malicious and deceptive manner, attempted to put on an outward appearance that he was concerned for my soul, as you will see. In short, he hated the my expose on Michael Landon, which can be found here:
Wolves in Costume: Michael Landon
He did not want to hear any Biblical rebuke, but nonetheless, for the rest of you, here was my response to him:

JEFFREY FROM USA

wow, your hatred of Michael Landon is absurd
Is there a particular reason you claimed that I hated Michael Landon? (i.e. That's what's called a false accusation, where you lie and make things up in order to justify your feelings.) I grew up watching that guy on various TV shows, but I told the truth about him and his corrupt beliefs. Would you rather believe a lie instead?

As is your hatred of the Catholic Church, which was the only Church for 1400+ years.
I suppose that answers my last question: Yes, you would rather believe in a lie. That's a lot of willful ignorance in one statement. I'm not sure where to begin in unraveling that, but I doubt you wrote me to learn and understand, so I won't waste my time.

Then the heretic Luther, an excommunicated Catholic Priest, took 7 Books out of the Bible and decided he had a better idea.  He and satan sold their lies to goofy people and --- boom --- you have a group that calls itself a religion, but it is only a lie.
Well, you already exhibited your willful ignorance in the last sentence, you didn't have to provide more evidence of your willful ignorance in this statement too; you have already proven that you don't understand what you're talking about. It's sad that you are only able to repeat things you were told instead of investigate Scripture and find the truth, and even sadder that, by your letter, it's obvious you would not hear a thing I'm saying.
The heart of the righteous studieth to answer: but the mouth of the wicked poureth out evil things.
-Proverbs 15:28


sorry you continue luthers lie
I don't have anything to do with Martin Luther. I have no idea where you drew that connection, but it seems like you just enjoy making things up. If that is the case, then I hope you depart in peace and have a wonderful day.

I hope God will allow you to see His Truth as He has allowed other heretical protestants to see it and rejoin The Catholic Faith.
I think you must have misunderstood, I'm not interested in the religious snake-oil you're selling. I stand firm and faithful on the doctrine of Christ in His Word, not on the wicked religious traditions of men that turn from the truth.
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.
-Colossians 2:8

But what's really interesting to me is that if I was just some random guy who didn't know what he was talking about, you would NEVER have written me in the first place. No, you wrote me because when you saw what I wrote, and that it was very thorough, well-documented, and sound with Scripture, you decided to write me, and it's also why you wrote me with such malice in your heart.
Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
-1 Corinthians 14:20

The Catholic Church is one of the largest (if not THE largest) deception against Christ that there has ever been, as I demonstrated in my book here:
Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism
And the "Catholics Come Home" campaign is a scam, and we have a tract on that too, that born again Christians can pass around in their neighborhoods to warn the people of their antichrist cult:
http://creationliberty.com/tracts.php
If you don't want to learn the truth on these matters, and you have no interest in reasonable discussion, then I have no purpose in continuing any conversation with you. I have to get back to work now. I hope you have a great day, and that the Lord Jesus Christ may give you a love of the truth that you might be saved.
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
-2 Thessalonians 2:10


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.
-Matthew 7:21-23


END OF EXCHANGE

I wanted to point out that, normally, in an email, I abbreviate the verses I'm quoting, but considering that we are talking to Catholics about Scripture, we need to understand that they do not really study much of anything in the Bible, and so I write out the full name of the book to them, in the hopes that, if they search these things out, they might find it with more ease.

I'm not sure why this man thought that slapping and running was the was to evangelize and spread the message of Jesus Christ, but obviously, without the Holy Spirit, he will never see.

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 2:14

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 32