Відео

One of the main problems I have with Dr. Hamilton's presentation of the Gospel is his use of Faith alone. It is simply not a biblical term. Here are my justifications for saying this: Point 1 - Paul never uses the term Faith alone. Rather, he talks about faith, working through love. Or faith apart from works of the law. But nowhere does he say, Faith alone. Point 2 - James explicitly rejects the term Faith alone. Here James is talking about Faith that is purely intellectual. He points out that even the demons have that kind of faith. Given point 1 and 2, it seems clear to me that Paul is preaching a properly formed faith. A faith that does not exclude love, but includes love. This matches what James says. This also matches what Jesus says to the rich man - Lord, what must I do to be saved. Jesus lists the 9 out of the ten commandments. Those that have to do with love of neighbor. The rich man says he has done all of these. Jesus then invites him to leave all he has and follow him, showing the centrality of the first commandment. Love God above all things. Jesus knows that we cannot do this perfectly. In fact, without faith in Christ, and love for Christ, that man has no hope of salvation. So the question is this - why couldn't that man follow Jesus? Why couldn't he simply make an act of faith and all would be well? The Gospel tells us - because he had many riches. Because he was overly attached to the things of this world. Because he loved Mammon more that he love Christ. And so this illustrates what a properly formed faith demands from us. It demands from us a love for God that puts the love of God above all other loves. And this is what following Jesus gives us - the forgiveness of sins, through Christ's death on the cross. This is justification. But it also provides and demands sanctification from us - which is the purification of our desires, such that nothing comes between us and God. Can we do this perfectly? Of course not. But Christ lives to intercede for us on our behalf - those he has redeemed. As Hebrews says, our God is a refining fire. And if we correspond to the graces he continually sends our way, we can be made clean. This process of being made clean is that heart of what it means to be a Christian. It is at the heart of what is means to be saved. A protestant might say that these things are simply evidence that we have been saved. I say sure. But that formed faith, that purifying fire, must be followed day in and day out. Every day, we must renew our determination to take up our cross and follow Christ.

Hasn't Dr Hamiltiun ripentid yet? Calvin a murdrur.

John Calvin was the worst Bible exegete in history. The One True Faith is the Catholic Faith of the Nicene Creed. Calvinism is a heresy.

• God whisperers pretend to read God's mind. They will tell you that only those who believe in one very special brand of faith (out of tens of thousands) will go to heaven. These punks and skanks claim they can divine exactly what kind of belief is required to force God's free will to save you. They tell you that there is only one single social club you may hang out in. They say they worked out exactly what 'mere Christianity' is all about. God whisperers cannot read God's mind. It's blasphemy Calvinists got one thing right: God "freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass." Calvinists nevertheless are very sure of whom God elected and whom He "reprobated." In that way they expose themselves as god-whisperers. Eternal fire awaits the Calvinist and Reformed riffraff

Lol, looks like for the first 1500 years all the early Christians were wrong. That is Martin Luther came in, ran away with a nun, removed books from the bible and decided that sacred tradition didn't matter

How can Calvin/Calvinists say that anything is "perilous to our salvation" if they hold that, before He created anyone, God by an unchanging decree had determined which individuals would be saved, by irresistible grace and absolute guarantee of final perseverance?

Evangelical Protestants like Dr Hamilton object to Catholics that “Jesus said on the Cross, ‘It is finished’ (Jn 19.30). So he’s not dead or dying now. Why show a suffering or dead Jesus on the crucifix? Why offer the Sacrifice of the Mass? He died once for all, and he is now alive in glory!” The Letter to the Hebrews does emphasize that the sacrifice of the Cross is “once for all.” However, that same Letter also says that the ascended Christ “always lives to make intercession” for us at the Father’s right hand (Heb 7.25). Our Lord’s victory is complete, but he has not retired as our great High Priest. The evangelical Anglican theologian John Stott (no Roman sympathizer!) pointed out that, though Christ’s work of redemption is once-for-all on the Cross, Scripture also teaches that the Holy Spirit’s work is MORE and MORE-that is, still making the redemption fruitful in all ages. John Stott puts it this way: “The Holy Spirit is constantly, and indeed increasingly showing Christ to us and forming Christ in us” ("Evangelical Truth," p. 36). All of this can be summed up in two one-syllable words: the preposition FOR and the preposition IN. Christ has already done everything FOR us by his death on the Cross; he is risen and dies no more. However, Christ’s work IN us by the Holy Spirit is ongoing. What remains now is for that perfect once-for-all redemption on the Cross to be applied to us and to bear fruit in us. Our continual drawing-near to Christ is by faith and repentance--and that drawing-near is constant and ongoing.

As a Catholic priest and monk, I appreciate the tone of this critical response and also that it is from a clearly recognizable Reformed confessional standpoint. I can assure you that I follow the opinion of St Thomas Aquinas on the unique status of Holy Scripture as directly divinely inspired and inerrant, with tradition as a subordinate (though binding) authority to that of Scripture. And your Catholic mother was correct: we're not cannibals since we're not consuming dead human flesh but the life-giving body-and-blood of the glorified Christ, whose substantial presence in the Blessed Sacrament is not localized (see what Aquinas says). I do wish to point out that Pope Benedict XVI did say this: "Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14)" (General Audience, 19 November 2008). As it happens, I very often use the hymn "Rock of Ages" at Mass, with special emphasis on the phrase, "Nothing in my hand I bring/ simply to thy Cross I cling." That is what it means to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to come to the Father solely on the basis of Christ's shed Blood and to plead in praise and thanksgiving its infinite saving and sanctifying power. I see no contradiction between defending the distinctive tenets of our own confession of faith (Catholic, Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, etc.) while also having ad hoc cooperation on matters of common concern and shared conviction that threaten Christianity itself. The great Reformed champion J. Gresham Machen, said the following in his fine book, "Christianity and Liberalism": "Far more serious still is the division between the Church of Rome and evangelical Protestantism in all its forms. Yet how great is the common heritage which unites the Roman Catholic Church, with its maintenance of the authority of Holy Scripture and with its acceptance of the great early creeds, to devout Protestants today! We would not indeed obscure the difference which divides us from Rome. The gulf is indeed profound. But profound as it is, it seems almost trifling compared to the abyss which stands between us and many ministers of our own Church. The Church of Rome may represent a perversion of the Christian religion; but naturalistic liberalism is not Christianity at all."

Does a god need worship.?. Of course not. How embarrassing for him if he did.

We do know when our Lord returns, on the last day! The last day of this present evil age! We don’t know when that is. 50 years? 100 years? That is when Jesus raises up “all the father has given him”. John chapter 6- he says it 4 times. You believe otherwise you are calling Jesus a liar! Lazarus’ sister knew! She knew her brother would be raised up on the last day! All the early church knew. Ian it was a good sermon! Unlike how the pre trib rapture people go on with 50,000 words about a false doctrine that is not in scripture. We know Jesus is returning after the tribulation of those days, after the sun is darkened, the moon doesn’t shine and the stars disappear. He is returning a second time not a second and third time. Hebrews 9:28.

On this Rock I will Build My Church!

My litmus test is simple - if I shouldn't be Catholic, you must tell me which of the thousands of contradictory sects I should belong to. Once you do that, you must tell me the name of one person in each century between 33 AD and the 16th century who believed what you believe. To Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Antiochian Orthodox, this endeavor is trivial. To a Protestant, it's impossible.

It goes beyond "What would Calvin say". What did Paul say? Galatians 1 spells it out simply and accurately. Quite simply, if you need anything more than Jesus for Justification, you might as well tell Him to His face "You just weren't a good enough sacrifice for my sins". If you don't repent, you will say that to Him, in person, at your judgment.

I do biblical content.

The Rise of the Papacy Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians Chap 2 v 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.. When Paul wrote there was already a principle of evil at work in the Church which was going to culminate in the appearance of the Man of Sin , the Son of Perdition. Church authority was going to be centred in one person who would usurp the headship of Christ over the Church and thus facilitate the introduction, spread and imposition of error. This was going to happen after there was a falling away ( an apostasy) within the Church.This is what happened in the history of the Church. However it did not happen overnight but , by the working of the mystery of iniquity, through deceit and strong delusion , it crept in by degrees. The development of the distinctive doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, which included the claim to temporal power, which were unknown in the New Testament Church, were gradually engrafted on to the doctrine and practice of the primitive church.

4:00 Your mother was right. Catholics do not teach cannibalism. I'm not sure why you thought we did. Those who teach real presences, such as the Catholics and Lutherans do, explicitly reject the accusation of cannibalism. Transubstantiation is not the same thing as Transaccidentiation. That is what you thought we Catholics believed. But Catholicism teaches transubstantiation, full stop. No accidents are there. The accidents are in heaven, at the right hand of the Father. That is where Jesus's physical body is. His substance, however, is in both places. The accidents of bread and wine are still there. They are not an illusion. But they don't point to the substance of bread and wine anymore. They point to and are united with Jesus's body and blood. This preserves the bread and wine's character as a sacrament. Its accidents. In addition, the body of Christ, is very much the Church, as well as the physical body of the Lord. This seems to be what Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17. The Eucharist is oriented towards the building up of the Body of Christ in his Church. What you find in the first thousand years of Church history, before Berangarus, is both symbolic and literal readings being held together, often by the same person. Augustine had both. So did Ambrose. It is only when some tried to bifurcate both understandings making them mutually exclusive, did all these problems of interpretation arise. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all three differed on their understanding of the Eucharist.

Ever since the satanic cult of sola scriptura a man made tradition invented by a devil possessed man was introduced five hundred years ago many idiots like Calvin Smythe Zwingli Henry Ellen Knox Wesley Russell etc started to interpret the Bible on their own wild imagination and even adding their wishful thinking or twisting historical facts or even tried to manipulate the holy Bible itself in order to make their satanic theology fit into it and this madness go on and on and on and on and after five centuries by now about fifty thousand idiots like McArthur, Benny, Copeland, Crepo, Osteen, Todd, Hagee, Ortlund, Mike, Tiff, Wilson etc are doing all sorts of nonsense and all are contradicting each other all the time bringing chaotic anarchism into Christianity

The belief Christianity of God needed reformation by Man.

There is only one Church, one body of Christ

We really need to stop talking about the first century early church as if it’s just the same as today. There were no bibles. Period. The vast majority of early Christians only heard the scriptures when the old testament was read in Synagogues, and they heard the Gospel when it was preached to them. The church had many years of work and deliberations before settlement on an NT canon. The idea that everyone was being guided by the Holy Spirit to recognize the right books is sheer nonsense. Christ gave that power of the Spirit to his apostles, who in turn gave it to those they entrusted to succeed them. Paul makes it super clear that he has a special fatherhood over Timothy and Titus, having appointed them. You cannot pick up a Bible and just read it and then declare yourself a successor to the apostles. That isn’t in your power. Calvin couldn’t do that any more than I can, which is why he’s a heretic. Find Peter, find Paul, find your bishop, and there you will find Christ’s Church in whom you can trust.

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. - John 6:63 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” - Matthew 26:26-29 Where is the transubstantiation in the above passages? Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. - Acts 2:33 The exalted Christ is at the right hand of the Father and His real Presence is at Communion Table with the believers through the given Holy Spirit. The very late transubstantiation dogma is an Aristotelian accretion.

Take our book and go play house with it.

Thank you for a thoughtful, charitable, clear, and persuasive exposition of this topic on which too much heat and venom is displayed.

As a Catholic I find much to disagree with here. God is worshipped in the paschal mystery of the sacrifice of the mass. We offer back to God, His own timeless sacrifice of Himself. We partake in very same sacrifice of the cross and recognise the real presence of Christ ‘in the breaking of the bread’. That is the way God ordained it. At Mass, I don’t memorialise an event past, I don’t align myself with an ‘idea’ or a theological concept but I receive Christ completely. Body, soul, humanity and divinity. Anything less than this is inferior. Regardless of how well intentioned it may be. The real presence of Christ in the Mass was taught without serious challenge for sixteen centuries and ironically wasn’t even attacked by Luther either but it became a casualty of the reformation with the challenge of the Authority of the Church. Finally though I’d like to point out that although God’s grace is primarily administered through the Sacraments (the Mass being ‘the source and summit’ of the Christian faith) it isn’t the only way He can operate. There is no doubt that this Gentleman has a living faith in the living God, he is my brother in Christ and I join with his prayer that all those who profess the name of Christ will indeed walk in closer union with Him and actually by doing so, each other.

If in reading the history of Christians and Christ's church, you always find Calvin in agreement with those deemed heretics or worse still, nowhere to be found in the argument because his beliefs are so anathema to their understanding of Christ, as early as the second century, perhaps your mother was quite right in her pointing out your misunderstanding of the doctrines of the Catholic Church in rebuking you with the statement "we aren't cannibals." The Church was founded on Pentacost, the Bible was founded by the Church.

Can't wait to be there 😁

Really good Rev Dr Brand

Helpful explanation of Calvin’s position. Thank You.

amen,

Second lecture starts 1:01:16

Powerful

I was raised in a very different theological tradition and only knew Edwards from "Sinners In The Hands of an Angry God." But lately have been researching many of his writings in more depth. This work seems to me to be the "true Edwards." Besides being a wonderful theologian and philosopher, he was a brilliant poet and psychologist! How he understood human emotions! Thank you for this!

Really good Dr Brand

I’m really not sure if I understood the very last part of Dr Hamilton’s message - is he preaching justification by grace and sanctification by works? I pray I’m hearing wrong…

When Autonomianism, Arminianism, Pelagianism and neo-Pelagianism has become the orthodoxy of our time, Dr Hamilton’s message here is like a breath of fresh air… Ultimately, the Lord of God is sovereign - not ‘just so sovereign’ or ‘merely sovereign’ or ‘nominally sovereign’, but ABSOLUTELY SOVEREIGN over absolutely all things, including the spiritual condition of fallen man

Very interesting. A touching personal account from up close. Marvellous

Very good teacher, Lord bless him. Thank you for posting this!

Reformers and Calvinists certainly don't know how it's going to end . John Calvin was IGNORANT to. Bible prophecy . He was a. " former " catholic some say . He took much with him when he left the catholic church . Some feel that they. took " everything " but the pope

Enjoyed my good friend Nick’s lecture very much. Excellent. The moment you replace divine revelation with subjective reflection, you end up captive to the tyranny of subjectivism - My opinion is as valid as yours. Well done Nick. 49:05

Excellent seminar. I came away from this lecture with a heart beaming with awe and wonder of the Holy Triune God I serve 🙏

One minor correction to a remark made at 3:30: Hampden-Sydney is 70 miles from Richmond. The confusion is understandable, however, as the seminary where Dabney taught (now Union Presbyterian Seminary) was in Hampden-Sydney at the time, though it moved to Richmond in 1898.

Thanks Dr. Brand for your very careful and clear presentation of some of the deepest mysteries of God, I am especially blessed with the way you are very faithful I believe to scripture as understood by the church down through the centuries, in explaining as far as possible for men to do with regards to the One Divine Nature subsisting in three Persons, as well as the eternal personal properties of the Persons, in eternal mutual indwelling. I believe maintaining the biblical and historical one faith of the church in these matters is very important. I pray God’s blessings on your studies and exposition.

So much excellence here.

Nick Needham is my favorite lecturer on church history. Would love more!

Why does this address end so abruptly?

How do we reconcile the timing language used for the end times in the Bible? Jesus says those who pierced him will see his return, revelation says that this will happen quick, there a lot more verses to name that give a very immediate return of Christ? Much love from Charleston, South Carolina. Thanks!

One of the great church historians of our time. Much underappeciated. Great address.

Very insightful address

It would be interesting to know whether Dabney and J. H. Merle D’Aubigne were related. Thank you Dr. Needham!