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.pdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/291030521_Counterexample_to_the_Born_Rulehttps://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0165v1.pdfKeep 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 28:9-10This 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 8:21If 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.phpOur 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 8:37-39Have 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 3:9-10You 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 2:8Perhaps 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 2:13-14There, "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 scriptureBut 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; conceitedThere 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 18:24Now, 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.
