Who are the teachers of Baptismal Regeneration?

They Are Now Divided Among Themselves

Read also:

• Is Water Baptism Necessary For Salvation?
• Baptism - Immersion or Sprinkling, Does It Matter?
• Baptizing for The Dead

You may also like to read:

• Baptismal Regeneration By J. H. Todd

 

Creating Jargons To Create Air of Special Knowledge

One thing I have noticed about human organizations’ effort at making themselves special, is the skill at creating a niche by inventing special words and phrases.   We can call it jargons – special terms, with special meanings which you must accept in order to qualified or accepted as a member, to be recognized that you are separate from others.  You never see Jesus doing that, neither his apostles.  And so we see this in religious groups, and we see this also with professional bodies.  Auditors create their own special terms, lawyers have their collection of Latin words, doctors choose to use Greek, and so on.  I have digressed.

Baptismal regeneration is one such term.  When I wrote that piece earlier on about the false doctrine of “must baptize”, I did not know that they have already created this sophisticated-sounding term for it.  It means being regenerated again through water baptism. 

I say, how did these theologians come up with the idea that dunking a person into water, or sprinkling water on him can regenerate him?  When they were studying for their degrees, did they not learn that it is the spirit that quickens, not the water?  So much for theologians; but still, I do not write them off totally.  I can still learn a thing or two from them always,  either from the positive or negative perspective.  But then, I also learn much from people who do not have degrees.  You will be amazed by the wisdom of some of the Orang Asli tribals in the jungle, who have not even gone past Standard One in school. So much for theologians.

The Original Teachers of Baptismal Regeneration

Now, which are the churches that insist on this false doctrine?  The Roman Catholic church ( which I consider as somewhere between pagan and fringe ) apparently is the inventor of this doctrine. 

The Eastern Orthodox churches, from which the Roman Catholic church sprung out of ( they love to deny this!) also holds to this heresy.  And to this list you can also add the Oriental Orthodoxy and the Assyrian Church of the East.  Maybe the Roman Catholics are not the inventors of this heresy, but the Orthodox?  I guess more research may be needed, but it is of no essential importance to know, anyway.

Martin Luther taught this doctrine ( Martin Luther was no more in Roman Catholicism, but Roman Catholicism was still inside of him ).  However, Martin Luther appeared to have 2^nd thoughts about what he taught, because article 251 in Luther’s Small Catechism does state that water baptism may not be absolutely necessary.  Here again, I would like to point out that he deceptively wrote 2 contradictory stands, in his effort to put his feet on both sides.   I find false teachers, people like Joseph Prince, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, the once-saved-forever-saved bunch,  and the likes often using this trick. Very slick.  You quote that part that suits the hearer, or when challenged on one, you can get out of it by moderating your position with the other stand.  Slick. Read how Martin Luther does it for yourself:

 

What Luther wrote:	What you should notice:
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.	Here, he says that baptism gives eternal salvation to all who believe, does he not?
How can water do such great things?— Answer.  It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism.	Now, here you find him saying somewhat the opposite of the above.  This is what I call deception. This way, when he is challenged on the above, he qualifies himself with this part.  If not challenged, the above becomes the rule.

 Abstracted from Luther’s Small Catechism

 

 

So too, the Anglican church ( Remember that the Anglicans came out of Roman Catholic church NOT because of any disagreement with doctrines, but because of political power, money and control ), and John Wesley, founder of the Methodist church also taught this heresy.  See The Works of John Wesley, Volume:10 Page:192  Wesley had come out of the Anglicans, which kept its Catholic habits for a long, long time, and still do.  Just look at some of their liturgies, priestly garb, candles and religious rituals event today!  But it might appear that the Methodist church today no longer agree with their founding father on this matter.

However, it must be said there factions in these church which have recognized that the teaching is wrong.  And so, we also have Lutheran, Methodist and Anglican churches that no longer believe in baptismal regeneration.  Hello! Both cannot be right! Wakey! Wakey!

Other Later Teachers

There are also cults, and fringe Christian groups that subscribe to this heresy.  Among them are the United Pentecostals ( which operates outside of the main Pentecostal movement ), the Mormons ( a very established cult, very respectable and often mistakenly accepted as Christian by the media and government bodies ).  It is known  that another fringe group, The Church of Christ International have also picked up on this teaching.

Conclusion

Now, do you know why the bible has put all those warnings in the New Testament against false teachers, false doctrines, doctrines of demons, vain philosophies of man, fables, etc, etc?   Or have you been comfortably ignoring those warnings?  Have you been thinking that the warnings were put in there to fill up the pages so that the bible can look fatter and better? 

It is about obedience, not salvation

Or have you already become numbed to discomforts and doubts of contradictory teachings in the churches, that you just choose to believe what you want to believe?  In which case, what you prefer is blind faith which is not true faith.

The truth is this: it is important to be baptized as a mark of obedience to the command of Jesus to be baptized; not that baptism by itself saves.  One is saved by belief, and the moment one believes, one is saved.  The moment one loses that belief, one loses his salvation ( and forget that crock teaching that says that a believer cannot lose his salvation.  Judas was lost, and he was even a apostle with anointing to do miracles ).

Jesus says in John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."

Is Water Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

They Say That Faith Alone, Without Water Baptism Cannot Save You


Read also:

•  Who are the teachers of Baptismal Regeneration? 
• Baptism - Immersion or Sprinkling, Does It Matter?
• Baptizing for The Dead

This article is not speaking out against water baptism.  I am questioning whether water baptism is a legalistic demand.  I am questioning whether the bible actually teaches that without baptism, a believer is lost to hell, because this is exactly what many mainline denominations are teaching.   

Let us first consider this imaginary example:

One Sunday morning, after the morning’s preaching, Lee Ah Wai went up to a Pastor Savan Leong and said “Pastor, I want to accept Christ as my saviour.  Please baptize me.”  And the Pastor Savan Leong replies, “Praise the Lord!  The bible says that even the angels rejoice whenever a new soul is saved!”, and goes on to lead Ah Wai to say the sinner’s prayer and to pray over him.

After that, Pastor Savan says, “Ah Wai, you will have to first attend the 3 baptism classes in order to obtain understanding of the fundamentals of Christianity. We cannot baptize you before that.  We plan to have the next round of classes about 4 weeks from now.  After that, we will baptize you together with all the others.  Praise the Lord for saving your soul today.”  And everybody crowded around Ah Wai to congratulate him, and welcome him into the family of Jesus Christ.

Half an hour later, Ah Wai rode his motorcycle to go home and as he was negotiating a bend on the road, he fell.  A heavy vehicle which was following behind ran over him and Ah Wai died on the spot.

Incidentally, Pastor Savan Leong preaches that baptism is necessary for salvation.  And by his own teaching, Ah Wai goes to hell, after the good pastor praised the Lord for saving Ah Wai’s soul today.

Now, answer these questions:

• Isn’t the pastor highly irresponsible for not baptizing Ah Wai immediately, since he knows that salvation is through baptism?

• Can the pastor justify through bible verses, his practice for forcing new believers to attend bible study classes before they can be baptised ?

• In what manner will the pastor be accountable for his irresponsibility for sending Ah Wai to hell?

• Or does the bible really teach that a person is saved through belief and faith, and not through baptism?

As usual, I am taking on another thorny issue. There are 2 groups who have diametrically opposing interpretation.  Both cannot be right.  Yet for hundreds of years they have not bothered to sit together to thrash it out.  Or maybe they have, but there is just too much pride at stake to admit “defeat”; you know, that “how can the “hand-me-down grandfather teaching be wrong” attitude? 

But then on the other side, that is the beauty of Christianity, you can agree to disagree and not kill each other over it, or jail the other side for having opposing views.  However, this was not always the case in the past.  How many of you know that John Calvin, 1553 AD one of the “great reformist” of protestant Christianity had the Anabaptist, Michael Servetus burned  at stake for opposing his “once-saved-forever-saved” doctrine? ( Go here for detailed history of the event ) And in connection to the subject of baptism, another “great” protestant reformer Zwingli, in 1526 ordered the Anabaptists ( rejectors of infant baptism, who survive today as Amish Christians ) to be drowned by decree? Anabaptists like Hans Huth, Balthasar Hubmaier and his wife, Felix Manz and Jacob Hutter were foremost of his victims.  So it wasn't  just the Roman Catholics who were killling Prostestants.  Protestants were killing Protestants who prostested against them!

The Drowning of Felix Manz For Preaching Adult Baptism

Today, I am sure that I would also be killed for stating my various opposing stands against established wrongful teachings, had the laws and concept of justice not changed.  That is not to say that I will not face persecution in other forms though.  So, my statement on the beauty of Christianity may not apply to many of the leaders of Christianity today.  Many would still persecute you for your opposing views, not physically maybe but socially, congregationally and mentally.  I only rejoice that I know that the devil delights in persecuting those who speak the truth of God.  For the devil does have the power and ability to work through people who believe in Jesus.  Note how Jesus told Peter  in Mat 16:23 

“But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan:”

But there is indeed a beauty to Christian truths, and that is: Christians who persecute, kill and destroy others are acting in disobedience to Jesus and the bible.  Whereas in other religions, we find the same violence perpetuated in obedience to their god and holy book. What a difference!

Why Water Baptism Is Not A Necessity

Let me first table out the verses that teach against legalistic baptism.  These are verses which are awkward to the “must baptize” teacher to explain :

Acts 10:44-46	Notice how that Cornelius and company were baptized by the Holy Spirit even before they were baptized by water.  So were they saved at that very moment or were they put on “probation” until they were baptized in water?
Luk 23:42 - 43	Observe that the crucified criminal was to be in paradise with Jesus as soon as he had believed in Jesus.  Did Jesus did tell him “Now get you down from the cross for my disciples  to be baptized first, and I will see you in paradise today” ? Jesus did not dictate water baptism!
Rom 10:9	Here, Paul clearly states that salvation is given by confession with the mouth together with belief in the heart.  Water baptism is not included.
Acts 16:30-31	Here, Paul in very certain terms stated that salvation is by belief, and water baptism came after that.
Other verses: Romans 3:21-30; Romans 4:5; Ephesians 2:8-10;  Galatians 2:16	The bible consistently maintains that salvation comes by faith, not through legalism and legalistic works. There are more verses to prove the consistency of salvation through belief and faith, than by legalism of doing something as a ritual. The legalistic teaching of “must baptize” is very weak in the face of scriptures.

If water baptism is an absolute necessity one would find it strange that Paul has this to say about his task to baptize others :

1Co 1:17  For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel;

Think deeply about this verse too, :

Joh 3:18  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I sure don’t see Jesus saying that he is baptizeth not is condemned; but He does say that he that believeth not is condemned.  See how consistent the bible is?  It is belief in Jesus that saves.

The “Must Baptize” Camp’s Defenses

Let me now rebut the “must batize” defences, which is fond of quoting  these passages :

What they push	Their error is:
“He who believes and is baptized will be saved “ (Mark 16:16)	Using this verse to justify their teaching causes them to contradict the Cornelius episode, where Cornelius was saved by baptism of the Holy Spirit, which happened even before the baptism of water came about.  Now, what do they have to say if, supposing that Cornelius out of excitement or some other reason, dies immediately after the baptism of the Holy Spirit, seconds or minutes before the water baptism was carried out? By the doctrine of the “must baptize” teachers he wouldn’t have been saved?  Nahh! They hate to answer questions like this one.  It causes them to squirm.
“Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38)	They simply assume that "for" means “in order to”  in terms of the future, because it suits their purpose.  What an error by people who use English, as a 1st language!  Okay, now I say to you, “Thank you for the gift of love”  am I saying thank you in order to receive your gift of love, or because I have received it already? We need to keep an open mind on such readings, and see if it checks out consistently with all other verses on the matter. Their understanding obviously doesn’t.
"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: (1 Peter 3:21-22)	So, here they emphasize up to “ now save us “ and ignore the succeeding phrase.  This is the usual tactic of taking scripture out of context to support any stand.  Does not the verse emphasize that the change of heart and good conscience, that saves and that baptism does not remove the filth of the flesh?
‘Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ (John 3:5)	“Water” in John 3:5 is interpreted as “baptism” in order to support the idea water baptize is necessary in order to be saved.  Let us consider the spiritual connotations of “water” in reference to scripture: Jn 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.  1Jn 5:8  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” Eph. 5: 26" That He might sanctify it and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word"  No, the use of the word water does not automatically refer to water baptism.  It can refer to the word of God as well, and also to physical birth.
“We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:4)	Is this a symbolic representation of the death of our old sinful being?  Does it say in anyway that without baptism, we cannot walk in the newness of life with Jesus living in us through our faith and belief?
“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Ephesians 4:4-5)	I do not know how this verse relate to water baptism.  But arguing this to mean water baptism is really a contortionist trick.   Remember there is also a baptism by fire by Jesus?  Does one baptism refer now to water baptism or baptism of the Holy Spirit? Or both?  What is “one baptism” referring to here?

Theologians and their Turf-protectionist Behaviour

Theologians are fond of highlighting only verses that seem to favor their interpretation, while playing down, and even ignoring verses and phrases  that say the opposite.  As an example,  Observe how this article totally ignores opposing verses, while defending its own stand.   Personally, I find theologians to be very biased even though they are supposed to be experts.  

Water baptism is a ritual, an act of obedience and a physical confirmation of belief.   In that sense, it ought to be done in every instant, and has to done where no obstacle to its performance is present.  But the bible has clearly shown that salvation can come about even without it being done, and before it is even carried out.

The demand for  carrying out water baptism smells of legalism, and this legalism is being practiced by those very denominations that speak out against legalism. Sheesh!  Whatta bunch of hypocrites and Pharisees!

The scriptures in Rom. 2:29 and Col. 2:11-12 in no uncertain terms put the legalistic practice of water baptism to rest.  Just as it is the circumcision of the heart, and not of the flesh that counts for the Jews, it is definitive that it is baptism of the heart, and not of the flesh that counts for Christians.  Our burial in water baptism is symbolic of the death of our past sinful self.

Conclusion

The imaginary Pastor Savan Leong did not send Ah Wai to hell.  By faith, Ah Wai has been saved by the Lord.  But the pastor Savan Leong does put himself in a very awkward situation with his teaching.  If he really believes that it water baptism to save a soul, the only rightful action was to baptize Ah Wai immediately.  That is what the bible shows us in the book of Acts, or even in the case of Philip and the Eunuch, remember?  Do you ever read of anyone in the bible telling a new believer that he must go through a baptism class first?  Such is the nonsense and the vain philosophy of men.  He preaches one thing and does another.  He slaps his own face, and remains blindly prideful of what he has been taught.

How many Pastor Savan Leongs are out there?  Go, read your scriptures instead of following vain philosophies taught by men.

Jesus says in John 8:32 “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”.

Right Church or Wrong Church. True Believer or False Believer

Some Teachings Lead You To The 2nd Death, Some Don't

Saturday 17^th September 2011, at about 3:00 p.m. I stopped by an Orang Asli durian stall to chit-chat and fellowship with the lady stall owner.  An Orang Asli man, whose his wife joined us stood nearby and watched us closely.  After a while, he motioned to me to go to him, which I did.  Then he spoke to me in Malay.  This was what he said.

The Orang Asli Stall Owner

“I am a policeman.  I had been a Christian more than 30 years ago, but today I no longer go to church.  I have no confidence in the church.  There are so many different types of churches.  Just along this road up to Ringlet town, there are no less than 6 types.  Each type says that it is the correct church, and other churches are teaching the wrong things.  Some churches even do not allow their members to visit other churches.  You people are no different from the Muslims, which have so many sects and they also says everybody else is wrong.

So I no longer go to church for many, many years.  I don’t know what is right and what is wrong anymore.”

Wow!  A seeker of the truth … lost but seeking.  I answered him in the best way that I could.  That short talk with him became the subject of my hour-long sermon on Sunday morning in another Orang Asli church. 

What Is The “Right Church” To Attend?

To be honest with you, I find it hard to attend any church in the city myself.  I am very consistent with attending my weekly home cell gathering.  There is warmth and closeness there.  We share testimonies, the word and pray for each other there.  Whereas, at the church, there is no fellowship except for that superficially hearty greeting from somebody you hardly know.  You hear the preacher, but do not get to ask questions – and he can murder the scriptures and get away with it.  Week in and week out, the service promotes books by this pastor and that author on the projector screen.  The church has become a book-reading club, not a bible-reading church.  It probably hopes to earn commission from the sales of book.  And on one day, a very senior church elder with the surname Wong even declared that he was preaching a Chinese sermon out of a book, and if the congregation has that book they wouldn’t even need to hear his sermon! They can read it at home and be blessed!  What utter nonsense from a church elder!

But then, people go to church for all kinds of reasons.  In my mind, many attend church as a weekly habit and obligation to present themselves before God, so that their conscience would not feel pricked.  As they worship God with their mouth, they would be thinking of where they will be going for lunch afterward, where to shop in the afternoon and about their worldly activities.  Many more also are in church to seek the gifts ( in the form of blessings, healing, joy, peace, money, promotion, etc., etc., )  of the Giver, fearing that if they do not present themselves there, the Giver will not give them their blessings. They are not there for God.  They are there, hoping that the preacher will reveal secrets of praying methods, how to do devotion and daily living that will tickle God to open the windows of heaven to them.  Others are there because of business opportunities ( come to think of it, that was the very reason why I first went to church in 2001 ).  How many are in church because they hunger for God’s word for its wisdom, warnings and life-giving truths?

Teachings That Lead To Death, And Teaching That Don’t

If you are not looking for the truth of God that can to lead you into holy living, to stay alert of the pitfalls that can lead you back to the lake of fire .. then it does not matter which church you go to.  Just go to any church that can tickle your ears the way you like it.  You are just being one of them that Paul describes in 2Ti 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

But if you are a seeker of the truth, then you need to know the difference between wrongful teachings that lead to death and wrongful teachings that don’t.  Stop going to  any church that have teachings can lead you down the path to the fiery lake, the second death.  And that is what I preached at the Sunday sermon.

Another Gospel, Another Spirit And Jesus!

Yes, Paul warns us of that.  And sure enough, today we have churches that are preaching another gospel, another Spirit and another Jesus.  ( 2Co 11:4  For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. )  The gospel of Jesus saves.  The other gospel leads you back to hell.  


The Jesus of the bible is God who came in human form, was born in a manger, performed His 1st miracle after His baptism at the age of 30, died on the cross, resurrected in the body  and went to heaven, and is coming again "after the tribulation of those days" . The other Jesus was born under a tree, performed miracle as a baby, did not die on the cross, or if he did, he then resurrected as a spirit,  is coming before the great tribulation and may have supposedly already come". 


The Holy Spirit of the bible is a person, a gentle comforter, a healing Spirit and a teacher of wisdom; not a kind of energy or force; the gospel of the bible says Jesus performed the complete sacrifice, no additional sacrifices, penance is needed. 

Paul warns us against going back under the law of Moses.  To be under the law of Moses is to be cursed, and James warns us that to break one law is to break all the laws ( See Gal 3:10; and James 2:10).  To be under the law again is to fall from the grace that is in Jesus Christ and  to profit nothing from Christ ( that means going back into hell ). Yet today, even many main-line churches, not just the cults continue to lead their members back under the law of Moses …. tithing being the most common law of Moses to be preached.  And so, there are still "churches" that teach that you must observe the Sabbath law from Friday night till Saturday night and the dietary laws of Moses ( the 7^th Day Adventist church, the True Jesus Church, The True True Jesus Church are among them ). That Judaizers that Paul warns the Galatians then are still here.


 There are "churches" that lead their congregation to pray to dead people, or through these dead people, to talk to them and ask them to talk to God ( for are not saints dead people?  ) … and that is necromancy, something condemned in the book of Deutoronomy.  The Roman Catholic church is guilty of this.  


Most insidious of all are the liberal grace teachings of “once-saved-forever-saved” type ……very popular and soothing to itching ears.  Most of them are posing as evangelical churches.  This type of teaching says that you can continue to indulge in sinful living, especially adultery ( Listen to this and be shocked - 
Hosted by:OpenDrive ) , free sex, homosexuality, drunkenness, pagan worship etc., etc, without repentance ( just confess and carry on doing it ) and you can still go to heaven.  That is not what is said in 1 Cor 6:9-10, and Rev 21:8.

These are teachings that lead you back to hell, however great they sound to your ears.  Yes, many “Christian” are going down that path to hell, for did not Jesus say in Mat 7:14  “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

Wrongful Teachings That Do Not Lead To Death

But the method of baptism whether full immersion or sprinkling, or infant baptism for that matter does not lead to death.  The criminal who was crucified next to Jesus was not baptized, yet Jesus tells him that He will see him in paradise.   

The fact that a Christian does not believe in or accept the gifts of the Holy Spirit, be it the laying of hands, speaking in unknown tongues or healing and so on does not lead to the 2^nd death.  If the Methodist or Lutheran do not want to receive those gifts, so be it .. for are those not gifts?  How many Pentecostal believers have asked for the gift of tongue, and yet were not granted it?  How many of us have asked for the gift of imparting healing, and the Lord has not granted?  But just be sure that, if you do not accept the gifts of the Holy Spirit, hold your tongue that you do not attribute those gifts to the power of the devil, for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven in this life or hereafter.  Some main line church members are saying that things like the unknown tongue ( or “babbling” as they call it ) comes of the devil!

A person who does not accept that standard interpretation of what the Trinity is will not go to hell.  Is that not foolish theology when the bible says that salvation comes by confessing with the mouth, and accepting in the heart that Jesus Christ is Lord?  Does the bible say anywhere that being unable to understand the nature of God and the nature of Trinity will lead to the 2^nd death?

Is partaking in the Holy Communion in any particular manner or in any ritualistic form a pre-requisite for entering heaven? Of course not.  Is the practice of washing of feet necessary for going into heaven?

What is Most Important!

A Christian in the right church who lives an unholy and un-surrendered life is going to hell.  A holy and right-living Christian who happens to worship in a church which teaches nonsense is going into heaven.  And so, aside from receiving Jesus Christ as Savior, a Christian must live in obedience to God, repenting ( turning away from sin ) in sincerity when in error.  

And on the preceding sentence, rest-assured that many hell-driven pastors will immediately object and declare “What! Are you not saved by grace but by works?”.  Some of these pastors are the teachers of “extreme grace”, a form of unholy grace they invented. Of the remaining pastors are those who cannot get it into their thick heads that repentance is NOT works, neither is a believer’s efforts at holy living – which come by the grace of God. For without works, your faith is dead.

So, it is not being in the right church that counts ( though that does help in our spiritual growth ), but your holy living in obedience to the commandments of Jesus.  And not all wrong teachings lead you back to hell.  Learn to differentiate between them.

That Orang Asi policeman can do well to worry less about which church is right, but rather whether his personal walk is right before God.  Joh 4:21  Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.  Joh 4:22  Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. Joh 4:23  But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.  Now, what problem do you have understanding these verses by Jesus Himself?  It means, you can worship God anywhere you want ..... anywhere.  Not necessarily inside any particular church or place or mountain or temple.  It means also, you can worship God in any way and any form, as long as it is in spirit and in truth.  Simple.  Free and easy.

So, stop worrying yourself silly about what church you MUST be with.  Just make sure you are worshipping in spirit and in truth.  Anywhere will do.  Any gathering of any two or more believers is THE church of the LORD - no brand name, no denomination.

Jesus says in John 8:32 “For ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”.

Is Jesus Christ Also the Father? Part 2

The Unwillingness To Accept God's Word As It Stands

Read also:

Is Jesus Christ Also the Father? Part 1

Further to the earlier article on the same topic, I have cut and pasted below here 3  replies to my questions from someone who tries to argue away that the Jewish word “ab” for “father” does not mean father but something else, claiming ancient Jewish cultural usage.  He then tries to apply a similar argument with the Greek word for  patēr ^G3962. .  Pater is used 372 times in the New Testament, and like the Hebrew word for father,  Ab ^H1 it is the only word used to refer to father.  So, the 3 replies appear to me to be very contrived attempts to mold and massage the meaning of bible words and verses to fit into one's own pre-conceived notions, rather than let the words speak for themselves.

In the 1^st reply, the writer claimed a “mistranslation”, but then he went on to point out the mistranslation is on the word “wonderful” which should be “pele”, not on the word father.  Well, I am not contending the word wonderful.  I am contending the reference of “Father” as applied to the Son.  Is it for us to say that God is unable to manifest Himself in any way He wants?  Is He not OMNIPOTENT?  Is God so small in our eyes that we can limit Him according to our little brain size?

You will notice that all the replies made no attempt to provide an alternative word for father, whether in Hebrew or Greek.  All attempts simply insist that there is another cultural use for the word father.  All attempts ignore the fact that there is only one word-form used for father, whether in Hebrew or Greek.  Of course we all know that there is always a cultural use of the word father in almost all languages.  As examples, we use “Bapa Malaysia” for Father of Malaysia in Malay.  We use “guofu” （国父） in Chinese for  Father of the Nation.  So, what does that prove?

The writer in one of his emails also objected to my calling the appearance of Jesus and Holy Spirit as "manifestations", saying: 

"All three are eternal existing together so how can they be manifestations? and which one is tthe actual substanvce id all three are manifestations, is this too deep or is it logical."

To his objection, I will now quote 3 verses to rebut him.

1. 1Jn 1:2  (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

2. 1Jn 3:5  And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

3. 1Jn 3:8  He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

So you can see, the writer is convinced by his own beliefs that he failed to see that the bible had called the appearance of Jesus as manifestation.  So am I wrong, or is the writer of the emails wrong?

Therefore, I am honestly very unconvinced by the explanation given by these emails.  Now, you give the emails go and see if you can be convinced by them. 

Well, here are the 2 definitions from the Strong’s dictionary:

Hebrew word for father:

Strong’s reference : H1

Hebrew writing : אב

Transliterated as : 'âb

Pronounced as: awb

Meaning: A primitive word; father in a literal and immediate, or figurative and remote application: - chief, (fore-) father ([-less]), X patrimony, principal. Compare names in “Abi-”

Greek word for father: 

Strong’s reference : G3962

Greek writing : πατήρ

Transliterated as : patēr

Pronounced as: pat-ayr'

Meaning: Apparently a primary word; a “father” (literally or figuratively, near or more remote): - father, parent.

---------------------------------------------------------

( Unedited )

1^st Reply

From    administrator@letusreason.org

To        Chan Wangtak <cwangtak@gmail.com>

Date     Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 4:32 AM

Subject Re: Jesus not the Father?

Greetings   Chan,

this is a mistranslation  it actually reads in the Hebrew

Isa.9:6 says, He is the everlasting Father. It is speaking of the Son who is called Wonderful (Hebrew- Pele); this word is exclusively used of God alone. It means unable to comprehend, indescribable.

How can a “Son” be called an “everlasting Father”? The word “Father” (Heb. Ab) is not used in the begetting sense. It refers to the pre-incarnate Christ as Creator. The son in Hebrew  is called Abi-Ad the Father of eternity. ” meaning He is eternal, that He is the source of eternal life. He is also called the Prince of Peace a term never used of the Father since it is a Son who is a prince. The phrase “father of” needs to be distinguished from the person who Jesus calls “Father.”

The Father and Son is a relationship term,  all three are one as God but not as persons.

In Christs service, Mike O

Reply No:2

From: administrator@letusreason.org

To: Chan Wangtak <cwangtak@gmail.com>

Date : Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:38 PM

Subject: Re: Jesus not the Father?

Greetings   ,

 Well i have been brought up reading hebrew and that does not make me a scholar but it has me know more than just surface level arguments by those who are have embraced a false teaching.

when abi ad is combined there is more to it

 when we are speaking of father of something or THE Father it is a completely different matter. let me explain further

Among the ancient Hebrews the term Father of, was always used to indicate Him who possessed the thing that followed.  God the Father is called the Father of Spirits (Heb.12:9) and the Father of lights (James.1:17).  This again does not mean a literal begetting of light nor Spirits. It shows God’s ownership and being the source of life. The Father of lights is a term interpreted in Judaism to mean He is the source of the moon, the sun and stars. For example the ‘Father of” strength means strong; the ‘Father of” knowledge-means intelligent, the ‘Father of” peace means peaceful, the ‘Father of” glory means glorious. So the Son is called more accurately the “Father of eternity,” meaning He is eternal, that He is the source of eternal life

Just as Jesus said to the Pharisees you are of your father the devil

The phrase “father of” needs to be distinguished from the person who Jesus calls “Father.”Just as the son is to be distinguished from the father.

To be called the Father there must be a Son. Which means he too is also pre-existent, and both eternally exist at the same time that is John 17 as john 1-The word was WITH God

John 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

He was with the father in glory before anything was created,. that means Jesus who is the son is God just as the Father is God. Thats two isn't it.He does not say I'm the father before world began but WITH the FATHER

 John 8:42: “I proceeded forth and came from God, nor have I come of myself but He sent me.”

The Fathe r sent him, not himself Jeuss make this clear  n Jn.16:28 “I came forth FROM the Father and have come into the world. Again, I will leave the World and go to the Father.”

In Christs service, Mike O

Reply No:3

Greetings  Chan ,

it has nothing to do with east or west though but being biblical. God manifested himslf not as forms , you cannot find this anywhere. I suggest you read our oneness articlkes becvause as far asi'm concerned you fell for this hook line and sinker ( a western phrase)

 the bible says  he manifested as the son of Gods - ONLY.

All three are eternal existing together so how can they be manifestations? and which one is tthe actual substanvce id all three are manifestations, is this too deep or is it logical.

yes one can not have salvation if they distort God's nature of the Triunity,  and yes if one denies the father and the son the bible says they are antichrist, do you read your bible?

 write me after you have read the articles and we can discuss any obstacles, until then please read.

In Christs service, Mike O

 -------------------------------------------------------------

Are you convinced?  Can you even understand the “run-you-around” arguments?  Can you see how a bible-educated person can be so brainwashed by previously drilled-in knowledge that he will try to devise all manners of unfruitful defense to protect what he has believed?

Jesus says in John 8:32 “ And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”.