|
|
|
p.1 The man who thinks he has (all) the answers-- Sam Shamoun Many have watched him on social media debate Muslims. I commend him for this, as he does a good job refuting them as well as Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses; those in other cults, and for the most part one cannot have any qualms on his refuting their false beliefs, doctrines and practices, which are obvious. But the problem is that he does not realize, that when he converted to Roman Catholicism he too needs correction, just as he corrects others. For he does not have a grasp on much of the bible as his internet image portrays. First let me preface this by stating, that anyone who converts from being basically a Christian to Roman Catholicism does not know the history of the religion nor understand Bible doctrine well. It does not matter how much they think they know. Roman Catholicism is not the original Christianity that came from the Messianic Judaism of the day; from the Jews who held to Moses’ teachings (not the Pharisees teaching.) That being taught from the apostles. The Christianity THAT the BIBLE Teaches is the fulfillment of the Scriptures that were completed by Jesus’ first coming, not of those additions that claimed to be what Jesus or the apostles taught, hundreds of years later after Constantine had the church sever its connection to Judaism (that was faithful to Moses.) These were Jews who were followers of their Christ Jesus, along with other Gentiles who heard the gospel from them. There is truth; which is of the Word, and words and teachings that are of man, which is called by the Word the spirit of error, that shows one lacks a spiritual component called discernment, which is the exercise of discretion using the Word, by rightly dividing its meaning by spiritual understanding from the Holy Spirit who wrote it. Usually when someone is this knowledgeable of the Word they are humble. This is not the case for Shamoun, for he is well aware that he is arrogant, which is apparently most of the time. He will interrupt you and along the way, he will say such things as, I destroyed you,… I’m going shishakabob you and decimate you in reaction to someone saying to him what he often says, you lose. If one can sum up Sam Shamoun’s apologetics in a few words it would be I’m right and you’re wrong. End of discussion! No one can counter him as he continually verbally assaults them showing he is often in the flesh. While Paul at times was facetious and mocked some people, he did not react like this continuously. I’m certainly not saying some people cannot be called empty headed, but when in conversation to have constant name calling, how does one reach ones heart? What are ones true intentions? 2 Cor. 10:3-6 “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.” We are to use the sword as scapel, not an instrument of chopping, belittling or humiliating them.’ He lines the calls up only to knock them down like bowling pins. And he always bowls a perfect game. But this is no game, and he is no apologist for God, for he is all in for the Roman church. He is incredibly intimidating, he will always get the first put down, as he often knows what exactly one believes. This is his tactic, it comes directly from the cults. Shamoun was born in Kuwait to an Assyrian Christian family, the Assyrian Church of the East (that believe the eternal and human aspects of Christ are so distinct that they could be seen as separate entities). In his interview with Patrick Bet-David, he asked Shamoun, “how many times have you read the Quran?He said,I don't know really. Uh maybe once or twice. I don't know. No, stab it. No, I'm serious. I don't uh literally you've read it maybe once or twice. Yeah. And how do you remember everything? … in the 90s I realized honestly when I would have a conversation, verses would pop in my head. So it's not I train for it and I don't want people to be impressed by it, right? Oh, was it? No. Knowledge puffs up, love builds up. I got a lot of issues that I pray God will show me mercy on the day of judgment. I just realized maybe it's God's way of gifting me. How many times have you read the Bible? If I go back, I probably read it two or three times. Patrick: “Two or three times?”Shamoun: “Yeah. I don't really read it all the way through. Like now it's it's just like, you know, I'll go through it, you know” Sam says he’s only read the scripture twice which makes this hard to accept. Jesus says for us to continue in his Word, to be a learner. For the main reason is that the world, our flesh and devil are at war with us, and his Word is our armor, as we train, which is to be our sanctification process. We are constantly having to learn and even relearn what is written to keep ‘in the faith.’ (Yet I have seen Sam surrounded by books when he speaks from his kitchen, but we are to accept him not reading them?) Further in his interview, He mentions,“maybe read a psalm here or there or if I'm researching. Yeah. It's, it's I I guess like when they drop really I was dropped as a child when I was one in my head. So maybe it triggered something. I don't know. Maybe that's how God does it, right?Patrick:“..when, when I sat down with Charlie Kirk and we would talk to him off camera, he would say he studies three hours every day. Yeah. No matter what he reads and studies three hours every day. Yeah. Do you have a ritual of studying a lot every day? Do you read a lot every day? Shamoun: “Not that way. What I do is I'm always on my blog writing posts for people if not doing live streams. So I'm not studying. I'm writing to equip people with articles so they can use it in battle because I want to equip people.” I find this this is to be inadequate, as we are told to continue in his Word to study to show ourselves to be approved, to be able to rightly divide the Word. Shamoun may sound like he has sound answers, and he does; some of the time. But it’s those times that he doesn’t, that are concerning. He has unique way of working his own conclusions to refute Protestantism or any group that challenges Roman Catholicism, For what he now is, a Roman catholic. He was formerly heavily influenced by Calvinist James White. He says, “believe it or not, bv James White's debates….his arrogance is his downfall but a blessing to others because he thinks he smashes his opposition.” I’m stunned that he said this, because what he is saying and doing the same thing, except in my assessment, he is far more offensive and far more wrong, as he is drowning in Roman Catholicism. Hearing that he has converted to Catholicism and then we also hear differently. The waffling explanation. He defends Romans Catholicism that history tells us was invented, and propagated by emperor Constantine and others afterwards to bring peace and unity to the Roman empire that was being shattered by the Christians witnesses they martyred. Shamoun tells what brought him to Catholicism, Sam Shamoun Answers: How Catholic Miracles Shattered My Protestant Faith, which tells us his faith in the word and was fragile. Miracles are not the best way, or a good way to convert. I’m fairly certain Shamoun did not read of the many priests that have left Roman Catholicism finding out the actual truth of what they dedicated their lives to, being wrong. The early Church was Jewish, they did not believe at all what Romanism teaches today or any of the time in history. The early church with the apostles first had a council in Jerusalem, not Rome. For the believing gentiles, its center was in Antioch. Rome was not the center or representative of Christianity because the religion of Christianity was illegal and was practiced by the underground church until it had so many converts from its influence that Rome had to change its course and adopted it to keep their empire. Rome allowed all religions as long as they gave the emperor prominence by bowing, acknowledging his leadership over them. Christians would not do this, and were killed for resisting. For example Caligular was considered deity. The emperors title was Pontifus Maximus, the pontiff. Once Christianity was made a legal religion in the Roman Empire, under Constantine, Christianity was able to spread throughout the world without Roman persecution. Rome later merged their Politics with the Bible teachings, and watered them down, through time being paganized. When Gentile Christianity became the new norm under emperor Constantine, it severed itself from the Judaic Christian understanding of Scripture, they instead had numerous platonic and pagan influences, that distorted their understanding what was meant. Rome had both Egyptian and Greek gods influences in their pantheon incorporated into ROMAN CHRISTIANITY. Soon after Rome adopted Christianity, moved the headquarters to Constantinople, known today as Istanbul in Turkey. Shamoun constantly takes words out of their context, such as discovering there was one baptism FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN, where it says this NOWHERE. It says one baptism, which is the spiritual baptism (1 Cor.12:13) that puts one in the body of Christ, having nothing to do with water. In Roman Catholicism, it is confirmed by its Priests and Scholars Infant Baptism supposedly replaced Circumcision and 2,865 Catechisms (Laws), numerical paragraphs, a total and 7 Sacraments! That one has a new birth by baptism without believing. If Infant Baptism Replaces Circumcision, Paul who was a Pharisee of Pharisees speaks of the Law, ` saying that to keep the law one is then “under the obligation to keep the whole Law, 613 commands which would be all 2,865 Catechisms,” to Roman catholics. He also says if you do this, “You have fallen from grace.” And remember, women were not circumcised, so how is it even possible for their infant baptism to have ever replaced something that never existed!
Yes there is some related points in baptism, not all the early church pastors agreed. But it is not the main point when it is to explain salvation. For many gentile teachings in the early church misconstrued literal from metaphors, and symbolic language. Later the allegorical method of interpretation was standardized (under Augustine and others) the literal meanings were confused with the spiritual, many were reversed. There are so many problems with Shamoun’s conclusion which are reused. The church fathers mistook the spiritual with the physical. I will keep this topic short and to the point. As we cover some major points he confuses. As far as the word’ in Eph. 1:13 “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise .” Notice, it is by hearing and believing, it is the Holy Spirits work not physical water. 1 Cor. 12:12-13 explains how, “For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free-- and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” It was the opinions of certain Gentiles who changed the meaning of the word, because they could not determine the metaphors and symbolism from the literal meanings. For Jesus himself gave the interpretation in John 3 to Nicodemus, besides the Jewish viewpoint that water had to do with the physical birth first. Jesus is having a conversation with Nicodemus, a Pharisee, one of the leading teachers. He understood to be born of water meant to be born physically. They believed that being born a Jew, they automatically entered into the kingdom of God. Jesus says to be born of water is to be born of the flesh according to Judaism of their day ("that which is flesh is flesh"). John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”V:5 “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” He is speaking of two different births not the same birth. Jesus showed this is not enough. John 3:6-7 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Jesus Himself interprets the water as a physical birth). Jesus explains the difference, telling Nicodemus you have already had a physical birth, you are in need of a second birth from the Spirit above to enter the kingdom. (The 'one baptism' expounded by Paul Eph. 5:4).This understood portrayed by his question, “How can a man be born when he is old? John 3:4. Just as John the baptizer said, in Matthew 3:11, contrasting his baptism by water with Jesus' baptism by the Holy Spirit (Mk. 1:7-8)."I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance but He who is coming after me is mightier than I. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." Not by baptism through water but by the new birth that come from above. Unless you are born again, (meaning spiritually reborn) you are not part of the church, the body of Christ, nor can enter the kingdom. Jn. 5:1, says that, “Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ has been BORN FROM GOD.” “ EVERYONE who loves has been born OF God” (1 Jn. 4:7) We are dead spiritually. Our dead spirit needs to be regenerated (Rom.8:1, Gal. 5:24) by the Spirit of God. One is made alive spiritually to God and is able to have a vital relationship through Jesus Christ. We need a new nature, which water cannot GIVE. It is by his Spirit, that is God, that gives the new birth, not by fallen creation. The ‘one baptism’ expounded by Paul (Eph. 5:4). “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." (Mk. 1:7-8). Jesus in Acts 1:5, Jesus reaffirmed this when he said to them " For John truly baptized with water; but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” If Jesus saves in water baptism, then the crucifixion is not the saving point of their gospel. The blood of Jesus is then ignored as sufficient despite all examples and witnesses of the old Testament sacrificial examples and the clear teaching that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. For it is a life that redeems, by blood. Paul states, “in whom we have redemption through His Blood” (Col. 1:14). Col 1:20: “ and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.” Mk.16:16 can be paralleled with Jn. 3:18, “He that believeth on Him (Christ) is not condemned” shows unanimously with the rest of Scripture, that believing is what saves, for someone to be baptized after. The 'one baptism' expounded by Paul (Eph. 5:4). The baptism that truly saves is not from water but the baptism by the Holy Spirit. Only when one puts his faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior this occurs. Paul refers to this baptism in I Corinthians 12:13 where he says, "By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body." Not by one water! We are saved by the one who created the water, not by or through creation. It is God who is the source and the means of our salvation. 1 John 5:1-2 “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.” Shamoun combines faith with works, that works is obedience, when our obedience is connected to our faith, believing he gospel.
Pt.2 Heaven or PURGATORY |
|
