Thank you for proving to me there is still a pastor out there that will tell this truth. Now, to find a fellowship near me that does the same and has not entangled themselves with the the affairs of the state...
Thank you pastor. I’m a retired pastor and not a Lutheran. It I know history. You explanation was spot on accurate. The NT identifies the “Temple of God” as the church of God. The utter nonsense coming out of supposedly educated clergy supposing a rebuilt temple in the Middle East violate every principle of Biblical exposition. 2 Thess 2:5 references that this Man of Sin was talked about by Paul elsewhere in Scripture, Acts chapter 20 and other places likewise point to the apostasy that was to come to the church. The real problem today is it’s easier to point to an AntiChrist that isn’t here so no one is embarrassed. Much harder to point to the Biblically identified AntiChrist. God bless and thanks for your clear, easy presentation.
Boy I was ready to counter with a bunch of citations and quotes, and to hear the pastor defend the pope. And I was ready to talk about Jesuit infiltration into protestantism, but pastor gave us the truth.
Lugh Lamhfada What kind of quotes were you talking about? Maybe this one from Martin Luther? Chapter 28 of Martin Luther sermon on John 16 (1528) 28 Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them.
This is amazing. You're putting into words so many things I wish I could articulate in so many arguments against catholic doctrine. Beautifully said, sir.
I was surprised by your collar. I thought you were going to be Catholic. You look like a Catholic priest. I'm pleased to hear you actually are speaking truth. However, I would be cautious with using modern bibles which come from the Jesuit counter reformation.
Nope, I'm Lutheran. Thanks for the heads-up about modern Bibles. If You're interested in that sort of thing check out the ATP playlist on Bible translations. Thanks for watching
@@godloves9163 Some Sabbatarian Christians maintain that the Catholic Church changed the day of worship from Sabbath to Sunday, starting with a Sunday law enacted by Constantine the Great (306-337 A.D.) in 321 A.D. The assumption here is that Constantine put into place a religious law. But Constantine did not enact a Christian law, but a civil one. He could not have been a Catholic, since the Catholic Church as was known during the Reformation period was not even formally organized until several centuries later. It is even doubtful that he was even a Christian, though some make that claim. Christians by this time were already meeting together for worship on the first day of the week. Many, if not most, had been doing so for at least a couple centuries before Constantine arrived on the scene. They did not call this day Sunday, but rather referred to it as the Lord's Day, in honor of Christ's resurrection from the dead. The claim by the Catholic Church in some of their catechisms that they changed the sanctity of the Sabbath day to Sunday is not evidence that they actually did so. The New Testament does not anywhere make Sunday holy, neither does it make the Sabbath holy. The emphasis had been taken away from the day and placed on Christ, making the observance of particular days no longer necessary. The early Christian Church fathers of the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D. did not consider the Sabbath day to be a day all Christians were obligated to observe. They gave a different testimony. While the following epistles and statements are not in Scripture and should therefore not be considered canonical, they help to provide useful historical information regarding prevalent beliefs of the early Church in its first centuries. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 8-10 (c. 110 A.D.) "Do not be deceived by strange doctrines or antiquated myths, since they are worthless. For if we continue to live accordance with Judaism, we admit that we have not received grace. For the most godly prophets lived in accordance with Christ Jesus. This is why they were persecuted, being inspired as they were by His grace in order that those who are disobedient might be fully convinced that there is one God who revealed Himself through Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word which came forth from silence, who in every respect pleased Him who sent Him. If, then, those who had lived in antiquated practices came to newness of hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath but living in accordance with the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him and His death (which some deny), the mystery through which we came to believe, and because of which we patiently endure, in order that we might be found to be disciples of Jesus Christ, our only teacher, how can we possibly live without Him, whom even the prophets, who were His disciples in the Spirit, were expecting as their teacher? Because of this He for whom they rightly waited raised them from the dead when He came. Therefore let us not be unaware of His goodness. For if He were to imitate the way we act, we are lost. Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live in accordance with Christianity. For whoever is called by any other name than this one does not belong to God. Throw out, therefore, the bad leaven, which has become stale and sour, and reach for the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be salted with Him, so that none of you become rotten, for by your odor you will be examined. It is utterly absurd to profess Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, in which "every tongue" believed and "was brought together" to God." (10). There are many other writings of church fathers from the 1st and 2nd centuries on this but I think that one epistle is enough evidence that the early church always observed Sunday decades before Constantine was born.
@@danielbatista946 Sure some apostasy was already creeping into the church. Keeping Sunday as a tradition isn’t a problem. Making it a law / commandment is, that is indeed the claim that the RCC has done, made it a law / commandment. So yes it has been changed. And yes the early Christians did keep Sabbath. Hence why most languages have Saturday with the word Sabbath for the 7th day. Luke himself called the Sabbath a commandment. Luke 22:20 Confirms New Covenant by the blood of Christ at the cross. Luke 23:56 They rested on the Sabbath ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT. After the cross. Luke wrote his Gospel decades after the death of Christ inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yet still calling it ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT!
What do you think about Daniel 11:36-37 which concerns the antichrist? It seems he will ban all other religions and in fact forbid idolatry, which you say Rome preaches. Again in 2 Thessalonians we see that he lifts himself above and opposes all that is called God, yet if he promotes idolatry how could he be opposed to all that is called God? Also is the Papacy antichrist or will a Pope be the ultimate antichrist?
What can you tell me about the document FROM CONFLICT TO COMMUNION: Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation 2017. Is it true to be a document signed by the Lutheran church and the Catholic Church, agreeing to many Catholic held positions that caused the Reformation?
I've not heard of it. It sounds like something the Lutheran World Federation would come up with though. This video may provide some background: th-cam.com/video/RFdJaQtxoQs/w-d-xo.html
Does the Lutheran church, specifically the ELDONA, believe there is any merit in studying the lives of saints? Is it ever wrong to ask the angels in heaven (not the saints) to add their prayers to ours? Does the ELDONA believe in Guardian angels? I agree that Jesus is our main mediary to God, but is there any value to asking for the prayers of other humans/angels added to ours? Thank you for your series. You have given me a lot of food for thought.
Well, we have no way of knowing whether the saints would hear your request, and since omnipotence isn’t ascribed to the glorified saints, we can probably assume the saints would not hear that prayer. They do pray for us, but we cannot communicate with them.
I believe that all dead are in their graves, awaiting the day of resurrection. So there are no saints currently in heaven, saints being those who have been redeemed. The Old Testament is perhaps more descriptive about the state of the dead. I see no change with the ushering in of the new testament. The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus was a parable. When Jesus spoke to the thief on the cross, He said "I tell you today, thou shall be with me in paradise" . If the dead exist as conscious souls in heaven, then what need have they of the resurrection? Man was never destined to live in heaven. Upon the restoration of earth, heaven is to descend onto it, where God will dwell with his people.
As far as forbidding certain foods on certain days, where does Lutheranism stand on fasting during Lent? Is this wrong or is it just wrong to be mandated?
Lift up your eyes and look around; all your children gather and come to you. As surely as I live,” declares the LORD, “you will wear them all as ornaments; you will put them on, like a bride.
Many good points here which carry on what Luther exposed. One place where Luther stopped short was renouncing the papal perversion of Sabbath to Sunday. Has the Lutheran church ever moved towards that direction? Good job confirming the continued ID of papacy as Antichrist. But Antichrist is guilty of changing and enforcing its Sunday, and the pope is pushing for revival of its ancient Sunday enforcement.
Lutherans don't believe that Sunday is the Sabbath. They do, however, believe Sabbath is ceremonial law and therefore we are free have our worship day on any day that ends in "Y." If by "Sunday enforcement" you mean the SDA belief, we don't go in for that because it requires a Jewish understanding of the Sabbath.
@@AskThePastor Thanks for your reply. I like finding out what various denominations believe. In looking at the two laws both in Deuteronomy and the NT, I see ceremonial, or Jewish/Mosaic sabbaths, in the "ordinances against us," while the weekly Sabbath cycle was already in place before the Jewish nation, and was still proclaimed by Jesus, and observed weekly by Paul, the gentile preacher who declared there was no longer Jew nor Greek in the New covenant, but all are Abraham's seed. So, I can't see how the Sabbath in stone has more need for a Jewish understanding than the other 9 commandments it is a unit with, especially when Jesus said it was for man, not Jews, and all will be observing it forever in the new earth per Isaiah 66. I am somewhat amazed that Luther, with his keen recognition of the Antichrist power, did not focus on the papacy's arrogant proclamation that it had the authority to change times and laws, and boast specifically that Sunday was a MARK of its authority. Yet reform is progressive, and obviously Luther made incredible inroads which we can all be grateful for. I only wish the Reformation had not been hobbled by the jesuit counter-reformation, with its devious creation of dispensationalism to hide the identity of Antichrist, and done so craftily that much of the evangelical church buys into it as doctrine today. The world seems to wonder after the pope with adoration now.
Good work Pastor. If our lord Jesus is recognized as Great High Priest of the faith, this ignorance of the R church is immediately seen for what it is. Established well during 1700 years , exploiting the uneducated , well aware of the truth. Choosing power over the weak, resulting in bondage and works. They need to be seriously prayed for. Anathema
Pastor, I know this is an old video but I need help. I'm very lost on what it means when Saint Peter is given the power to "loose and bound things in heaven" Does this verse point to the papacy? I'm very lost on this. Thank you in advance
Can you make a video and clarify to the lost people on why the Ahnsahnghong guy is not Christ and that the WMSCOG is a Church teaching new and false doctrines?
@@AskThePastor I wasn't aware of it until they walked up on me at my local grocery store. So I had to do research. But its becoming a new and huge teaching. I just thought maybe you'd like to cover the topic for the ones who just get into the word. So that they're aware. Basically they know the bible really well but manipulate it to their beliefs that Christ 2nd coming has already happen. It's crazy stuff.
The Antichrist is the "little horn" (Dan. 7), the "man of sin, son of perdition" (2 Thes. 2), the "sea beast" (Rev. 13:1-10), and the "scarlet harlot" (Rev. 17). Only the Papacy fulfills all the biblical criteria for the Antichrist in all these passages. It is the "apostate" pseudo-ecclesia ('false church'). Apostasy does not come from without but from within the professing Christian Church. Antichrist reigned, and conquered and prevailed over the saints for 1,260 YEARS, until it received a "deadly wound" (Rev. 13:1-10), which has been "healing" ever since. Glad some of my Lutheran brethren still recognize this biblical and historical fact. *Soli Deo Gloria*
@ The Pastor, Thank you for confirming precisely my understanding of the Scriptures i.e. that the man of sin, son of perdition and antichrist is the succession of Popes. I get that from a combination of these Scriptures: Daniel Chapters 2 & 7; 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2, and Revelation Chapters 13, 17 & 18. However, I pray that you will take to our Father, Son and Holy Spirit your understanding of infant baptism. Let me give you a specific example. Fenton Hort, one of the two men along with Brooke Westcott who twisted the Scriptures to produce the Revised Version of 1881 that deleted many valuable verses in the Bible, told his son that because he was born of Christian parents and had been baptised as a Christian, he would automatically go to heaven. But regrettably, Hort's son, I think called Arthur, did not repent of his sins when older and was an unsaved man. I *beg* of you, under God, and pray, that you will please reconsider your teaching on infant baptism. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, I do not see this teaching in our Bible
Jesus is called the son of man, prophet, the holy one of Israel, God almighty, sometimes called the angel of the Lord all this referred to the same person... don't be confuse Man of sin, Antichrist, whore of Babylon, little horn, beast with 7 heads, son of perdition all this are Reference to Roman Pontiff ( Pope )
I was surprised and happy to see that this response was largely accurate. The Papacy presumes to sit over God’s church as if the popes were Christ himself in so many ways. It’s the very definition of a supplanter.
The Papacy is an illegitimate corruption of the True Church. The Papcy was conceived and designed by the Evil One, in order to usurp the True Church, the Church that Jesus has established, and against which the gates of hades shall not prevail.
You know how you can tell that the Papacy is fake, and invented not by Christ? Because IF what Roman Papists claim were true, there'd be no Church. Peter was requiring that only circumcised Jews in good standing in the Mosaic setting, could be accepted into Christ. Fortunately, neither Peter, nor the other Apostles, believed Peter was in charge of the Church.
I listened to your videos on baptism. You believe people are saved by being baptized. I say respectfully that you do error not knowing the scriptures. John 1:12 says we are saved by believing. John 3:5 mentions water. But this water here is symbolic of God's Word. Ephesians 5:25-27. All throughout Acts those who were baptized were saved first. Example. Acts 8:36-37. Saved first, then baptized. Same with the others throughout Acts. The Lord commanded His disciples to baptize. It symbolises is death and resurrection. Romans 6:1-4. Paul was not concerned about baptising. 1st Corinthians 1:14-17. It is not something we decide to do to merit something. That would be a work. We are saved by grace ( unmerrited favour). Not by works. Ephesians 2:8-9. That's why the Lord could say to the thief on the cross, today you will be with me in paradise. On the cross 1 the thief realised he was a sinner. 2 he realised Jesus was God, and 3 he realised Jesus was a king. That's what saved him and so he was welcomed by Jesus. Baptism had nothing to do with it. Read Luke 23:39-43 and you will read the thief acknowledging those 3 things. So I pray the Holy Spirit will reveal this truth to you that baptism does not save. But believing does. Acts 16:30-31.
You are an error because you assume the water in John 3:5 is symbolic as in Ephesians chapter 5. Neither is the case. If you can prove that assertion then your argument might have a like to stand on. But as no one has been able to prove the Jesus is speaking figuratively there, I doubt you can. Jesus saves through baptism because in baptism he gives faith to infants. 1st Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5 etc. Throughout the New Testament Baptism is described as giving things that only God can give, therefore it is God's work that he does upon us, not our work that we do to demonstrate our faith. What you call error in me is a reflection of your willingness to separate what God has joined together in holy baptism, ie the spirit and the water.
@@AskThePastor It is a sin to have parents believe if their children are not baptized then they are lost. God is more loving than us and love children no matter what. Children will be in heaven and being baptized has nothing to do with it. Deuteronomy 1:39. 2sd Samuel 12:23. Matthew 19:14.
Yes I go through the Acts passages in other baptism videos. As for your comments on infants, it depends on whether they have Christian parents or not. Again, I've covered this on other videos.
@@AskThePastor Salvation has nothing to do with whether or not ones parents is a believer. John 1:13. That's why each person must be born again. John 3:3,5,7. We will all give account as to what we did with God's Word. The Truth. Matthew 6:23b. I will be praying that God leads you by His Spirit into His Truth.
Thank you for proving to me there is still a pastor out there that will tell this truth. Now, to find a fellowship near me that does the same and has not entangled themselves with the the affairs of the state...
Thank you pastor. I’m a retired pastor and not a Lutheran. It I know history. You explanation was spot on accurate. The NT identifies the “Temple of God” as the church of God. The utter nonsense coming out of supposedly educated clergy supposing a rebuilt temple in the Middle East violate every principle of Biblical exposition. 2 Thess 2:5 references that this Man of Sin was talked about by Paul elsewhere in Scripture, Acts chapter 20 and other places likewise point to the apostasy that was to come to the church. The real problem today is it’s easier to point to an AntiChrist that isn’t here so no one is embarrassed. Much harder to point to the Biblically identified AntiChrist. God bless and thanks for your clear, easy presentation.
Boy I was ready to counter with a bunch of citations and quotes, and to hear the pastor defend the pope. And I was ready to talk about Jesuit infiltration into protestantism, but pastor gave us the truth.
Lugh Lamhfada What kind of quotes were you talking about? Maybe this one from Martin Luther?
Chapter 28 of Martin Luther sermon on John 16 (1528)
28 Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them.
There are thousands of quotes. All the reformers and pre reformers, all the way to the first century.
Thank you for clarifying for me the difference between Antichrists and THE Antichrist.
I have found that once this distinction is understood a lot of things fall into place. Thanks for watching
I have to say, when it comes to the history of Roman Papal politics and culture ... we will know them by their fruits.
This is amazing. You're putting into words so many things I wish I could articulate in so many arguments against catholic doctrine. Beautifully said, sir.
Good answer because you based it on the Word of God.
Do not be afraid of popular opinion. The Word of God will stand forever!!
Amen. Verbum Dei Manet Eternium!
I was surprised by your collar. I thought you were going to be Catholic. You look like a Catholic priest. I'm pleased to hear you actually are speaking truth. However, I would be cautious with using modern bibles which come from the Jesuit counter reformation.
Nope, I'm Lutheran. Thanks for the heads-up about modern Bibles. If You're interested in that sort of thing check out the ATP playlist on Bible translations. Thanks for watching
He recommends the KJV.
@@AskThePastor why do you keep Sunday a law of RCC? This I never understood why “Protestantism” keeps this… When the Bible is clear.
@@godloves9163 Some Sabbatarian Christians maintain that the Catholic Church changed the day of worship from Sabbath to Sunday, starting with a Sunday law enacted by Constantine the Great (306-337 A.D.) in 321 A.D. The assumption here is that Constantine put into place a religious law. But Constantine did not enact a Christian law, but a civil one. He could not have been a Catholic, since the Catholic Church as was known during the Reformation period was not even formally organized until several centuries later. It is even doubtful that he was even a Christian, though some make that claim. Christians by this time were already meeting together for worship on the first day of the week. Many, if not most, had been doing so for at least a couple centuries before Constantine arrived on the scene. They did not call this day Sunday, but rather referred to it as the Lord's Day, in honor of Christ's resurrection from the dead.
The claim by the Catholic Church in some of their catechisms that they changed the sanctity of the Sabbath day to Sunday is not evidence that they actually did so. The New Testament does not anywhere make Sunday holy, neither does it make the Sabbath holy. The emphasis had been taken away from the day and placed on Christ, making the observance of particular days no longer necessary.
The early Christian Church fathers of the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D. did not consider the Sabbath day to be a day all Christians were obligated to observe. They gave a different testimony. While the following epistles and statements are not in Scripture and should therefore not be considered canonical, they help to provide useful historical information regarding prevalent beliefs of the early Church in its first centuries.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 8-10 (c. 110 A.D.)
"Do not be deceived by strange doctrines or antiquated myths, since they are worthless. For if we continue to live accordance with Judaism, we admit that we have not received grace. For the most godly prophets lived in accordance with Christ Jesus. This is why they were persecuted, being inspired as they were by His grace in order that those who are disobedient might be fully convinced that there is one God who revealed Himself through Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word which came forth from silence, who in every respect pleased Him who sent Him. If, then, those who had lived in antiquated practices came to newness of hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath but living in accordance with the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him and His death (which some deny), the mystery through which we came to believe, and because of which we patiently endure, in order that we might be found to be disciples of Jesus Christ, our only teacher, how can we possibly live without Him, whom even the prophets, who were His disciples in the Spirit, were expecting as their teacher? Because of this He for whom they rightly waited raised them from the dead when He came. Therefore let us not be unaware of His goodness. For if He were to imitate the way we act, we are lost. Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live in accordance with Christianity. For whoever is called by any other name than this one does not belong to God. Throw out, therefore, the bad leaven, which has become stale and sour, and reach for the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be salted with Him, so that none of you become rotten, for by your odor you will be examined. It is utterly absurd to profess Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, in which "every tongue" believed and "was brought together" to God." (10).
There are many other writings of church fathers from the 1st and 2nd centuries on this but I think that one epistle is enough evidence that the early church always observed Sunday decades before Constantine was born.
@@danielbatista946 Sure some apostasy was already creeping into the church. Keeping Sunday as a tradition isn’t a problem. Making it a law / commandment is, that is indeed the claim that the RCC has done, made it a law / commandment. So yes it has been changed.
And yes the early Christians did keep Sabbath. Hence why most languages have Saturday with the word Sabbath for the 7th day.
Luke himself called the Sabbath a commandment.
Luke 22:20 Confirms New Covenant by the blood of Christ at the cross.
Luke 23:56 They rested on the Sabbath ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT. After the cross. Luke wrote his Gospel decades after the death of Christ inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yet still calling it ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT!
Thanks pastor for expounding spiritual truth according to scriptures may god greatly bless you.🙏🙏🙏
Also change God time and law the ten commandments
Thank you for the clarification.
What do you think about Daniel 11:36-37 which concerns the antichrist? It seems he will ban all other religions and in fact forbid idolatry, which you say Rome preaches. Again in 2 Thessalonians we see that he lifts himself above and opposes all that is called God, yet if he promotes idolatry how could he be opposed to all that is called God? Also is the Papacy antichrist or will a Pope be the ultimate antichrist?
What can you tell me about the document FROM CONFLICT TO COMMUNION: Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation 2017. Is it true to be a document signed by the Lutheran church and the Catholic Church, agreeing to many Catholic held positions that caused the Reformation?
I've not heard of it. It sounds like something the Lutheran World Federation would come up with though. This video may provide some background: th-cam.com/video/RFdJaQtxoQs/w-d-xo.html
Does the Lutheran church, specifically the ELDONA, believe there is any merit in studying the lives of saints? Is it ever wrong to ask the angels in heaven (not the saints) to add their prayers to ours? Does the ELDONA believe in Guardian angels? I agree that Jesus is our main mediary to God, but is there any value to asking for the prayers of other humans/angels added to ours? Thank you for your series. You have given me a lot of food for thought.
Well, we have no way of knowing whether the saints would hear your request, and since omnipotence isn’t ascribed to the glorified saints, we can probably assume the saints would not hear that prayer. They do pray for us, but we cannot communicate with them.
@@MorsGloriaque I do not believe the saints pray for us. There is no evidence in the Bible for that. They were people like us.
I believe that all dead are in their graves, awaiting the day of resurrection.
So there are no saints currently in heaven, saints being those who have been redeemed.
The Old Testament is perhaps more descriptive about the state of the dead.
I see no change with the ushering in of the new testament.
The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus was a parable.
When Jesus spoke to the thief on the cross, He said "I tell you today, thou shall be with me in paradise" .
If the dead exist as conscious souls in heaven, then what need have they of the resurrection?
Man was never destined to live in heaven.
Upon the restoration of earth, heaven is to descend onto it, where God will dwell with his people.
Praying to Mary or any dead saint is necromancy and therefore an abomination in the sight of God
As far as forbidding certain foods on certain days, where does Lutheranism stand on fasting during Lent? Is this wrong or is it just wrong to be mandated?
Try this: th-cam.com/video/W8Wzgw53wfs/w-d-xo.html
It may help
@@AskThePastor thank you
Nicely done.
Lift up your eyes and look around; all your children gather and come to you. As surely as I live,” declares the LORD, “you will wear them all as ornaments; you will put them on, like a bride.
Finally the truth of the papacy coming to light again.
Many good points here which carry on what Luther exposed. One place where Luther stopped short was renouncing the papal perversion of Sabbath to Sunday. Has the Lutheran church ever moved towards that direction? Good job confirming the continued ID of papacy as Antichrist. But Antichrist is guilty of changing and enforcing its Sunday, and the pope is pushing for revival of its ancient Sunday enforcement.
Lutherans don't believe that Sunday is the Sabbath. They do, however, believe Sabbath is ceremonial law and therefore we are free have our worship day on any day that ends in "Y." If by "Sunday enforcement" you mean the SDA belief, we don't go in for that because it requires a Jewish understanding of the Sabbath.
@@AskThePastor Thanks for your reply. I like finding out what various denominations believe. In looking at the two laws both in Deuteronomy and the NT, I see ceremonial, or Jewish/Mosaic sabbaths, in the "ordinances against us," while the weekly Sabbath cycle was already in place before the Jewish nation, and was still proclaimed by Jesus, and observed weekly by Paul, the gentile preacher who declared there was no longer Jew nor Greek in the New covenant, but all are Abraham's seed. So, I can't see how the Sabbath in stone has more need for a Jewish understanding than the other 9 commandments it is a unit with, especially when Jesus said it was for man, not Jews, and all will be observing it forever in the new earth per Isaiah 66.
I am somewhat amazed that Luther, with his keen recognition of the Antichrist power, did not focus on the papacy's arrogant proclamation that it had the authority to change times and laws, and boast specifically that Sunday was a MARK of its authority. Yet reform is progressive, and obviously Luther made incredible inroads which we can all be grateful for. I only wish the Reformation had not been hobbled by the jesuit counter-reformation, with its devious creation of dispensationalism to hide the identity of Antichrist, and done so craftily that much of the evangelical church buys into it as doctrine today. The world seems to wonder after the pope with adoration now.
Good work Pastor. If our lord Jesus is recognized as Great High Priest of the faith, this ignorance of the R church is immediately seen for what it is. Established well during 1700 years , exploiting the uneducated , well aware of the truth. Choosing power over the weak, resulting in bondage and works. They need to be seriously prayed for. Anathema
Pastor, I know this is an old video but I need help.
I'm very lost on what it means when Saint Peter is given the power to "loose and bound things in heaven"
Does this verse point to the papacy? I'm very lost on this.
Thank you in advance
Check out this video. I might help: th-cam.com/video/znTo8uH4Tw8/w-d-xo.html
Can you make a video and clarify to the lost people on why the Ahnsahnghong guy is not Christ and that the WMSCOG is a Church teaching new and false doctrines?
I have no idea what you're talking about. If i did I'd put it on the list though.
@@AskThePastor I wasn't aware of it until they walked up on me at my local grocery store. So I had to do research. But its becoming a new and huge teaching. I just thought maybe you'd like to cover the topic for the ones who just get into the word. So that they're aware.
Basically they know the bible really well but manipulate it to their beliefs that Christ 2nd coming has already happen. It's crazy stuff.
The Antichrist is the "little horn" (Dan. 7), the "man of sin, son of perdition" (2 Thes. 2), the "sea beast" (Rev. 13:1-10), and the "scarlet harlot" (Rev. 17).
Only the Papacy fulfills all the biblical criteria for the Antichrist in all these passages.
It is the "apostate" pseudo-ecclesia ('false church').
Apostasy does not come from without but from within the professing Christian Church.
Antichrist reigned, and conquered and prevailed over the saints for 1,260 YEARS, until it received a "deadly wound" (Rev. 13:1-10), which has been "healing" ever since.
Glad some of my Lutheran brethren still recognize this biblical and historical fact.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
Yes...if you can't see it you are blind
@ The Pastor, Thank you for confirming precisely my understanding of the Scriptures i.e. that the man of sin, son of perdition and antichrist is the succession of Popes. I get that from a combination of these Scriptures: Daniel Chapters 2 & 7; 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2, and Revelation Chapters 13, 17 & 18. However, I pray that you will take to our Father, Son and Holy Spirit your understanding of infant baptism. Let me give you a specific example. Fenton Hort, one of the two men along with Brooke Westcott who twisted the Scriptures to produce the Revised Version of 1881 that deleted many valuable verses in the Bible, told his son that because he was born of Christian parents and had been baptised as a Christian, he would automatically go to heaven. But regrettably, Hort's son, I think called Arthur, did not repent of his sins when older and was an unsaved man. I *beg* of you, under God, and pray, that you will please reconsider your teaching on infant baptism. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, I do not see this teaching in our Bible
Jesus is called the son of man, prophet, the holy one of Israel, God almighty, sometimes called the angel of the Lord all this referred to the same person... don't be confuse Man of sin, Antichrist, whore of Babylon, little horn, beast with 7 heads, son of perdition all this are Reference to Roman Pontiff ( Pope )
I was surprised and happy to see that this response was largely accurate. The Papacy presumes to sit over God’s church as if the popes were Christ himself in so many ways. It’s the very definition of a supplanter.
Thank you for clarifying my suspicions about the Pope from years ago. He just gave me the creeps
Have you since this video accepted the papacy as Christian?
No
The Papacy is an illegitimate corruption of the True Church. The Papcy was conceived and designed by the Evil One, in order to usurp the True Church, the Church that Jesus has established, and against which the gates of hades shall not prevail.
You know how you can tell that the Papacy is fake, and invented not by Christ? Because IF what Roman Papists claim were true, there'd be no Church. Peter was requiring that only circumcised Jews in good standing in the Mosaic setting, could be accepted into Christ.
Fortunately, neither Peter, nor the other Apostles, believed Peter was in charge of the Church.
From the least to the greatest,
all(AB) are greedy for gain;(AC)
prophets and priests alike,
all practice deceit.(
I listened to your videos on baptism. You believe people are saved by being baptized. I say respectfully that you do error not knowing the scriptures. John 1:12 says we are saved by believing. John 3:5 mentions water. But this water here is symbolic of God's Word. Ephesians 5:25-27. All throughout Acts those who were baptized were saved first. Example. Acts 8:36-37. Saved first, then baptized. Same with the others throughout Acts. The Lord commanded His disciples to baptize. It symbolises is death and resurrection. Romans 6:1-4. Paul was not concerned about baptising. 1st Corinthians 1:14-17. It is not something we decide to do to merit something. That would be a work. We are saved by grace ( unmerrited favour). Not by works. Ephesians 2:8-9. That's why the Lord could say to the thief on the cross, today you will be with me in paradise. On the cross 1 the thief realised he was a sinner. 2 he realised Jesus was God, and 3 he realised Jesus was a king. That's what saved him and so he was welcomed by Jesus. Baptism had nothing to do with it. Read Luke 23:39-43 and you will read the thief acknowledging those 3 things. So I pray the Holy Spirit will reveal this truth to you that baptism does not save. But believing does. Acts 16:30-31.
You are an error because you assume the water in John 3:5 is symbolic as in Ephesians chapter 5. Neither is the case. If you can prove that assertion then your argument might have a like to stand on. But as no one has been able to prove the Jesus is speaking figuratively there, I doubt you can. Jesus saves through baptism because in baptism he gives faith to infants. 1st Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5 etc. Throughout the New Testament Baptism is described as giving things that only God can give, therefore it is God's work that he does upon us, not our work that we do to demonstrate our faith. What you call error in me is a reflection of your willingness to separate what God has joined together in holy baptism, ie the spirit and the water.
@@AskThePastor Can you show me in each case in the Acts that they were not saved first?
@@AskThePastor It is a sin to have parents believe if their children are not baptized then they are lost. God is more loving than us and love children no matter what. Children will be in heaven and being baptized has nothing to do with it. Deuteronomy 1:39. 2sd Samuel 12:23. Matthew 19:14.
Yes I go through the Acts passages in other baptism videos. As for your comments on infants, it depends on whether they have Christian parents or not. Again, I've covered this on other videos.
@@AskThePastor Salvation has nothing to do with whether or not ones parents is a believer. John 1:13. That's why each person must be born again. John 3:3,5,7. We will all give account as to what we did with God's Word. The Truth. Matthew 6:23b. I will be praying that God leads you by His Spirit into His Truth.
Yes
But aren't Catholics still our brothers and sisters in Christ?
Lol
444♊️