Search
Wretched Worldview: Atheism – the Christian Response
Wretched Worldview: Atheism - the Christian Response
Twitter Updates
Tweets by WretchedRadio-
Recent Posts
Archives
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- February 2013
Wretched with Todd Friel 
I think the Duck Dynasty boys (Phil specifically) would agree with you 100%. I don’t think Phil articulated well in this clip. Does that mean its not important? no, its very important, but I don’t draw the conclusion from this alone that Phil is preaching salvation through baptism. Lets wait and see. Great video.
I thought it was common knowledge that the DD clan beleived in baptismal regeneration???
http://hereiblog.com/few-more-things-should-know-duck-dynasty/
I agree with you Jon and I think also that sometimes we do more harm than good when we don’t bring it to the Lord in earnest prayer before hand.
I wish Todd would sit down with DD men and talk about this subject , what I think about when I hear this is, when Jesus was dying on the cross and the other man next to him also being crucified was saved and Jesus said to him today I will see you in paradise , that man wasn’t baptized ??? And Jesus assured him his salvation~
Jesus had the authority to baptize with the holy spirit. No one living on earth today has been given that authority.
Why not just ask the Duck Commander Todd?
Todd is not a Duck Commander…that I know of.
“Did you mean Duck Commander, Todd?” 😉
Lol 🙂
I didn’t hear Phil say anything wrong, and the Todd claimed they believe we must be baptized to be saved without a link to back that up. There are a couple times when Todd does a job of ripping people apart. The day is quickly coming when I need to decide to follow Todd or not.
Yes, Mr Robertson did not say “it must be dont this way.” I am very sad to see Todd do this.
Todd, you are such an incredible ignoramus it is not even funny. Since when did belief in baptismal regeneration make one a heretic? I guess Luther was a heretic. Todd you are so freaking ignorant. Go to Bible College please.
Resulting to name calling? I’d like some proof that Luther himself believed that water baptism saved a person.
Luther’s Baptism Litrugy: “Then the sponsors shall hold the little child in the font and the priest signs him with a cross with the oil on the crown of his head, and says: ‘The Amighty God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath regenerated thee through water and the Holy Ghost, and hath forgiven thee all thy sin, anoint thee with the salutory oil to eternal life. Amen’.”
Lutherans ABSOLUTELY believe in Baptismal regeneration. That DOES NOT mean that one HAS to be baptized. Peter says himself, “Baptism saves you”.
I have some friends in the Christian talk radio business, that have made several attempts to contact the Duck boys, to ask them about their stance on baptism and they refuse to talk to them about on the air, or other wise. Hey the show is funny, but don’t watch and tell others to watch because they are Christian.
Come on now, your picking at things that dont need picking. He did NOT say it must me done this way.” He did not line it up as 1,2,3. Your picking and it is very sad.
Good point, Todd.
What I always find fascinating about these issues is that is so easy to be straightforward and clear when it comes to orthodoxy. Any orthodox Christian will say “No, baptism does not save you. A man is regenerated by the Holy Spirit and justified by faith alone, not faith plus water baptism.” Those who hold to heretical views always have to obfuscate their beliefs.
Josh you are point on. Well said brother.
Todd, I think you are taking some liberties here. Okay, yes, it is a Church of Christ, but I do not think this definitively proves that Phil believes that salvation occurs after the point of water baptism. He clearly says that you put your trust in God first. I cannot definitively prove either that he does not believe it, but I pray he doesn’t. You have got to admit too Todd, he and his family are doing more to introduce people to Christ right now than most of our Churches, and with their popularity, they have the great potential of introducing even more. I am not saying that we should embrace their theological ideas, but I am cautious every time I watch or listen to any minister or person of faith. Flawed men will be saved because of their faith in Christ.
Does this mean Tony is a heretic?
Reblogged this on Live Free in Christ and commented:
Baptism does not save you! It is a outward picture of something that already has happened to you when you believed in Jesus.
when i was saved i was in a church one Sunday the preacher preached the sermon. then at the end the church they started singing a song that i heard when i was 14 year’s old in another church. at that time i did not understand what it was about until i attended this other church when i was married and 21 year’s old i will never forget the song it was called just as i am without one plea but that thy blood was shed for me and that thou bidst me come to thee ole lamb of GOD i come i come. friend’s when i heard that song the holy spirit came down and said to me in my heart to come to the alter and repent of my sin’s. i was holding on to that pew with all i had then the spirit of GOD said son let go and come. friend’s i did and when i did i felt like the whole world had been lifted off my shoulder’s. i felt like i was floating on air tear’s a flowing repenting to GOD of my sin’s was the best thing i ever did in my life. and GOD has been working in my life ever since i got saved. i walked away from GOD a few time’s and he whipped me sore only for me know that i can not live without him. friend’s it took conviction from GOD that i was nothing without him. conviction from the holy spirit saved me by repenting believing and confessing that JESUS died for my sin’s on the cross was buried and arose on the third day to be with the father who art’s in heaven. i had to be convicted first repented and believe second and confess it to other’s before i was saved that is a part of my testimony glory to GOD !
He wasn’t heretical in the least sense! Giving a message of salvation, invoking the ONLY way is through Jesus and stating something 100% scriptural and you are picking at it??? I would disagree with you on this one.
Even if he believes in baptismal regeneration, who cares? Baptismal regeneration will not damn anyone to hell. Why don’t we all get off our high horse and think that only what we believe makes us believers.
Hi Edmond,
I have to disagree. People are condemned to Hell if they are trusting the water for their salvation and not the blood of Christ.
I would say that Todd’s view is heretical and Luther’s view is correct. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfryBnqBCLo
Nobody is mentioning the evidence Todd brings forth to support his concern of what Phil actually meant: That the church he is from and the ministry (We care Ministries) that comes out of it clearly told him that if one is not of the Church of Christ and Baptized by a Church of Christ minister you are not saved. That is blatant heresy and I don’t believe Todd is a liar.
Exactly.
Yes, I agree. I like Duck Dynasty. I appreciate that Phil and the boys want to share about Jesus. I love their passion. But sincerity can’t substitute for right teaching. If they believe that baptism is necessary for salvation (which is exactly what Phil said in the clip) and if what Todd said above is true about the ministry, and anyone who knows about denominational distinctives knows that the Church of Christ teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation–taken together, this is not a mystery, this is not difficult–they are on the wrong side (ah, I hear the nay-sayers already)–ahem, what I mean is, the unbiblical side of the fence. This is not a little thing. Paul was very harsh with the Galatians when they tried to add a single rite to salvation, circumcision. He said that if they believed that circumcision added to their salvation in any way, they had fallen away from grace. Baptism, though we believe it should be done in obedience to Christ after salvation, if done in order to gain salvation, is a work which takes us away from pure faith in Christ’s work on the cross. This is not the gospel and Paul called it “another gospel.” We want to take these things lightly but we shouldn’t. We need to protect the pure gospel because it is the power of salvation for everyone who believes.
Yes, this clip does not include all the evidence Todd discussed on the show. I think he was incredibly gracious by saying that since they hadn’t said it themselves we couldn’t know for sure. These men are elders in this church and they are surely aware of this doctrine’s existence. The problem with baptismal regeneration is the same problem with the 200 year old practice of the sinner’s prayer, people end up trusting in water or a religious rite rather than trusting in Christ. This is why evangelicals are concerned. It ends up being a religion of works. There are actually many similarities to the beliefs of the RCC and the COC, with the exception of the mode of baptism. COC came from the restorationist movement of Alexander Campbell (former baptist) and Barton Stone. Many of them believe their “group” (they protest the term denomination) is “the” church of Christ, tracing back to the Apostles, like landmark churches and the RCC.
Even Jesus was baptized. We must be baptized in order to be saved. It does not matter where it is done or by whom it is done as long as it is done in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Some churches make Baptizism to make a person a member of their church but that is not the reason it is done. That has nothing to do with it.
“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). This verse is composed of two basic statements. 1—He who believes and is baptized will be saved. 2—He who does not believe will be condemned.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Mark-16-16.html#ixzz2hTB7NTVG
Your own link disproves you. Here is the quote right at the beginning of the article:
As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches through careful consideration of the language and context of the verse. We also filter it through what we know the Bible teaches elsewhere on the subject. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation is a faulty interpretation.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Mark-16-16.html#ixzz2hTHa9RqQ
Paul, exactly, ha. gotquestions.com would never support faith + baptism = salvation. =)
Great presentation. Only one thing bothers me; the clock in the background needs to he hung with the 12 on top.
Here is more proof that baptism saves us.
1 Peter 3:18-21 (King James Version)
1 Peter 3:18-21
King James Version (KJV)
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
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:
Post-Pentecost, there is no such thing as an unbaptized Christian in the NT. Food for thought.
Oh yes there is, The thief on the cross was not baptized, but because of his FAITH in Jesus he is in paradise!!!
Matt said…”Post -Pentecost”…duh. The Thief on the Cross was Old Covenant…not New Covenant. When are people going to start rightly dividing the Word?
From their ministry /church site:
Click to access Focusing%20on%20being%20saved%20only%20in%20the%20blood%20of%20Jesus.pdf
SW: “May I kindly ask, ‘Can a person be saved outside the blood of Jesus?’”
“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Eph. 1:7)
Prospect (P): “Why, no.”
SW: In “The Gospel Enacted” point to the cross and ask, “When was the blood of Jesus shed?”
“But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced
His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.” (John 19:33-34)
P: “In His death.”
SW: “That’s right. Now, according to the Bible (pointing to Romans 6:3) when do we get into
the death of Jesus where the blood was shed? Please read this.”
P: “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized
into His death?” (Romans 6:3)
SW: “So, it’s into the water, into the death, into the blood of Jesus! Is that correct?”
P: “Yes.”
SW: “So, according to the Bible, our sins must be in the presence of the blood of Jesus for the
blood to affect them, or to cancel them! Correct?”
P: “Yes.”
SW: “So, should we bring our sins to the crucified Savior?”
(Support verse for possible backup: “And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you–not as a removal of dirt from the
body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (all the way through the
Gospel),” (I Peter 3:21 NRSV)
I mean, isn’t it apparent those sins must be present for the blood to do the cleansing?”
(Support verse for possible backup: “And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding
of blood there is no remission.” (Hebrews 9:22)
P: “Yes.”
SW: “So, how could you have been saved on that front seat in that prayer still outside the
blood of Jesus?”
P: “I couldn’t!”
SW: “You told me you (pick one):
1. “Didn’t know why you were baptized,” or
2. “Were baptized to join a church,” or
3. “Were baptized to show you had already been saved.”
So, again, can a person be saved outside the blood of Jesus?”
P: “No! I need to be baptized again, don’t I?”
SW: “Well, that is only for you to decide! I am only a teacher of the Gospel. I would
recommend, however, that let’s go back to the water, and you (point to the top of the first
arrow, draw a stick figure, write the word “sin”) consciously take your sins down into the death
of Jesus (point with pen downward to the bottom of the arrow and then to the cross), where the
blood was shed.” (Write the word “blood” there; then write the word “sin” there.) Then to
make your salvation sure, you can know you have taken your sins to the crucified Savior, Jesus,
so that His blood can do its work. Wouldn’t you want to obey the Gospel so that you can go to
Heaven?”
Todd really needs to quit this witch hunt against the Robertson family. His claims are based entirely on presumption rather than fact. He has never once presented anything conclusive that would prove that Phil Robertson believes/promotes baptismal regeneration, only conjecture. It’s really getting quite old, Mr. Friel. Stop it already!
Jason, I’m very confused. Did you WATCH the video?? (shaking head in confusion and disbelief).
I agree with you Jason. If we put Todds life under a microscope, I am sure we can pick apart his doctrine as well. I see these so called perfectionists, pick apart John MacArthur and many like him as well. Everyone thinks they have a monopoly on the truth and it is a sad day for the Church when we continue to fragment much like the rest of church history. Unity is absolutely essential because the church is the “body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:27), and a body cannot be in disunity or disharmony with itself. If disunity occurs, it essentially ceases to be a body and becomes a disjointed group of individuals.
Early Reformers believed, and taught baptismal regeneration. So when the words “orthodox”, and “heresy” are thrown around. You might consider the architects of your reformed theology also believed what you call heresy.
I believe baptismal regeneration is heresy. At least I am consistent in that belief. Since I also believe reformed theology is also heresy. It is merely the reformed Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is the great whore. Mother of harlots. Well, the reformed churches are the harlot daughters of their mother Roma Catholica.
Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
I agree that baptismal regeneration is heretical. However, Reformed theology is anything but. The reformers were anti-Catholic. Reformed theology is the orthodox position of Protestantism. The Catholic Church is actually Arminian. They reject the theology of the Reformers.
You cannot be serious. You are saying the Armenians are Roman Catholics? Where did you invent that from? Armenians are not much different than Calvinist’s. I count both of them as reformers. Reformers are nothing more than reformed Roman Catholics. Reformed doctrine has it’s basis in the same root as Roman Catholicism. Augustine. Baptismal regeneration is a reformed doctrine. It is part of the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin. It is not a separate doctrine. It is a part of the Original Sin doctrine. To accept one part of a doctrine, and reject another part, is just inconsistent.
I reject the whole doctrine. I believe reformers are cut from the Roman Catholic cloth. Harlot daughters of the Great Whore of Babylon. Grown from the same root. Part of the same bad tree.
My position more accurately lines up with Ante-Nicene Church writings. Those closest to the original Apostles. Before all the corruption of Augustine crept in unawares. There were debates against the Gnostics concerning Total Depravity. The early church was against the notion of the Total depravity of man. They were fighting in defense of man being a free will agent. Choosing himself to do good, or evil. Reformer doctrine is a softer version of Gnostic doctrine. Until Augustine.came along, the idea of Total depravity was heresy, and the free will choice of man was orthodox. After Augustine, and further popularized by the Roman Catholic Church, also continued by John Calvin, and Martin Luther. Today the result is that Total Depravity has become orthodox, and free will choice has become heresy. Everything got flipped!
In summary. Reformed doctrine is just an offshoot of Roman Catholicism. The Protestant churches are the offspring of Roman Catholic roots.All from the same bad tree. Gnosticism. Baptismal regeneration is a reformers doctrine.
1) Armenians are from Armenia. Arminians are those who believe in Arminian theology.
2) Rome teaches Arminian theology. Rome rejects Calvinism outright. They don’t believe in eternal security, total depravity, etc. Read the canons from the Council of Trent.
3) Protestantism was a break from Catholicism. So any Protestant has some relation to Catholicism. That being said, reformed doctrine does not have its root in Catholicism. It was a break from Catholicism’s doctrine of salvation by works to salvation by faith in Christ alone. There is nothing in what Augustine believed that is not in Paul’s theology, nor in Christ’s. Total depravity is a biblical doctrine. That’s sort of Paul’s point in Romans 1-3. Calvin and Luther both agreed with Augustine (and Paul and Jesus) regarding sin and depravity, that much is true. Also, Augustine was the Bishop of Hippo. The Roman Catholic church had not even begun to become what it is today. So to blast Augustine because he came after Constantine is really slanderous and a dubious claim at best.
4) The Catholic church today does not hold to Augustinianism regarding total depravity. They hold to a semi-Pelagian position.
5) Original sin is a biblical doctrine. To deny original sin is to deny the need for a savior. A denial of original sin, now that is heretical.
6) You need to read the time references in Revelation to find out who the great harlot is. I don’t think it’s who you think it is.
Looks like we have begun to itemize a list. It won’t be long before you start to call me names.
1. A misspelling on my part does not mean you are right about any particular issue. I believe you received the communication I intended. In spite of my misspelling. Thus, communication has been achieved.
2. Arminian theology came from Jacobus Arminius. Not from the RCC. You have made a claim twice, without ant data to back up the claim. Bald assertion on your part.
3. Protestantism was not a break from RCC. It was simply a redefining of the same doctrines. They still share the same source in Augustine. A true break from RCC teachings, would mean to reject all the teachings that originate from Augustine. Reformed doctrine is just that. Reformed RCC. Not a break, but just a reshaping of the same beliefs.
4. The RCC does hold to Augustinian total depravity. That is why they also believe baptismal regeneration, which also came from Augustine. The RCC follows Augustine much closer than the New Reformers do. Modern Reformers accept only half a doctrine. The RCC maintains the full doctrine. By removing the baptismal regeneration, you are cutting the doctrine in half. Why do you even mention Palegius? You don’t really know what that man believed. Very little of his own writings still exist. Unless you can read Latin, or German. I doubt you have read any of his writings.
5. To deny Baptismal regeneration is to deny the original Original Sin doctrine. It is the same doctrine. All of the Early Church denied the Total Depravity of man view. They often debated against the Gnostics, who held to that view. You would call them heretics. They would say you are the heretic, if they were able. It is exactly as I already stated. Modern orthodoxy would have been considered heresy in the Ante-Nicene Church. Also the Ante- Nicene Church is considered as heresy by the Modern orthodox.
6. The Great harlot is the RCC. I have already stated that. What you are ignoring are the daughters of this Great Harlot. Who are they? I believe they are the Protestant Churches. The Reformers. Since to be a daughter of the Great Harlot would require both to have the same source. They do. Augustinian teaching. Which is sourced from Gnosticism. The Great Harlot is the RCC, and her daughters are the Reformed churches.
Also, the Reformers didn’t teach baptismal regeneration. There is a huge difference between covenantal theology of Presbyterian paeodobaptism and what Rome teaches about baptism.
The Bible says test all things, that means all things not some things or most things. It doesn’t matter who it is even at the peak of their popularity ! the only measure we have is the Word of God.
“but test everything; hold fast what is good.”
1 Thessalonians 5:21
absolute garbage
“the Reformers didn’t teach baptismal regeneration”
By which you mean: Calvinists didn’t teach baptismal regeneration…
Luther’s small catechism (http://bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#baptism):
“What does Baptism give or profit?–Answer.
It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.”
You do know that Todd Friel is Reformed in theology, don’t you? This is Wretched Radio.
I find it interesting that you didn’t quote Luther’s statements before or after, nor how Luther believed salvation occurred. Luther was pivotal in rediscovering the doctrine of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone. Free justification.
Martin Luther said this “[I] affirm that Baptism is no human trifle, but that it was established by God Himself. Moreover, He earnestly and solemnly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. No one is to think that it is an optional matter like putting on a red coat. It is of greatest importance that we hold Baptism in high esteem as something splendid and glorious. The reason why we are striving and battling so strenuously for this view of Baptism is that the world nowadays is full of sects that loudly proclaim that Baptism is merely an external form and that external forms are useless…. Although Baptism is indeed performed by human hands, yet it is truly God’s own action”
SOURCE: Luther, Martin, Luther’s Large Catechism, (pp. 98-99)
“But our know-it-alls, the new spirit people, claim that faith alone saves and that human works and outward forms contribute nothing to this. We answer: It is of course true that nothing in us does it except faith, as we shall hear later. But these blind leaders of the blind refuse to see that faith must have something in which it believes, that is, something it clings to, something on which to plant its feet and into which to sink its roots. Thus faith clings to the water and believes Baptism to be something in which there is pure salvation and life, not through the water, as I have emphasized often enough, but because God’s name is joined to it … It follows from this that whoever rejects Baptism rejects God’s word, faith, and the Christ who directs us to Baptism and binds us to it”.
SOURCE: Luther, Martin, Luther’s Large Catechism, (pp. 101-102)
Martin Luther clearly believed that “faith clings to the water” Salvation by bath! I know Todd is a reformer. I believe he is wrong in his theology. I wrote this specifically to show how inconsistent he is with his own Reformer position. He calls heresy to a doctrine that reformers taught, and believed. I agree that baptismal regeneration is heresy. I just go much further, and say reformed doctrine is also heresy. My position is consistent, whereas, Todd’s position is not. I am glad Todd is not consistent to his false doctrines. I would rather he be more inconsistent. So inconsistent, in fact, that he would come out of that harlot he is in. I have the same desire for all Reformers.
Doesn’t Chris Rosebrough believe in infant baptism? Isn’t this essentially the same thing?
Probably not going to happen. We hold to salvation through faith in the finished work of Christ alone – His perfect life lived in our place, His substitutionary death and His death-defeating resurrection, all for the glory of God. Our degree of worship of God directly corresponds to the degree we understand our sinfulness, and our inability to contribute anything to our salvation. Only then will we see that all we have is Christ.
But I’ve been in long enough. Have a great night. I’ve been working all day. Time to spend some time with the family. Peace.
I’m a former Evangelical/Protestant who use to listen to Wretched radio habitually. I am not a Catholic. I find it interesting that so many Evangelicals find baptismal regeneration opposed to justification by “faith alone”. The main proponent of faith alone was Martin Luther who also believed in baptismal regeneration like all Lutherans. Doesn’t this make one wonder if there is possibly a way of understanding justification in light of baptismal regeneration from a Protestant perspective?
My blog is http://adgloriamecclesiae.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/catholicism-and-way-of-the-masterwretched-radio/ if you want to contact me and have a discussion about Catholicism.
Thanks!
Sorry, that should read, I am now a Catholic, not “I am not a Catholic.” 🙂
Water baptism regeneration is a false gospel that leads to hell (Galatians 1:6-9)
That is an interesting view in light of the fact that all Christians believed baptism was necessary for salvation before the Reformation, see the following link for more on this http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/the-church-fathers-on-baptismal-regeneration/. Even Luther continued to believe it is necessary for salvation and there are quotes from Calvin that indicate he believed it was also necessary.
You have believed lies of false “catholic history”. The Bible existed over 300 years before your religion. And Luther and Calvin are nothing. Only the Bible matters. And according to the Bible, water baptism cannot be added to the Gospel of salvation (1 Corinthians 1:17). Adding it means going to hell (Galatians 1:6-9). So you need to get saved.
Hello Jess,
Thanks for your response. Simply saying the Bible existed over 300 years before Catholicism does not make it so. Take a look at the history of the Church and you will see that though the books were written within the first century, no official canon existed and various Biblical books were disputed to be canonical (like Revelation and Hebrews) and others like 1 Clement often were considered Scripture by some.
Not true, Pio. The Bible is eternal, God says so in His Word. The Bible also states how the Books were passed around hundreds of years before any “counsels” existed. You have believed lies.
The books were passed around but again this does not mean that Christians all agreed upon what is the canon of the Bible. So, again, it was a Catholic council that determine which books are canonical. Please read any history book from any perspective on this.
The apostles themselves told everyone what was the Bible. That wasn’t determined by anonymous Christians. Read the Bible and not your books.
I’ve read the Bible, where does it say that Matthew through Revelation is the books that belong in the Bible? It is not there.
Pio. To inject doubt, does not produce faith. Therefore, you only weaken your own position when you doubt Scripture. If Matthew through Revelation are not Scripture, then you have absolutely no basis to claim you are a Christian, or have any salvation whatsoever. You throw away the solid rock, in favor of your sinking sand.
Without faith in Matthew through Revelation as being Scripture. Then you have zero basis for faith in Salvation through Jesus Christ. It is impossible to be a Christian, and at the same time, deny the validity of the New Testament.
”
Your argument only exposes your lack of Salvation. you need to be Born Again.
I am not a protestant. I am a Christian. I see the RCC as the great whore of Babylon. Mother of harlots. The protestant churches are the harlot daughters. I believe there are some Christians within them. I believe the Lord wants them to come from among the harlots, and be a part of the pure spotless bride of Christ. Sound doctrine is exclusive to both the RCC, and the protestant reformed RCC.
Hello Tracy,
Lets deal with one thing at a time and then we can move on to things like the whore of Babylon. I do not believe we have to doubt Matthew through Revelation. They are Scripture. I know they are Scripture because Jesus spoke through His Bishops to give us the correct canon just as He spoke through the Apostles to give us the Scriptures themselves. The Catholic view accounts for this and leaves no doubht. However, the non-Catholic view leaves doubts because you do not have an authority to determine what is the canon, merely your opinion which is a good as the opinion of anyone else who believes differently.
Pio. The canon did not decide Scripture. Scripture was already decided before the RCC canon. We see every book of the New Testament confirmed in the Ante-Nicene Church writings. The purpose of the RCC canon was not to bring the Scripture to the people. The aim was to take ownership of the New Testament, and exclude access to the people. Anyone having a copy of any Scriptural that was not from the RCC, was called a heretic. These councils were confirmed by swearing an oath. This is sin. Jesus commands us to not swear any oath at all!
Mat 5:33-37 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
The RCC did not want people to have access to scripture. They wanted to have sole control over it. They wanted ownership. They were a bunch of thieves! The RCC canon was made so the RCC could begin to kill Christians in the name of orthodoxy. The Protestant harlot daughters did the same thing.
I’m sure you want to side step the RCC being the Great whore of Babylon. Since it is quite unfavorable to your position. Yet, it is VERY relevant. The RCC holds to baptismal regeneration, and so did the early reformers. They are from the same tree. Producing bad fruit. I am from a different tree. I am from Christ Jesus.
Again, lets stick to one thing at a time since you have brought up many with misinformation. Lets deal with the canon first and then we can talk about motives and Bablylon and baptismal regeneration. You are right Scripture was already there before the canon but the Bishops of the Catholic Church decided which books are Scripture since various Christians believed various things. Some excluded some books as Scripture such as Hebrews, Jude, Revelation, etc. and some included other books in the Bible such as the Sheperd of Hermas, 1 Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas, etc. The Church decided which books came from God. Without the Catholic Church speaking with the authority of God, you only have your opinion as to which books belong in the canon.
Also, if we are going to have a profitable dialogue, lets leave out ad hominems of people killing people and simply discuss the doctrinal issues at hand. I think we can both engage in a food fight but that won’t get us very far and it won’t be very profitable.
The Bible states that it is all we need (2 Timothy 3:16). Thus, we have from GOD what is needed. And God wouldn’t wait hundreds of years for a false system to give us His Word. A false system that teaches works for salvation (which leads to hell, Romans 4:5), a false system that denies the finished work of Jesus (John 19:30) with the horrible lie of purgatory, a false system that rapes boys.
You go to man, and man’s books, to get your beliefs. You don’t believe the Bible. Catholicism is not different than Jehovah’s Witness, they both take their books and their theologians, and put them over the Bible.
You are being very uncharitable. It would be better if we stuck to the issues and didn’t bring in ad hominems like “false system that rapes boys”.
True charity means standing in the truth (1 Corinthians 13:6). If there is no truth, then it is not charity, it is not love.
Therefore, since catholicism is lies, catholicism is hate. If you want to be in love, then leave catholicism and come to Jesus.
Pointing out murderers is not an Ad Hominiem attack. It is simply pointing out the obvious truth. The RCC has killed more Christians, than any other organization that has ever existed. Also there are many torture devices devised by the RCC for slowly torturing people to death. That is not loving to your enemy. They get this from the teaching of Augustine. The reformers followed suit on that. The RCC is not Christianity.
RCC mass includes worshiping wine in a gold cup. That is the abominatiuon of idolatry. They also like to wear purple and scarlet. They are also the mother of the Protestant churches. They have also shed more blood of the saints than any other. The Vatican sits on 7 hills. They also have used, and been used by governments. The beast is a symbology of kingdoms, and governments. They glove fits.
Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
Rev 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
Rev 17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
Rev 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
You need to be Born again. Then you need to come out from among her, be separate says the Lord.
It does not appear you are willing to have a charitable conversation at this time. Please contact me at http://adgloriamecclesiae.wordpress.com/ if this changes in the future. God bless you.
By the way Jess, that information can be found in non Catholic books on church history, it is not a Catholic view along but even Protestants will admit the canon was not determined until the council of Rome, Hippo and Carthage in the late 4th century, early 5th Century. Also, I thank you for your concern about my soul but I am already saved by Christ so I do not need to be saved. Baptism is not a work added to faith. Baptism is the means through which faith is applied.
It doesn’t matter what any book says, if it contradicts the Bible. And the catholic religion contradicts the Bible. Catholicism is not from Jesus Christ. It rejects the true Jesus Christ.
You have added works to salvation, so you are not saved (Galatians 1:6-9).
I would say that the Catholic Church does not contradict the Bible and your views do, so merely saying something contradicts the Bible does not make it so. Maybe you can give me a specific example. I have not added works to salvation since baptism is not a work any more than your voice proclaiming the gospel is a work in the life of one receiving the message of salvation.
Baptism is a work. So in that, you believe the catholic religion and not Jesus.
You are unsaved until you forsake all additions of all works (including baptism) as part of salvation, and believe only in the finished work of Jesus for your salvation. Until that moment, you are bound for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
I believe in the finished works of Christ and the works that the Bible speaks about in Romans and Galantians is the Jewish works that requires one to become a Jew first before becoming a Christian. I reject this view and thus I do not add the works to salvation that the Bible talks about. I also do not believe baptism is a work, it is a means. You believe that you have to tell someone about the Gospel in order for them to hear the good news and be saved, but this doesn’t mean your voice is a work, it is a means. The same is true of baptism.
Water baptism is a work, and CANNOT be added to the Gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 1:17). So with just one verse, you are proven wrong. And there are thousands that I could post. You are working for salvation, and that leads to eternal torment in the lake of fire.
I see we are going around in circles. Have a good day and may God bless you.
The true God, Jesus Christ, only blesses with salvation, those that believe the true Gospel. You need to believe the true Gospel (John 3:16), not your “gospel” of water.
I appreciate your concern. God bless.
I don’t know if Phil believes that baptism is essential for salvation or not. With his son being a minister at their church for years I would think he probably does because this is the teaching of their church. I do know Phil thinks you receive the Holy Spirit with water baptism because he has said it. This is not orthodoxy either. It is very important that we all do our theology in the “context of the church.” This means we look at 2,000 years of Christian history and also the consider the Reformers. There is nothing new in Christianity. What was consistantly taught by the 1st Century Church and carried down through history and by the vast “majority of the Reformers” is the orthodox view of Christ alone for salvation and baptism is commanded as a testimony of that salvation. Reason being it showed God had captivated you and you were ready to tell the world what God had done in you. If I or anyone else teach anything contrary when holding this as our guide then we are probably wrong. This elliminates most of what is said on television ministries because so much today is never ever taught or seen in the early church down through history. Any teaching that says you are saved through Jesus Christ PLUS anything is heresy and idolatrous. Are they lost because they are wrong? In this case I don’t think so, but we are taught that those who proclaim the gospel are held to a greater standard and God will in His own way hold us accountable. Only He knows how He will deal with those who teach wrong things, yet know God. The Bible says rewards can be won and lost (not salvation).
It is a great concern to me because I knew about and followed this family many years ago as a hunter and a Christian not knowing then what they believed. Oprah has a huge platform but she only offers the god of humanism and self. When this family and their message went global then it became a bigger respondsibility than they even realize now. You need have your ducks, in a row, so to speak.
What you believe about This Jesus is everything. He is a jealous God and He will not share his glory with any “man” whether they are merely mistaken or not. Your salvation is all Him and the keeping of it is all Him, period! Baptism is commanded but not for salvation. It is an act of obedience by men. An act of men. Something that is done by a man. Only God can save and He has already said it is not of any work (or act) a man could do or they could boast of it. Pray that God will bring this truth to a reality in this family, and all of us seeking the biblical Christ. Amen.
The main issue that lay at the foundation of this entire issue is what “is” and what “is not” baptismal regeneration. Todd identifies the belief that “one must be baptized in order to be saved” as being belief in “baptismal regeneration,” this identification is incorrect.
The concept of “baptismal regeneration” found its genesis in the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. This view involves the idea that the “baptism” need not be accompanied by, repentance, confession, or even faith in Jesus Christ; it is the “water” of baptism which saves, suggesting that there is some magical essence inherent in the water of baptism that can effect forgiveness of sin.
The above stated view is not a scriptural view of New Testament view of Baptism, and is not the belief system of the churches of Christ, of which the Robertson’s are part of, so Todd’s assertion that the Duck Dynasty crew are believes/teaches baptismal regeneration is incorrect. Whether what he said was done out of ignorance or willful action, at the very minimum he owes them an apology for having falsely accused fellow followers of Jesus of advocating false doctrine.
Pingback: Standing with Phil Robertson? | Seth Dunn
In fact no matter if someone doesn’t know after
that its up to other people that they will help, so here it takes
place.
Pingback: Devil in the Details – Italian Souls for Christ
It is and always has been Grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ Alone and Baptism is the testimony of my faith in the One Who Saved and commanded of all disciples! Shows we identify with Jesus in his Death, Burial, and Resurrection. Wet flesh never changed anybody as Peter talks about. Not the removal of dirt from the flesh but regeneration by which the Washing of the Water of the Word that produced Regeneration. God Centered Salvation starts with God is matained by God and is culminated by God so it is Grace from start to finish! My Wedding ring reminds me I belong to another and likewise Baptism so reminds us we belong to another! The Thief on the cross was one moment dogging Jesus and the next he was saying, “Lord remember me when you come into your Kingdom!” What change because now he is acknowledging that he is guilty and Jesus is not, that Jesus is Savior, Lord and King! Not a drop of physical water has touched him and yet the Grace of God the Spirit of God Quickens Him and suddenly he believed and a few heart beats later he went to paradise without a single drop of physical water touching Him Jesus Christ did not come to make bad people good, He came to cause dead people (us) to live. Praise His name and He does that by the Word of God! Paid for our sin at the cross begats us by the Word!
I don’t understand… he said “Ya make Jesus the Lord of ya life, then…” And then explained baptism?
Maybe in another place on the web they doctrinally hang themselves with their words, but it’s not here.
Pingback: Jesus Did Not Die for You to Reach Your Goals | Pulpit & Pen
Pingback: I'm sorry Sadie Robertson, but Jesus did not die to help you reach your goals.
Pingback: Devil in the Details – Italian Souls For Christ
You sir, are the one preaching heresy. Many millions will not inherit the kingdom of God because of the fallacy you (and many others) preach.
Phil is a self proclaimed pastor.