The Truth Which Sets Free - Chapter 10. Church Sacraments

An exposure of the false teaching of Christianity concerning the reason for evil and suffering. This is one of the most challenging and deepest areas in the Word of God.

The following four booklets are now also included in the Addendum of The Truth Which Sets Free.

Raising the Dead

Spirit of the Living God

Amazing Grace

Harlot Babylon

Acknowledgements and Sources

Chapter 10. Church Sacraments

A few years ago I watched a televised church service, in which a "minister" was marrying a pair of lesbians, and all present, including children, then took part in a communion rite. It was difficult to know which emotion to control, outrage at the travesty of the "minister," nausea at the perversion or extreme melancholy at seeing what those children were being taught. I thought of Christ’s prescribed penalty, the never-ending dark terror to come for those who lead such little ones astray. Yet all that these people were talking about was how loving the congregation and the whole ceremony was. And then I thought, yes, that is the logical destiny of Christianity; a collection of goats loving each other into the Bottomless Pit in Jesus’ name. Make no mistake, no apostle or elect disciple would have broken bread with people like this. "Their vine is the vine of Sodom…their wine is the poison of serpents." (Deuteronomy 32:32,33) "From the prophet to the priest everyone deals falsely…saying peace when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; in the time of their punishment they shall be cast down…I will surely consume them, says the Lord." (Jeremiah 8:10-13) "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth…God gave them up to uncleanness in the lusts of their hearts to dishonor their bodies amongst themselves…to vile passions, even women exchanged natural relations for unnatural…men with men committing what is shameful and receiving the due penalty for sin." (Romans 1:18-27)

Christians have forever made an abomination of the breaking of bread, replacing it with their sacraments. "The early Christian leaders noticed the resemblances between the Mithraic meal, the Zoroastrian haoma ceremony, and the Christian Eucharist; and between Mithraism and Christianity, to some extent, there was mutual influence and borrowing of respective beliefs and practices." (Encyclopedia Britannica, Sacred Rites and Ceremonies, Std.Ver.1999) Indeed, Christians borrowed huge amounts from the pagan "mystery cults" as they were called. Christians and pagans love mysteries, they love being in the dark, in ignorance, they love the unexplained, but God brings his elect out of darkness into the light, replacing the murk with enlightenment. Such dark sacraments were not limited to Asia or the Graeco-Roman world but were a global phenomenon in paganism, what the apostles referred to as the "elemental spirits" of the world, traditions of men, primal religious superstitions. There was an almost universal belief that "to partake of the flesh of a sacrificial victim or of the god himself or to consume the cereal image of a vegetation deity … makes the eater a recipient of divine life and its qualities. Similarly, portions of the dead may be imbibed in mortuary sacramental rites to obtain the attributes of the deceased or to ensure their reincarnation. To give the dead new life beyond the grave, mourners may allow life-giving blood to fall upon the corpse sacramentally." (Encyclopedia Britannica, Sacred Rites and Ceremonies, Std.Ver.1999) From this the early church derived its literal interpretation of Christ’s words, "This is my body" (in the words of Latin priests "Hoc est me corpus" from whence came the words "hocus-pocus" and "hoax," the sham and fake) and for this reason many observers considered early Christians to be cannibals. It is really no wonder they became so mixed up. To climb out of the darkness of mystery it is necessary to turn on the spotlights, to compare the church forgeries with the genuine article in some detail. George Fox did this when he walked into churches and challenged the priests with the Word, challenged them to prove that their sacred host, a morsel of bread, was God himself, to be dispensed by the clergy and eaten by their flock.

The breaking of bread is given to the sheep alone by their Master. It is not called a sacrament (sacred thing to be venerated in itself), nor a Eucharist, nor holy communion (no more than there is a "holy land" or any other invention of the church) nor any other unscriptural word or description which exists in Christendom. All union of the elect with their Father is holy and sacred, and is most definitely not gained or consecrated by earthly priests in anything they enact. We know from the book of Hebrews that the elect have one Priest only; all others He rendered obsolete, making any further claims to such status to be frauds and shadows destined for the eternal gloom. They have no power or authority to bless anything except in their own imagination and in the minds of those who blindly follow them. He Himself consecrates His own directly by his Word of power, personally changes their hearts, sets them apart from the world and its religion, and they accept this bread from His hand in the fellowship He appoints.

The church will almost always have "duly qualified ministers" enacting a twisted copy of this memorial, handing it out indiscriminately to a herd of goats (the same old clergy and laity business plan). In extreme cases Christians will still proclaim the bread and wine to be the literal body and blood of Christ, copying the "eating of the god" in the parallel mystery cults (Mithra, Adonis, Demeter, Dionysis, Apollo) which existed at the time of the apostles and disciples. The fathers of the grand and subtle substitute body, the Church, adopted and incorporated these myths from the very beginning, not by mistake but deliberately, using them as the very foundations of Christianity. Priests cannot create the body of Christ in their ludicrous rite. Jesus was not holding his literal body in his hand when he said, "This is my body." A part of his body holding up another body? Ridiculous. All such concoctions of transubstantiation and consubstantiation are pagan; regrets to Luther, dragon-slayer and great harlot fighter, who was not permitted to see this amongst the myriad of church crypt cobwebs from which he was emerging, although he knows it now, and with whom the elect will indeed attend a feast beyond imagination. Others like Nicholas Ridley began to see it clearly. He "created an uproar with his campaign for the use of a plain table for communion instead of the altar. He denied the doctrine of transubstantiation - that Christ’s natural body is present in the bread of the Eucharist after consecration." (Encyclopedia Britannica, Ridley, Std.Ver.1999) Ridley paid for his faith with his life, burned in 1555 along with his friend Latimer, two of the best minds ever produced in England. They did not throw off all the vestiges of Rome but they knew that the Sacrifice of the Mass reeked of paganism. The bread and wine are no more literal flesh and blood than the elect are literal sheep, no matter what the ancient or modern Christians say. The Church Fathers were caught up in legalistic superstition over the breaking of bread right from the beginning, hotly arguing whether their Easter Eucharist should be celebrated only on Sundays or only once a year on the date of the Jewish Passover. The "church fathers" are correctly defined, fathers of the church or kyriakon; they are not the fathers of the ransomed ekklesia; never have been, never will be. The elect have One Father, no substitute permitted. God is Spirit. Flesh and blood does not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50) but only those regenerated by the eternal Spirit. Note though that there is indeed a different kind of Man sitting at God’s right hand, the resurrected Christ, who could appear through walls at will, who most interestingly described himself as flesh and bone, not the common phrase of flesh and blood. (John 24:39) Blood indicates temporary life, for when it is lost so is life. He will not suffer such loss ever again, nor will his people when changed to imperishable and incorruptible.

Unlike baptism, which is a single event (something which many revivalists and Pentecostals in particular fail to grasp in their multiple pagan baptisms, as though God were not One: see Spirit Of The Living God at the end of this book) the bread and wine are given for repetitive remembrance, "As oft as you drink of it" (wine) according to the Word. (I Corinthians 11:25) I personally do not think it matters if the liquid (mere creature) is not fermented, but if one wants to be exact about it (as the church tries to be in its perverse and obligatory rituals, and still gets it wrong) then it must be wine; that is, the fermented grape, which is the only meaning of this word in scripture and other documents of the time. Neither is the breaking of bread to be like the church communion rite, a special separate meal that must be administered in a "house of the god" or church (kyriakon), by priests or ministers at times which they appoint (e.g. holy communion, 8 a.m. Sunday). What the church performs is unholy, anything but the unity and fellowship that Christ taught and gave to his elect. Indeed, the extreme Sacrifice of the Mass is the prophesied "abomination which makes desolate", the replacement by the Antichrist or "man of sin" of the acceptable sacrifice of God with a different and ungodly sacrifice. This was foreshadowed in Daniel 11 (and in other similar events involving an evil forerunner who "magnifies himself above all") by the prototype Antichrist, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who came out of the third beast of scripture, Greece, and who entered the Jerusalem temple and sacrificed a pig in place of the God-ordained offerings, even in the Holy of holies. The Mass of the Roman Antichrist or Papacy (horn arising from the fourth and final beast of Daniel) is the ultimate fulfillment of this terrible prediction, the replacement of the true and complete work of the Son of God with another sacrifice. This is a direct insult to the face of Christ and the Father who was entirely satisfied with His Son’s offering. The Mass is the predestined atrocity, celebrated by millions through the ages, everywhere the harlot and her offspring reign.

What Christians revere as the Last Supper (correct in that it was his final one with them before his death, but incorrect in almost all other meanings which they ascribe to that particular event) consisted of a meal which included this special remembrance. He broke the bread "while they were eating" their meal. (Mark 14:22). Christ’s presentation of the bread and wine to his apostles was both common and special; common in the sense that he directed it mutually to all the sheep, special in that it is different from the regular meal and reserved specifically for the elect he came to ransom. He did not share it with scribes or clergy of any kind, only the royal priesthood, the saints, his elect, including fishermen and a tax collector. This is important. Jesus walked on water for his sheep, not the goats. He revealed his resurrected body to the elect, not to the clergy. He showed himself not to churchmen but to select eyewitnesses, "not to all but to witnesses chosen beforehand by God, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead." (Acts 11:39-41) Churchmen are always seeking for a sign, the typical trademark of an evil and adulterous people. (Matthew 12:38,39; 16:4) If signs are not forthcoming they will fake their own, especially Catholics and Charismatics who will wave and shout and weep to produce them. They have their earthly reward. Neither signs nor learning will help anyone who is not called and permitted to see Christ without stumbling. (1 Corinthians 22-24) Neither the prophets nor the Son Himself dance to the tune of the church or the world. (Matthew 11:16-19; Luke 23:8,9) He gives his bread to his elect only. Churchmen can gnash their teeth at this but cannot advise in the matter; no goat’s opinion carries any weight whatsoever. This is for His sheep, as the apostles’ letters indicate. Churchmen may point out that a goat sat with the Lord for this meal but that was a dreadful and special exception decreed from eternity, not to be copied by any but a rank fool dead to the fear of God. The reprobate constrained to share this with the Lord was Judas Iscariot, the one for whom it would have been better not to have been born. (Mark 14:18-21; John 6:64,71; 13:10,11,18,21-27) His name, the "son of perdition," is only given to one other in scripture, the Antichrist of Rome, his true successor in fake apostleship, the imposter of the Lord. Judas was included in this meal only because of the terrible fate that the sovereign God predestined for him as betrayer, selling out Christ to the church. Jesus revealed all this to the other apostles and even to Iscariot’s face. The fraud who put his hand in the food with the Master then proceeded to his doom.

Again then, this breaking of bread by Jesus took part during a meal for nourishment. It was not a completely isolated god-meal-time as practiced by the pagan cults. There was no division of time between the regular food and the breaking of bread. Fasting before this memorial, and all other religious inventions of a special clergy-controlled time and place, are pagan, all part of the church, Satan’s ace card. Neither is there any magical order of bread and wine, as the superstitious church would have it. Matthew and Mark mention bread then wine, Luke mentions wine then bread. Indeed, whether it is even done at the start, during, or at the end of a meal is neither here nor there, for God looks on the heart, and the apostle Paul warns all to examine themselves before eating, stating that some even die from partaking improperly. (1 Corinthians 11:27-30) Only the sheep may touch of this without condemnation. None of the priestly two-faced "church assurance" for goats, those who say they believe in Christ but reject plain teaching, who have no appropriate fruit, or are not sure if they are really saved, thereby revealing their unbelief in his word of power and promise. They rush in where angels fear to tread. A severe and eternal mistake. Any in doubt should stand back in awe, and even the sure sheep should approach with humility and great thanksgiving, for none but those justified by the Satisfier of God’s anger against sinners, the Lamb without blemish, have any right to this food. Only the elect In Him, completely imputed with his perfect life to their account, can partake of this without storing up the wrath of God for themselves.

So then, in the course of a normal meal, any elect may enact this remembrance which the Lord himself encourages them to keep. And this is given to them in freedom. Yes, that fetter-breaking freedom again! Let it be done in that amazing and spontaneous liberty in the Spirit which the Son, who makes free indeed, bought for his own. The church hates this freedom. They wish not to serve but to lord it over others, exactly the opposite of what Christ taught. Even Presbyterians and Calvinists, once enemies of Rome, would still demand control of this meal, hunting down non-conformists who obeyed the Lord in the freedom of their homes. Away with their dour constraints. And no self-made manacles of ritual compulsion either. The elect do not perform it only at Passover, imitating the original only once a year, or like clockwork, as though it should be done with every single meal; and indeed should not eat it at all if their souls convict otherwise. There is nothing wrong with leaving it out of meals or any other postponement, whatever seems fit. Obligatory routine is a chain of religion, a hallmark of the church. Away with that!

As an aside, concerning this freedom and the general giving of thanks, I will mention that one of my most treasured mentors of the past (to be nameless out of my debt and respect in so many other matters) was terribly snared by such a shackle. He could not partake of even a cup of tea and a biscuit without feeling obliged to bow his head and give thanks, directing all others do likewise. Christians and even rank unbelievers are often gross prisoners of this obsession, unable to start any meal without a grace, usually by ritual and rote and not at all from the heart. Consider the effect of this on children who watch like hawks, for it is not to some dumb idol but to a living Person we speak and He cares nothing for vain repetition. Some Christians will insist on doing this in front of others in public at every opportunity, even when they reject the Word at every turn in their lives. This begets earthly reward only, and worse, particularly if it is done to display an identity or "witness" (Pharisee on the sidewalk style) instead of direct and pure gratitude to the One Who should be thanked. The elect should speak straight and true to Him, and only to Him, for He is indeed with them. Do not thank him for the benefit of others at the table. Better to have no outward show. Not forcing or declaring faith publicly at every opportunity is not denial; neither is it being ashamed of Christ. Luther had this exactly right, we may withhold our position if we wish, but when pressed we are then constrained to confess Christ. So it is said of John the Baptist, "He did not deny but confessed" when he was directly questioned. (John 1:20)

Who says the elect are not thankful just because they do not say something aloud or bow at every meal? Can others see our hearts? God can certainly see theirs. Let such goats read that we are set free and completely justified and that none may bring any such charge against His own. I say this with strong feeling because I sat many times at table with a relative and devoted churchman who used meal graces as an occasion to force his terrible Christianity at length down the captive throats of others present, going on even until the food went cold. On the other side another close relative sometimes pointed out that I did not start a meal with thanks at my own table, as though I "ought" to have done it, and yet he was a proclaimed atheist! Once, when we were visiting his house, he said that someone should say grace. I thanked him and said that we had already done it. Because he did not see it he again demanded someone "say grace" for the food. I finally had to inform him that he must have got that from a churchman, that this was his house and he was the head of it, and he never did this, considering others who did so to be merely talking to the air. That got his attention, whereas an ordinary Christian grace by rote would have passed without a dent. Amazing though, the unbeliever becomes bound in the very same compulsory charade as the pew-sitter. This is the essence of religion. Just as in Christmas-keeping and other ritualistic shams the pagans and Christians find themselves in the same obligatory snares, even in the simplest acts. But the elect are unshackled, saved from any constraint in such robotic routines; free!

Now to the remembrance itself. Let it be done wherever even as few as two or three elect are gathered (the true assembly or ekklesia). Read aloud, if any one desires, the relevant scriptures from the apostles, but never as the church does, never as a repetitive mantra or ritual formula. The elect should know the words anyway, written in their hearts. Break the bread and take the wine in good cheer or in stillness, as appropriate, for our moods and circumstances are never the same if we are in the living faith instead of dead religion. Take some bread from a common loaf or a bun, whatever is at hand, and some wine from the ordinary meal. Forget all church procedures. Just look at them in their well-practiced charade and you will know what not to do. That is not for the sheep. No extraordinary baked item, no perfect Isis cakes, no unbroken Mithra wafers, no circles of the sun-gods, no carefully sliced ecclesiastical cubes, no kneeling before the "host" nor any other reverence for the creature rather than the Creator. No queuing, no pious groveling, no special emotional music or hum of dirge and incantation. Think of that first table, most likely filled with animated conversation, about what new thing was being shared, and dreadful consternation over talk of His impending death and an imposter in their midst, each nervously asking, "Is it me?" Think of these privileged friends and all they had been through with their Master, with eyes that saw lepers cleansed, the blind made to see, ears that heard words which lashed priests and saved prostitutes, commands that caused fishermen to drop their nets, oratory revealing the eternal cosmic plan, mysteries which angelic beings longed to glimpse. In a few hours they will scatter in fear and He will go on alone, not deserting them, for if He does not accomplish it completely then they are doomed. "Lo, I come, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book, I delight to do thy will." (Psalm 40:6-8; Hebrews 10:5-10) Now He raises everyday things from the ordinary table, just as he took ordinary people from everyday life to unimaginable elevation, as symbols of the event that secures His people for all time. They share in as much as the Ancient of Days can offer, even Himself to the death. He will leave and be out of sight, yet He will be inseparably in them and they in Him.

Break this bread at the regular kitchen or dining table, as the Lord did, and pass it around. Nowhere does it say one tiny piece, one sacred mouthful, all eyes downcast, or even silence. Pour the wine into cups if that is preferred, or pass one cup. Christ said, "Drink you all of it," (Matt. 26:27) and I take this to mean not only that all willing and qualified should take part but also that it should be entirely consumed as foreshadowed in the eating of Old Testament offerings (although again, no religious fetish over every drop and morsel of mere creature). We drink it all because this earthly cup is the image of the great and terrible cup, the one that even He prayed to pass by him if there was another way to give His chosen people their imperishable status, the cup He drank for us to the dregs. And so we give thanks, thanks for what He did, thanks that we are included in a royal seal not gained by anything we did, thanks that we are so unworthy and yet immeasurably qualified to take part. In the quiet of our hearts or aloud, as each sees fit or the Spirit leads. There is no set procedure in a living faith, only rightness and orderliness. Times may be joyful or sad, solemn, agitated by worldly cares, somber due to loss, or simply uneventful. There must be no faking or forcing nor anything unseemly, as with the charismatics. Their antics are not for the elect. Nothing frantic or demented happened at that table with the Son of Man.

As to what is fulfilled in this ceremony, we know the primary purpose stated by Christ and Paul, namely the proclamation of his death until he comes again, the remembrance of the Sacrifice of sacrifices, His broken body, His spilled blood. We declare the ultimate laying down of Life which redeemed a people whose names were in the Book from before the earth’s creation, from all eternity. We assert the complete and successful offering, a satisfaction once and for all, which authorizes that all whom the Father gave to the Son will indeed come to him and be saved. (1 Peter 1:18-20; 3:18; Hebrews 9:12,26; 10:10) Christian speculation as to what else is achieved by this act is vain and void. Certainly there is no ingestion of real flesh and blood nor any other pagan cannibalism copied by the church. "The Spirit gives life, the flesh is of no avail." Neither is it a repeat of predictable or specified graces, nor any other formula concocted by human theologians. We do not digest our God nor become any more one with Him than we already are, for that is impossible, since we are already in the perfect unity of Christ. By absolute imputation His sacrifice is ours, His flawless life is ours; and like the vine, He abides in us and we abide in Him, and in the Spirit and the Father. What other thing may be conveyed in this meal to the elect is the same as every other grace: whatever the sovereign Lord God Almighty deigns to convey or infuse in His people as He sees fit, according to His ways, not ours, and perhaps in His mercy toward their needs at the time. "I am working and my Father is working." It may be the peace that passes understanding, or the courage to stand up to church and state, or the awakening to some great truth, or whatever He decrees, to each as He pleases. "No one can receive anything except what is granted from heaven." Whatever else is received besides bread and wine is according to His pleasure and purpose.

This is for the elect, this meal, and our simple and glorious memorial banquet until He returns and sits us in our place at the Feast of feasts. This bread is appointed to us directly by the King of kings, and no lesser authority under heaven or earth has the right to take it from us or administer it to us or to anyone else. Only the elect can eat this in His cloak of purity, in a justified righteousness not of their own making, free from priest and prelate, free from empire and emperor, personally receiving it from His hand to theirs. Where two or three are gathered in His Name He is indeed there. Who shall convince us otherwise, if He sits at the table and entreats His own to do this in remembrance of Him?

If you have ears to hear, and have understood what has been stated above, then you will have grasped the fact that union with God is not gained by any act of man, but is entirely secured by God’s predestined, electing, regenerating grace. So everything which applies to the breaking of bread also applies to baptism, except that true baptism is not repeated. These acts are signs of obedience in salvation, but do not save. Anybody can partake in bread-breaking or baptism and be nowhere near the kingdom of God. Millions of Christian goats take part in such ceremonies, or their atrocious copies, and yet have no life, bearing the fruit of churchmanship instead of discipleship. You cannot have two masters; you cannot serve God and the church. It is the sovereign Lord who holds the power of redemption, not rites, and certainly not sacraments administered by priests. So the superstitious arguments of Christians as to whether baptism should be a sprinkling or a complete dunking are laughable, a transparent admission that they do not understand the power of real redemption or the unstoppable plan of God to absolutely save His sheep, those whose names are in the Book of Life from before the foundation of the world, those ordained to eternal life, those permitted and empowered to respond to His call. (Matthew 22:14; John 6:37; 17:1-10; James 1:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:4,5; 2 Timothy 2:25,26; Acts 2:39; 13:48; 16:14)

Baptism, like the breaking of bread, is given by the Lord, the one true Priest and King, to his ekklesia, the ones He calls. It is not given to any earthly clergy, only the elect, the royal priesthood. (1 Peter 2:9) So do not soil yourselves or your children in the hands of any "duly qualified church minister" at his altar or baptismal font. Neither let them marry you. Christian churchmen will argue about whether marriage is one of their sacraments or not. The sheep have no sacraments, since these do not exist (except in the minds of goats), only obedience. Few people realize that throughout Israelite history there were no "church weddings" but only civil ceremonies, and this continued well past the time of Jesus. The bride was betrothed or engaged for up to a year before this ritual. She knew the bridegroom was coming, but not the day. This was kept a secret. When he arrived, with his attendants, it was both a surprise and a noisy affair with shouts and loud music. A feast was held and then the bride and groom went to their appointed dwelling, often a new house on the father of the groom’s property, or, if they were poor, a room prepared for them in that father’s own house. This was a time of great celebration. (Judges 14:10,11; Matthew 9:15; John 3:21) The wedding words were very simple. A second century AD scroll from the Judaean desert reveals the plain statement, "Thou shalt be my wife." Parents gave their blessing in front of witnesses. (Genesis 24:58-60; Ruth 4:11,12) It is your word and bond that count, once and for all time, not to be broken until death divides you. When two become one flesh it is a done deal, not to be rent apart. This teaching is throughout scripture and confirmed by Jesus. (Mark 10:2-12; 1 Corinthians 7:39,40; Romans 7:1-3) This is a pair made one in the sight of God with promises and physical union and no priest or sacrament has any part in this sealing. I say this with some melancholy because I was married by an ordained minister in a church building, and I have regretted it ever since. Neither that office nor that house made with hands is valid or righteous. But the vows exchanged are. There is no case in scripture where a vow, even a rash oath, can be broken without dire trouble to follow, so do not promise anything you do not intend to keep. (Numbers 30:2; Deuteronomy 23:21-23; Proverbs 20:25; Ecclesiastes 5:4-6; Matthew 5:33) If you have yet to make such an oath, your "I do," then "Let your yes be simply yes" as Christ commanded, and do not put yourselves in the hands of church ministers.

If you made your vows with a priest present then live by them. His presence was regrettable but cannot be undone, and neither can your promises. And do not listen to a single goat who tells you that you can break these bonds and get away with it. They are forever marrying and remarrying, a huge part of the business of the church. These clergy will even "wed" same sex partners, which is not marriage, which requires male and female, neither are such unions a family. Not even the inhabitants of Sodom would have fallen for that falsehood, nor did countless other ancient civilizations. This is the kind of sin the apostle Paul defines as "immorality not even found among pagans," no, even worse, for at least incest involves the opposite sex. (1 Corinthians 5:1) Such sinfulness is even "more corrupt than Sodom" whose people "committed abomination," and far worse because it is committed by those "justifying" their vileness in the Lord. (Ezekiel 16:47-51) Do not be deceived in this. Such people are making vows in God’s name to commit what the Lord has clearly defined as a filthy atrocity, more than likely an unforgivable sin, and this with a priest waving his demonic hand over the rite. If you wish to join that flock you will assuredly spend all eternity with them, and that prison will make earthly incarceration look tame. The lewd acts they commit on you will never cease, and no guard will come to the rescue. Jesus said do not be taken in by these deceiving offenders, "Woe to the world because of offences! For offences must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!" For it is better to cut off your hand or gouge out your eye if it causes you to transgress, better to enter the narrow gate dreadfully maimed than go to the wrong place forever. (Matthew 18:6-9) Do you really wish to end up with them, never to be relieved? If not, pluck the Christian priest and church out of your life now, do not delay, or you will be in the unending outer darkness with them. The church is Satan’s Trojan horse; those who admire and take it inside the walls of their lives will be overthrown while they sleep and shackled by his servants who emerge from its belly. This wicked sham has been so from the beginning with these ministers even insisting that marriage be confirmed by a church sacrament. Yes, at the same time that the remnant saved by grace would have been conducting their simple weddings, the Christian Fathers like Tertullian (160-221 AD) were writing that matrimony should be accomplished in church when two people came together to be united and partook of the Eucharist together, a tradition confirmed in the records of the early Orthodox and Roman churches. Not only do they want you married in their wicked house, they also want to cram their unholy sacraments down your throat.

Do not deliver yourself or your children to their hocus-pocus, neither bread nor wine nor water nor marriage. If you are given ears to hear then find an elect person of the royal priesthood for your baptism. The Ethiopian eunuch was happy to settle for the roadside when he was regenerated by the Spirit while talking with the disciple Philip. (Acts 8:36) "See, here is water!" he called out, pointing at perhaps a pond or mere puddle or ditch. You may use any water source or method you want, only be sure that the one who baptizes you is of God. It is the Spirit of God who gives life, not water, and certainly not the unholy water of the church, applied with a superstitious sign of the cross made by hand of flesh, the Christian clergyman. Jesus promised the thief on the cross a place in Paradise, no time for a water baptism. But if you have the time, and ears to hear, then use it. I was baptized in the Jordan, several years after I was awakened, not because I considered the place special (I was merely walking past a favorite fishing spot close to where I worked as a temporary farm laborer) but because it was there, because I came upon a man baptizing others in Christ, and because I knew it was my time. I had been baptized as a child, but it was no baptism, it was the null and void mumbo-jumbo of a church minister.

I baptized my own son in my house on his eighth day in the world, similar to Abraham’s circumcision of his own son, but any other day would have been equally acceptable. How churchmen objected to this! One church camp holds that only adults may be baptized upon confession of faith, and they baptize millions into a gospel that does not remotely correspond with the Word of God. The other camp would baptize infants of church goats by the millions, as long as it was their "duly qualified minister" who exclusively splashed the water, and afterward they spend their lives in the dark, thinking this sprinkling will save them, yes, even if they kill and fornicate, even if they join the Mafia. No way would I hand my offspring to any clergy of any church. My son may decide he would prefer an adult baptism, as I did. He will have no objection from me. His infant baptism was my offering of him to God, even as I offered myself for His use. This is the real service and sacrifice required by God of His elect (Romans 12:1) but it does not save, no more than any other act or human effort. Some churchmen argue that baptism replaces circumcision and it therefore applies to infants, others say it is entirely new, not a follow-on of circumcision and therefore not applicable to children. The Scripture says whole households were baptized, but omits mention of infants, neither saying children were included in nor excluded from baptism. There is a case for either, and many books have wasted reams of paper on the subject, all pointless because, as far as having one’s name in the Book of Life is concerned, the argument is a complete non-event. Do not confuse such outward signs with the Father’s sovereign and ordained salvation by grace, the baptism of his elect by His Spirit into His Son once and for all time, and never confuse these symbols with the sacraments of the Christian church.

Only the perfect life of Christ is acceptable to God, not our feeble efforts or actions. It is God who decides who will be included "in Christ" and receive the Spirit, not man. This is the reality, "one Spirit, one body, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father." (Ephesians 4:4-6) Church baptisms, whether they be by priests in special clothes with holy water and superstitious signs of the cross, or charismatic repeat baptisms into whatever evil spirit causes people to fall around and make animalistic noises, are of no account. No, much worse than that, they count against them. These antics are for the goats, and doing these things in the Lord’s name makes their final fate all the worse. Only the sovereign circumcision of the heart, made without hands, the invisible baptism in the Spirit, saves God’s sheep. John the Baptist said of Jesus, "This is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit" and Jesus said, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, that which is born of Spirit is spirit…you must be born from above" by the Spirit Who "blows where He will" in absolute sovereignty, regenerating the elect. (John 1:33; 3:6-8) Man can no more choose to be born of the Spirit than he can choose to be born in the flesh. This is an act of the parent and has absolutely nothing to do with the child who has no will until after he is brought forth. This new creation by the will of the Creator, and not the will of the creature, is the true circumcision and baptism. Open your ears to hear what Paul, a real apostle, says to the elect, "In him (Christ) the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily…in him you were circumcised with a circumcision not made by hands…and buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you who were dead…God made alive together with him, having forgiven our sins." (Colossians 2:9-14) "He is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, true circumcision is not external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, real circumcision is of the heart, spiritual, not literal." (Romans 2:28,29) "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but a new creation. Peace be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God." (Galatians 6:15,16)

11. Authority & Confirmation