วีดีโอ

Full sermon is in the description

Preachers are supposed to preach against all sins. Marijuana is poison just like alcohol. If you are attacked by demons, then you need to rethink about your life choices.

@sfbcIndy1611 I haven't joined with alcoholic people consuming a drug God did not create but entered the world with death through sin to crown it King over Christ's creation. There are only 2 known competitors in all the earth and you yoked with death and taught Christ's traumatized sheep by those druggies you yoke yourself with that they are evil for consuming grass He created and called food. And the consequences of disorder, mental health crisis and identity crises all stem from this incompetence, dereliction of duty and criminal negligence before a righteous Judge who would never allow His disciples to do such wickedness, all while perpetrating the charade that you are a drug free people working in drug free workplaces. God's judgment is upon you. Repent already so the nation can heal. If my people....

@sfbcIndy1611 A man had a large flock of sheep. One day some began consuming a substance produced by rotting fruits on the ground. Under the influence of this they began violently and sexually abusing the other sheep. Stressed out, anxious, and depressed the traumatized sheep began consuming a particular grass in the field that mellowed the symptoms of their stress. What should the shepherds do with the sheep? What did the shepherds do? They pulled up all the grass the sheep were consuming to treat their stress, anxiety, and depression, gave it to the owners enemies, and increased the substance from the rotten fruit. And when the stress, anxiety, and depression multiplied into the 10s of millions , they then, like sorcerers, created their own substance in attempts to treat the stressed out sheep. And any sheep caught trying to consume the grass was separated from the flock and left to fend for themselves in a land with no water and no grass. What do you think the owner of the sheep is going to do to those shepherds who joined with the drunken alcoholic and codependent to enforce a substance He did not create but entered the world with death through sin, alcohol, over His creation which He calls food?

Are you high?

@sfbcIndy1611 No, just a lowly servant waging war against a antichristian doctrine attributing what belongs to Christ as to Satan (blasphemy) and those naming Christ who have yoked themselves with alcohol druggies to crown it King over Christ's creation. God is Most High.

Are you on drugs?

@@sfbcIndy1611 No.

He meant the Talmud

There were always a group of people that was not part of the Catholic Church to begin with. Most protestant denominations only pay lip service to salvation by faith. Most of them teach a camouflaged works based salvation. They deny the eternal security of believers. They believe you have to repent of your sins to be saved. They believe if you don’t have works, then you are not really saved.

@ yes because Faith produces works as for “trial of blood” book that has been debunked. You see Baptist comes from comes from the Radical Reformation who wanted to be the complete opposite of the Roman Catholic Church while the Protestants wanted to get rid of all the false doctrines Rome added over time. You can tell they were added because the Eastern Churches did not have the doctrine of purgatory or the Papacy. With that said the Radicals aka AnaBaptist are now the Mennonites and the Amish and the modern day Baptist were separatist from the Church of England because a guy known as John Smyth ( not to be confused with the Puritan John Smith ) hanged out with some of the AnaBaptist and liked there ideas. Unfortunately the AnaBaptist contradicted scriptures like 1 Peter 3: 18-21 because they ( and I’m assuming you as well ) believe Baptism is just a symbol and it’s not necessary for salvation ( which contradicts John 3: 5 ) with that said your theologies true origins comes from Switzerland and evolved from there. Not only that but the Protestants thought the AnaBaptist were more heretical than Rome. Now I’m Anglican my denomination was founded by Saint Augustine of Canterbury and we developed our own theological views by Saint Thomas Cranmer. We were the ones who made the KJB and we mainly focus on the essentials anyone who is Baptized can take communion in our Churches because we don’t divide over things like Predestination or if we receive the Body and Blood of Christ Spiritually or Physically. However we do Baptize babies and have an Episcopal Church government because the Church throughout history has done so. Some of our Churches in India were founded by Saint Thomas the Apostle himself. Look at the Christians in the Middle East they are descended from the early 1st century Christians and they Baptize Babies and believe Baptism Saves. Because salvation is By Grace which we receive it at Baptism and in the Lords Supper through our Faith all of this is According to scripture and all of it is made possible by Christ and all of this is for the Glory of God. May the lord Jesus Christ be bless you and May Peace be with you Amen.

We get our doctrines from the Bible. Baptism absolutely does not save a person’s souls. Baptismal regeneration is a damnable heresy. The Scripture you mentioned to prove that is out of context. Salvation is completely a free gift. Adding any work to it sends you straight to hell when you die.

@@sfbcIndy1611 1 Peter 3: 21 Mark 16: 16 John 3: 5, Acts 22:16, 1 Corinthians 6:11. Acts 8:26-40 ( first thing the Ethiopian did after hearing the gospel was requesting to be baptized ) Colossians 2:11-12. Acts 2:38.

@@sfbcIndy1611 now let’s go over what Baptism is. It is NOT a work WE do. It is a work GOD does. He Baptizes us not ourselves I can’t save myself only God can. You are right about salvation being a free gift a gift we receive at Baptism and the Holy Eucharist. God Bless.

John doesn't teach that we should wear head covers.

@sfbcIndy1611 Sorry, my mistake. 1st CORINTHIANS 11:4 is the text ,way at the end of the New Testament of the Bible, yet Jews have little hats.

The context of 1 Corinthians 11 is talking about long hair vs short hair, nothing about head covering. 1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Revelation never says Jesus wore long robes.

You can find our service time and address on our website here: www.sfbcindy.com

@@sfbcIndy1611 Can't you just tell me? Gosh. Tina, come get some dinner. Gosh. Oh, sorry. I was talking to Tina. I'm back. Now, what were the service times again? You are in Illinois, right?

Sorry about the speech to text.

Jesus is God, the Son of God, the Word of God, and a man.

I don't understand the question.

​@sfbcIndy1611 Essentially, what I am saying is, if Mark Ward would be OK with "textual errors", then he would be OK with doctrinal errors because there is no way to .make sure that textual errors are isolated from doctrinal error.

That makes sense.

That’s not what this passage is teaching. Jesus is using the example that He’s able to curse the fig and tree to make a point that if we have enough faith, we can ask move mountains spiritually speaking. The Bible is abundantly clear that the physical nation of Israel has been replaced with a spiritual nation. The Jews are not God’s Chosen People if they reject Christ. Believers are the Chosen People and the real Jews and the Israel of God.

There is no reason to settle for “good” when we have the “best”.

The King James Version is the ONLY Bible for the English-speaking people. It is perfect. All other modern translations are perversions that have major doctrinal changes and are NOT the Word of God.

@@sfbcIndy1611 You have proven my case, from wince the war cometh! I wonder if you are aware that the Latin Vulgate is much older than any English bible? And was translated from Greek Texts from the 300's? Which were almost a thousand years older than anything the KJV translators had to work with. I am not saying that it would be the best translation. But merely that it is merely ONE of MANY translations that I own.

@makarov138 Older manuscripts don’t mean they’re better. People who believe in modern English translations deny the preservation of the Word of God. That’s why I am hard on King James Onlyism.

@@sfbcIndy1611 "Older manuscripts don’t mean they’re better." Based on what evidence? 800 years of textual copying by human hands inserts the possibility of several errors. When Jerome translated 300's AD texts into the New Testament in his native Latin they were only two centuries from the originals! The KJV translators, like the Geneva translators, had nothing older that 1100 AD. And we do not deny the preservation of God's word, else wise we would not even look at the Greek and Hebrew! Where was God's word before the KJV was translated? It had to exist somewhere!

Paul said even in his days there were people who would corrupt the Word of God. So older doesn't mean better. That's why textual criticism exists. 2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. I'm not arguing that God's Word did not exist before the KJV. I'm saying the KJV is the only Bible for the ENGLISH-speaking people.