The problem with the tuttle twins is they are subversive
One of their books highlights John D Rockefeller as an exemplary philanthropist and example of hardworking american entrepreneurship
another book (logical fallacy book) shows spanking kids as being bad according to muh studies
Tuttle Twins and Connor Boyack are not what they seem.
The ONLY reason faith alone was required of the thief on the cross was because he was in his dying moments unable to be baptized, confess his sins, or eat of the Body of Christ. It’s borderline dishonest to suggest that beause a man who was crucified next to Christ didnt need baptism then technically no one does. You let me know when you get crucified not knowing Christ and learn of Him literally while you are crucified, and you can claim you don’t need to be baptized.
There are a lot of different gnostics and they had a few different heresies. One of the main unifying heresies of the gnostics was that only knowledge (gnosis)/acknowledgment was required for salvation (“faith alone”).
“The flesh profits nothing” refers to the finite nature of OUR flesh, not HIS flesh. This is obvious since he says 6 times “you must eat of my body or you have no life in you.” Obviously His flesh profits us greatly. As more and more followers walked away, He did not explain what would have been quite simple to explain: “It’s just a metaphor, come back.”
“My theology flows from the word of God itself and nothing else. I don't need to read "church fathers" I have concordances among concordances Vines, Strongs, Greek and Hebrew bibles, commentaries from 1700+ Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Jim Sheerer, Ellicott's, blah...blah...blah. I can also read word for word the preserved and inspired word of God as I have done all my years and see the truth.”
I have read concordances which contain analysis - so that is what I was referring to. Commentaries from 1700+ are anachronistic heresy if they are protestant since their first principle is to protest the Church which literally put the bible together as one book and wrote the entire new testament.
The commentaries are the problem. They are heretical.
Read commentary from the early church to correct your error. Even Calvin recognizes the importance of church fathers.
Why do you think you know better than Ignatius who was ordained by John?
You reject the pope but anoint yourself. Incredible!
She was the only human born as pure as Eve.
The apostles believed in purgatory. Were they mistaken? Jesus taught them. What did they miss in walking with our Lord?
Do not deny the Holy Spirit. You are not having this conversation because you think you are somehow witnessing to me. You are having this conversation because you feel the Truth stirring deep in your conscience and it makes you feel uncomfortable.
Stop teaching. You are in error.
“To eat him is to take him in spiritually”
This is gnosticism. It’s false. Jesus taught the disciples at the last supper how to prepare the passover meal from that point on and that the bread and wine was His Body and His Blood. He didn’t say “this wine represents my blood.” He said this IS my blood.
Indulgences don’t buy someone out of hell
Indulgences were supposed to be an offering of personal sacrifice to help people in purgatory. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Original sin is not a false teaching - Adam and Eve sinned and because of this no human was perfect except Mary, who needed to be granted grace to make her pure enough to be the Ark of the New Covenant, able to carry the Son of God having not been touched by man.
What a silly misconstrual if the passage in Ezekiel...this doesn’t mean that children are born without sin. It means that children will not be held accountable under the law (either man’s or God’s) for sins they do not commit.
Jesus Christ died so that a child can be saved - the child is not culpable as an adult is culpable, yet still is a sinner (for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory if God).
That’s so obviously false. The Bible is the Word of God, written by men inspired by God. You interpret every passage through the lens of discounting the Church, while I interpret it through the lens of those who wrote it and what they taught along with it.
You are familiar with only two sides of the argument:
-
the argument against the church
-
the argument against the rebuttal to the argument against the church
The two sides you need to study before you give another sermon :
-
The argument FOR the church (given by the Catholic Church itself, written by those the Apostles themselves laud hands on and ordained as their successors and protectors of the Sacred Traditions)
-
The argument against the rebuttal to the church
Read up! Your understanding has a 1600 year gap. All of your resources are contemporary. Why wouldn’t you want to know what the people who actually walked with the Apostles have to say? You read Strong’s like it’s not “men telling you what to think,” and discount what the direct successors of the Apostles wrote as if it’s “just men telling you what to think.” It’s silly. Cut it out 😂