Відео

‘But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting til His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.’ ‘Sanctify them by Your truth. Your Word is truth.’ (Not our experiences.) ‘Come to Me, all you who are weary. . . ‘ Not to ANY ‘denomination.’ ‘My sheep hear My voice and I know them, and they follow Me.’ We go to Christ, and to Christ alone. Read Hebrews 7,8 9,10 ‘It is finished!’ ‘Do this in remembrance of Me’ By these elements we remember what He has done for us - He paid our sin debt and ‘made us kings and priests to God’ now, to offer up spiritual sacrifices. Roms 12:1-2. No more ‘priesthood’ - ‘altar of sacrifice.’ ‘The price is paid!’ And, ‘He lives in the power of an Indestructible life!’ And ‘Is seated at the right hand of the Majesty on High.’ Never to be ‘offered up’ again. ‘I tell you the truth, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s Kingdom.’ We are ‘the fruit’ of the Vine - ‘He shall see the travail of His Soul and be satisfied.’ He will not ‘drink’ us physically any more than we ‘eat’ Him, physically. Christ Himself is going to sit at table and rejoice with us and over us, just as we will spend eternity rejoicing over Him! ‘What a Saviour that He died for me!’ ‘Unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood you have no life in you.’ Not cannibalism. ‘My Words are Spirit and they are life.’ ‘This is the work’ we must do to have eternal life, ‘Believe.’ ‘It is finished!’ ‘The veil of the Temple was torn in two!’ ‘But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believed in His Name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God.’ The Bible has said it all! On every subject. Read the Bible! Believe Jesus. He is coming again for His sheep. May we be found in Him, and in Him alone. Soli Deo Gloria. ‘Unless you are converted and become as little children. . . ‘ Not ‘converted’ from denominations, but taken out of the kingdom of darkness, translated in to the Kingdom of light. O, God, open Thou our inward ear!’ 🕊️🙏👑

We both agree that a person can live 99.99% of their life in pure evil and sin. Maybe a good moment here or there. And right in the last 5 minutes receive Christ in Faith, hope and love and be saved. But for the inverse there is a double standard.... Yet if a person does good 99.99% of their life (having g faith) While this may affect their position in Hell it is the final point of our lives that decides if we are in friendship with God or not. A mortal sin is fully consenting with the intellect and will to a serious sin. Dying in that condition is dying at a point of time that COULD be a point from which a life of unrepentant reprobation begins. It is so dangerous to assert that some ratio or vibe of our life determines our eternal fate. It would be inconsistent with ALL of Christ's parables regarding justification. ALL of them

Re temporal punishment: When the car window is broken and the dude gets baptised. His temporal sin with God is remitted. He has an obligation to fix the window the next day not as a temporal punishment... But as a good work the Father asks His adopted son to do... From a divine perspective: If he doesnt fix the window it is a new sin... Not the consequence of the old sin. as the Psalter says "against you (God) alone, and only you have i Sinned" The obligation to fix the mans window is not a pennance it can be seen as a new obligation... And if he dies a minute after his baptism he wont be punished by GOD for it

A mortal sin is just an act that has a telos of damnation. We aren't judged by some ratio of good to bad? THAT is works based salvation. So the theory of the telos of faith is nice; (and close to St Pope Benedict's XVI's writing of "fides formata") But where it falls short is that it only accounts for one telos in a person's life... It does not acknowledge that we all have the possibility of also living a life with the telos of sin. There is also the flesh. We ALL have the telos of the life of flesh and the telos of the life of spirit at war in us. ALL of us. If an act is simply inclining towards the flesh; then it would be venial. But a mortal sin is an act that God infallibly knows and judges to be a movement from faith to evil. With perfect contrition we can return to faith. But the theory you present gives a false dichotomy: where a life of "faith" can be the overall vibe of a person's life -With points of sin opposed to the vibe but distinct from the vibe. Okay but the vibe of faith is made up of POINTS of repentance, faith, hope and love. And a point of sin can also be the beginning of a vibe of death. If it is... It's a mortal sin. If not... It's venial. 🤷‍♂️ What this theory ends up denying is that even the unrepentant reprobates... Struggle against sin sometimes. Even the non Christian makes acts of love and faith and hope... Even Hitler did nice things sometimes... So to summarise; it is arbitrary to say -saving faith is a vibe of life with points of sin While denying ***-damning sin can be a vibe with points of faith*** God knows which is which. If the vineyard workers leave then they don't get paid. If they work for one hour or ten.... But are there at the end... They receive their reward.... If the virgins have oil when the bridegroom returns... They will be let in.... If the wedding guest has a clean garment when the bridegroom sees him... He wine dine... If the branch is budding fruit... It wont be cut off. It doesnt mayter if for 70 years you worked the vineyard, had oil, had clean garments, bore fruit..... What matters is the *POINT* you are in when the JUDGE comes back. Not a ratio.

I think you're simplifying the argument for David's wives being raped. I think if we're to be charitable, he would probably argue that the wives in question almost certainly didn't really have a choice, rendering it rape by current Western standards, but that the standard for using rape-terminology in the Ancient Near East would've been different.

I just want to confirm that the vast majority of low church Baptists will insist on Baptism even if they don't preach it as efficacious in the traditional sense(they usually say it's done for obedience or proclamation of faith and saves in a kind of associative sense). As a Baptist who has a more historic and higher sacramentalism(as does Ps Ortlund for interest sake) this is something I disagree with other Baptists on but I've never heard any of them argue that Baptism is unimportant or merely optional; saying this is going to come across as strawmanning for a large majority of Baptists. There's also a fair number who will have some sense of mystery, believing it does *something* but we don't fully understand what.

The short answer is yes, transubstantiation is taught in the early church later verified by Trents formal definition of the substantial change to bread and wine after consecration. A more pertinent question for the Anglican communion is did the early church teach the English monarch can formally break from the church established by Christ with the Pope's ruling through the Davidic keys powers by an act or parliament and have the Anglican communion pretend to be the one true church of Christ 1500 years after Pentecost? No. Therefore Anglican ecclesiology is not from God and does not accord with the divine will. And the so called Anglican divines have no authority to determine doctrines of faith revealed by Christ and the apostles. Any doctrinal opposition to the Catholic church's formal teaching is by default always false.

You cherry picked verses that meet your predefined belief. Scripture says the soul that sins shall die (Eze. 18:4) and death is the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23). Here death refers to hell, not physical death. What delivers us from death? According to Scripture it is righteousness that delivers from death (Pro. 10:2, 11:4). “Whoever is steadfast in righteousness will live” (Pro. 11:19). “In the path of righteousness is life, and in its pathway there is no death” (Pro. 12:28). Jesus said in Mat. 25:46 that the righteous shall go to eternal life. In Rom. 4:3 faith is counted as righteousness that cites from Gen. 15:6. In Gen. 15:6 what was counted (Hebrew חָשַׁב, khaw-shav’, Strong H2803) to Abraham for righteousness is faith. But what was counted (the same חָשַׁב) for righteousness to Phinehas in Psalms 106:31 was not faith but what he did as described in verse 30 (in more detail in Num. 25:7-8). According to Scripture faith is not the only source of our righteousness. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he [Christ] is righteous (1 Jo. 3:7). Scripture says in Eze. 33:13 that we lose righteousness through committing iniquities: “Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die. "

Claim - Faith is the sole mechanism by which we are united to Christ. Response - Faith enlived by hope and love through good deeds that justifies does not conclude to justification by faith alone without breaching causation. Every cause enliving and demonstrating faith must also cause justification. Comments - faith apart from works of the law is not consistent with faith alone for hope and love are also included in Paul's gospel of Romans 4-5. And God justifies (Rom 4:5) by grace (Rom 4:16) excluding faith alone justifying the sinner. Romans 5 does not lend to the imputation model for St Paul already introduced the infusion of love (Rom 5:5) complementing faith (Rom 4:3) and hope (Rom 4:18). Where sin abounded grace also abounded refers to an interior grace causing the virtues and not an extrinsic righteousness. The covenant judge making the judgment also does not infer the redemption is effected through a courtroom case. The new Exodus redemption includes the Passover Eucharist and baptism given on holy Saturday night as the sacramental means of justification manifesting the divine judgement.

P1- Jesus gives the free gift of salvation P2- Jesus says the apostles can "retain a person's sins". C- the apostolic authority (if valid) can withhold a certain gift. Also if concomitance is true... Then the WHOLE gift is being received and what is being denied is a *species*. That would be like saying baptisms must be done with pouring rather than immersion (Let's say it is an extreme drought) Denies the gift of baptism. The person is still receiving the FULL efficacious gift of baptism. It is just a particular expression that is denied. In the case of a sacrament being withheld- it can be argued that is not prudent. But can it really be argued that it is not licit to withhold a sacrament from a person for their own long term good? Like the man in 1 Corinthians. Or a modern day person promoting abortion. Should they not be denied for their own good? Or an alcoholic from the wine? Revelation 2:26-27 implies that the Church with the rod of iron; indeed can speak with Christ's authority. And this would include his gifts: “The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father.” (Plus the iron rod/earthen pots image relates in Jeremiah to the destruction of Jerusalem)

It seems the comparisions with 2nd temple period are a bit unfair- because: (For one your liberal use of the name YHWH would be blasphemy to them🤷‍♂️) Jk But: a lot of this criticism could arguably be just seen as coming from a different view of "theosis" That is this consecration is to the neck of Christ. As the bride and bridegroom are one flesh. And saints triumphant "reign with Him" And are "priests" of the most high (we are all priests according to hebrews; so presumably this is in a special way?) I still appreciate your critique though. It certainly is imprident language and inclines towards idolatry (at least) Finally i think your analogy with your wife is a great one! The bodies of a spouse LITERALLY belong to the other according to scripture. And you are to serve your wife as Christ did His bride. Further your wife lacks impeccibility and so imagine how much more so of your wife: -never sinned ever Just some food for thought.

How does this view maintain God's universal salvific will?

All this talk of free will and yet god hardened the hearts of the pharaoh and the Egyptians as well as others. Thats a direct contradiction.

The question isn’t whether scripture is sufficient for a Christian to come to a correct belief - the question is, is Sola Scriptura a suffient rubric to come to a CONSENSUS of dogma/doctrine? Thats not to say a Catholic or Orthodox ecclesiology creates consensus - on the contrary; it’s because they understand that disagreements are inevitable that a magisterial ecclesiology seems to be, not only the biblical model, but the only workable model for Christian unity

Claim - Anglicans recognise temporal punishment as medicinal and not for divine retributive justice. Response - Original sin caused suffering and death still applicable today, inferring an ongoing exile even with reconciliation through Christ and the Spirit. The Christian's union with god, therefore, does not remit temporal punishment for sin when temporal punishment still remains for original sin. The only remissions for temporal punishment occur through baptism, the Eucharist, penance and indulgences. There are no NT verses stating the temporal punishment for sin is removed for those united to Christ. Citing Abraham's justification applied to the Christian to establish the removal of temporal punishment for sin ignores Arbaham's many trials before and after justification given to remit sin and ignores the distinction of eternal and temporal punishment for sin. Abraham was not justified in a courtroom scene but within Melchizedek's covenant under the judgement of Melchizedek's Lord, who was Jesus himself judging from the heavenly Jerusalem. To affirm the exile ending does not affirm the remission of temporal punishment for sin. Israel's exile return included Israel's ongoing sufferings and the loss of the glory cloud and the ark of the covenant, with the kingdom forever weakened by the former ten northern tribes' apostasy, never revoked. The exile is always present when the Church in Acts enters the Way of the new exodus, indicating the Church is both in the Promised Land and the wilderness together. To affirm no temporal punishment for sin ignores Isaiah's new Exodus wilderness motif present in Rom 5-8, alluding to Israel's wilderness death and multiple sins before reaching the promised land. Christians are in the new Eden, and wilderness together, subject to the forgiveness of sin and divine union with sin and the temporal punishment for sin. Having the Spirit does not require the removal of the temporal punishment for sin by removing the exile simply because Israel had the wilderness and Promised Land Spirit and was punished with the Spirit's presence. There are no NT texts that state the Spirit's presence necessitates temporal punishment for sin is excluded. Revelation includes punishments for the various churches committing various sins in the Messianic age. Also, to affirm the medicinal aspect of temporal punishment for sin infers retributive justice is included, transforming the sinner whilst punishing the sinner. To affirm no condemnation for the sanctified only means no eternal punishment for sin when the church is always in the wilderness journey towards the heavenly promised land. There courtroom is not present in Romans, however Romans includes much evidence for the covenant, new creation and new Exodus. The charges made is before the divine Davidic king who mediates the new covenant and not a fictional intercessor in a fictional court room. The Anglican apologetic attempting to remove temporal punishment for sin has failed.

This is a REALLY REALLY good explanation that helped me to understand how all this flows from Scripture. Very concise, careful, and precise with all your language. Fantastic job brother!

If the Pope believes that unbelievers can be in heaven, then Baptists believing that unbaptized believers can be in heaven is really not a big deal.

Claim - Faith alone justifies however, justifying faith occurs with hope, love and works. Response - The bible never teaches faith alone justifies and never excludes hope, love and good works from justification. Faith is defined in terms of hope (Heb 11:1) and justifying faith is enlivened by love (1 Cor 13:1-3, 13). Biblical saving faith is alway defined in terms of hope and love epxressed in good works. A saving faith that justifies must include hope, love and good works in justification as presumed when St Paul speaks of Abrahams justification by faith (Rom 4:1-4) which naturally includes hope (Rom 4:18) and love (Rom 5:5) and good works of obedience (James 2:24). Justification by faith alone is a human belief not founded upon any biblical text. Statements about faith immediately silent on hope and love always presume the presence of hope and love as defined in other verses. The three theological virtues are required for justification inferring when faith justifies, faith informed by hope and love justifies, therefore hope and love justify as faith justifies. To maintain faith alone justifies when charity enlivens faith logically infers charity grants faith supernatural life, which saves the believer, but charity does not justify the believer. However, if charity grants faith life as a living faith, charity must also grant justification as the life-giving cause of faith. Faith alone justifying the believer means charity informs justifying faith but does not formally contribute to justification. Such a position is not required of any biblical text and breaches the rule of multiple causations involved in justification from several infused virtues acting together. Similarly, faith is defined in terms of hope (Rom 4:18, Heb 11:1), having hope act with and from faith directed towards the divine promises. Justifying faith is a hope-filled faith, having hope cause justification with faith complementing love informing faith and hope. All three theological virtues are required for justification expressed in good works of obedience, summarised as the obedience of faith (Rom 1:5).

Thank you for your video. I’m trying to figure out where I stand and it’s helpful to hear this perspective 🙏🏼 have you ever considered tiktok?

Prior to medieval Christian claims of authoritative oral traditions passing down alongside Scripture from the Apostles themselves, the Pharisees had already set an example of developing doctrine based on an authoritative oral tradition allegedly having been passed down alongside Scripture from Moses himself. Moreover, despite the fact that the Pharisees were responsible for essentially collecting the books that would constitute the Old Testament canon for Israel (included in Christian Bibles), much as later Catholics claim for themselves, their assertions of tradition's authority was roundly condemned by none other than Jesus Himself: "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!" In all of Biblical history, not one mention is made about authoritative oral tradition as a compliment to Scripture. During the Apostolic Age, both Christ and the Apostles always appealed to Scripture as the final authority for any claims or practices under consideration. This is logical since only the Apostles and Prophets were understood as authoring Scripture and therefore having such authority. Priests, though appointed by God, were always commanded to follow Scripture rather than extraneous customs. Prominent early Church Fathers recognized and honored these principles, asserting that the true Catholic Church must always act in harmony with Scripture whenever "small matters" of tradition, as St. Basil the Great (d. 379) identified such issues, aren't specifically addressed. Thus, anything truly alien to Scripture or its theological principles must be abandoned. For example, here is St. Basil describing such considerations as he experienced them in the 4th-century: "For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents" (The Holy Spirit, 27:66). Obviously, it makes good sense that such "small matters" of tradition can be legitimately supported since Scripture and its clear principles are not violated. However, St. Basil also has this to say about Scripture and Church doctrine: "Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right" (Letter 283). St. Jerome (d. 420), writing in the 5th-century, likewise describes acceptable traditions as being very harmonious with Scripture: "Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? (Note that what he refers to here as a custom is actually described multiple times in the Book of Acts!). And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command (Obviously because of very clear consistency since he used a Scriptural example of what a legitimate Church custom looks like). For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the layer, (A neutral practice implied by Jesus's "Great Commission" formula and later found in the Didache) and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy (Old Testament symbols); and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day (Standing is in the Book of Ezra), and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked" (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8). Keeping these principles of maintaining traditions that merely illuminate explicit Scriptural doctrines in view, we can now make sense of what other early Fathers write about Scripture's unique authority.... Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. 216) said, “But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the information from the Scriptures themselves” (Stromata 7:16). Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) said, “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus 9). Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367): “Everything that we ought to say and do, all that we need, is taught us by the Holy Scriptures ” (On the Trinity, 7:16). St. Athanasius (d. 375) said, “The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) “The holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” (To the Bishops of Egypt 1:4)." "The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written,” (Exhort. ad Monachas). “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (De Synodis, 6). St. Basil of the Great (d. 379) said, “Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on which side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth” (Letter 189:3). St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) said, "We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures...Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if anything be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Be those things therefore spoken, which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say" (Catechetical Lectures, 4.17ff). St. Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394) said, "What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words (Dogmatic Treatises, Book 12. On the Trinity, To Eustathius). St. Ambrose (d. 396) said, “How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures?” (Ambr. Offic., 1:23). St. Augustine (d. 430) said, "For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be [true Christians], and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine (Letters, 148.15). “For in regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Do not even listen to me if I tell you anything that is not supported by or found in the Scriptures” (Exposition on Psalm 119). John Cassian (d. 435): “We ought not to believe in and to admit anything whatsoever which is not in the canon of Scripture or which is found to be contrary to it” (Conferences, 14.8).

Anglican Claim - scripture is the supreme judge of tradition. Problems with the claim - Affirming scripture is the supreme judge, or judges tradition is itself not in scripture and therefore a human tradition beyond scripture. Affirming scripture is the supreme judge of tradition is not found in tradition, inferring the doctrine is an arbitrary construct outside of scripture and tradition. Affirming scripture is the supreme judge of tradition presumes an authoritative tradition outside scripture to judge the canon and the nature of inspiration. At least in these two critical examples, scripture is subordinated to tradition, contradicting the claim that scripture always judges tradition. Affirming scripture is the supreme judge of tradition affirms scripture actually judges tradition, requiring scriptures' quasi personality to make judgements about tradition. The scriptures are only fixed texts that are never personal and never make any judgments about tradition. Affirming scripture is the supreme judge of tradition affirms the believer actually makes the judgement on behalf of scripture made within the believer's own tradition. The judgement itself is a tradition judging the apostolic tradition, claiming to have scripture judge tradition when the scripture never judges tradition.

Sorry guys... I thought we were had it but... 19 year old college student Maurice Bentley of Philadelphia read the Bible and diagreed on one point of salvation... Guess we cooked now 🤤🤪

nice one🙏🏽

Disagreement among protestants no more refutes protestantism than disagreement among religions disproves Christianity. Whatever answer you give the latter can be used to defend the former.

Good post. I’d more or less trace the Apostolic deposit to the creeds in basically the same way. Btw-who are are the four guys in the lower left corner at the end of the video? I’m guessing Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker, and Andrewes?

An absolute BANGER video. The perspecuity of Scripture in matters concerning salvation WILL BE UPHELD! ✊️😤

Greatest thumbnail ever.

Protestants and Anglicans do not arrive at the gospel essentials - Protestants and Anglicans deny the biblical warrant for the Papacy and Papal infallibility, contrary to Catholic belief. To deny the Papacy and affirm the essentials is to deny an essential work of Jesus giving Peter the keys and the Spirit's work of preserving the gospel through the Papal office. Protestants and Anglicans deny much or all of Catholic Mariology contrary to the biblical witness. Protestants and Anglicans generally deny purgatory and indulgences contrary to the biblical witness of temporal punishment for sin and the Church's authority to bind and loose. Protestants and Anglicans in practice deny the universality of the church by associating with various denominations. Protestants and Anglicans affirm and deny apostolic succession. Protestants and Anglicans affirm and deny the authority of church councils. Protestants and Anglicans hold various contrary and contradictory positions on the Eucharist and baptism. Protestants affirm and deny the Trinity. Protestants and Anglicans have no reasoned way to affirm an infallible canon, nor an infallible text of the canon. Anglican high and low churches bear witness to the falsity of your claim, even if you managed to propose a paper method. The English monarch is not the head of any church and the English parliament did not have any authority to declare the English monarch the church's head. A national church is contrary to the nature of the church as Catholic for all men. To affirm the Catholic creeds is to affirm the Catholic councils and den the authority of the Catholic councils, which also taught a sacramental and ecclesial gospel, including the Popes and bishops. Claiming Protestants and Anglicans can know the essentials stated in the creeds implicitly affirms and denies Catholic ecclesiology with Catholic authority to define the gospel. The creeds affirm belief in the church implying the Catholic church has the authority from God to bind and loose on all matters of faith - something essential to the gospel.

What are your thoughts on Contextual Emergence? I just heard a presentation on this by Robert C Bishop. He rejects both reductionism and radical emergence and argues for what he claims is something between the two. I don't really see how his system is consistent and doesn't just collapse down to reductionism or radical emergence, but I'm not well learned in philosophy.

Show the dog! I love dogs and God!

Hello Bro, what are some of your reservations against Islam

great presentation as always

Hey there. I have several questions. Would it be possible to email you somewhere?

Can you please do a video responding to Seraphim Hamilton's critique of Sola Fide ? He is an eastern orthodox guy and calims to have some how a different argument. ua-cam.com/video/pNMnzCZwrxs/v-deo.htmlsi=kPRH2mdKoD8uTAtn ua-cam.com/video/jJ-6UMKG78Y/v-deo.htmlsi=4pUiRkW3W7lKa4zf

The protestant revolutionaries were virtue signaling pos. It really makes no sense to worship them given no one today is in the same group dynamic they were centuries ago

Your denials at the very start are misleading. You are getting out of the way the fact that Protestants and their Reformer heroes have separated justification from sanctification, affirming salvation without works and inner transformation. There have of course been inconsistencies in their pronouncements, Luther being self contradictory, but the emphatic assertion of many Protestants, following Luther, has been that works and inner change have no part in justification. Listen to for example on R C Sproul's teaching of Luther's extra nos, alien righteousness, snow covering the dunghill notions. For a careful study of the differences between Roman Catholicism and Proteestantism on the matter, you should read Johann Adam Moehler's Symbolik, in which he gives close attention to the works of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. You should also note that Anglicanism is not Lutheranism, Calvinism or Zwinglianism, although there are Anglicans who follow them. There have long been Anglican theologians who disagree with Protestant views on justification. Bishop Alexander Penrose Forbes' work on The Thirty Nine Articles is worth reading.

Excellent presentation. Keep preaching the Gospel. Maybe you'd also want to explore the "proof texts" which are used to support temporal punishment and mortal sin.

According to Scripture salvation is affected by future sins AFTER faith. You cited Hebrews but ignore what Heb. 10:26-27 says: “For if we go on sinning deliberately AFTER RECEIVING THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.” “We” in Heb. 10:26 is first person plural that even includes the person who wrote Hebrews. If future sins will not affect salvation, then James 1:15 would not warn us that fully grown sin brings forth death. According to 1 Jo. 5:16-17 there are deadly (or mortal) and non-deadly (or venial) sins. If all your sins as believers (united in Christ) were already paid by Christ on the cross, per your belief, then those verses contradict your belief.

Great job

In Gen. 15:6 what was counted (Hebrew חָשַׁב, khaw-shav’, Strong H2803) to Abraham for righteousness is faith. But what was counted (the same חָשַׁב) for righteousness to Phinehas in Psalms 106:31 was not faith but what he did as described in verse 30 (in more detail in Num. 25:7-8). Faith is NOT the only thing counted for righteousness!

Based on your statement you, as a believer (united in Christ in your terminology) , just need to repent whenever you sin and there is no need of temporal punishment. Is your belief scriptural? Eze. 33:14-16 says (ESV, emphasis in capital is mine): Again, though I [God] say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet IF HE TURNS FROM HIS SIN AND DOES WHAT IS JUST AND RIGHT, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. NONE OF THE SINS THAT HE HAS COMMITTED SHALL BE REMEMBERED AGAINST HIM. HE HAS DONE WHAT IS JUST AND RIGHT; HE SHALL SURELY LIVE. The verses say when when a wicked person turns from sin (repent) AND does what is just and right, he would be back to life. That is what God demands and you should listen and obey. Doing what is just and right after turning from sin is the temporal punishment. You have problem with temporal punishment, purgatory, penance and indulgences comes from the double imputation teaching of the Reformers. Through faith alone you get Christ' righteousness imputed on you as if that righteousness were yours but you remain sinner, while Christ got ALL YOUR SINS (past, present, and future) imputed on Him as if those sins were His - and He paid the penalty of those sins on the cross. Under double imputation concept of the Reformers what Eze. 33:14-16 says as well as penance, purgatory, indulgences will add what Christ already accomplished on the cross. Is double imputation scriptural? Eze. 18:20 flatly denies double imputation: “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”

Let's examine your faith-alone justification, which can be summarized in three points below: 1. Justification is once for all and is by faith alone (sola fide) 2. Through faith-alone Justification you are counted/declared as righteous but remain unrighteous/sinner. 3. Through faith alone Justification an exchange took place between you and Christ, known as double imputation. You get Christ' righteousness as if that righteousness were yours while you remain unrighteous/sinner and Christ got all your sins (past, present and future) as if those sins were His while He remains sinless. Let me know if I make wrong statement about sola fide (and of course, what is the correct one) My objection on point 1: The phrase "justified by faith" appears four times in New Testament (Rom. 3:28, 5:1, Gal. 2:16, 3:24). New Testament was written in Greek and the one in Rom. 3:28 is in Greek passive present tense while the rest are in Greek passive aorist tense . Both tenses do not indicate once for all justification. If Scripture teaches faith-alone justification, then the Holy Spirit would inspire Paul to write the phrase "justified by faith" in Greek passive perfect tense. Unlike that of English Greek perfect tense indicates the action described by the verb (to be justified) was completed in the past with continuing effect to the present . My objection on point 2: Scripture denies you can be righteous and sinner at the same time in Eze. 33:12-13: “the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins. Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die.” My objection on point 3: Scripture denies double imputation in what Eze. 18:20 says: “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” One verse always cited to support double imputation is 2 Cor. 5:21: “For our sake he [God] made him [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” However, the verse says we become the righteousness of God, while according to imputation we do not become righteous - we are counted as righteous based on righteousness of Christ, but we remain unrighteous. The verse also says Christ who knew no sin to be sin. In contrast imputation does not make Christ sin as the verse says. To explain what 2 Cor. 5:21 means, in Hebrew the same one word (חַטָּאָת, khat-taw-aw’, Strong H2403) is used for both sin (Gen. 18:20, Exo. 34:9 etc.) and sin offering (Lev. 4:8, 16:3, 5 etc.). According to Leviticus 16 once a year the High Priest chose one of two goats as sin offering (or sin, חַטָּאָת) to atone the sins of all Israelites (Lev. 16:8-9). That goat was sacrificed, and its blood sprinkled on and before the mercy-seat (Exo. 25:16-20, Lev. 16:15) and on the horns of the altar (Lev. 16:18). The sins of all Israelites were imputed on the second goat, that was not sacrificed but released in the wilderness as scapegoat (Lev. 16:8, 21-22). In the New Covenant Christ is the High Priest (Heb. 4:14, 9:11) and He offered Himself as sin offering or sin (Heb. 9:12). While He died to atone our sins on the cross, our sins are not imputed on Him, just like the sins of all Israelites are not imputed on the first goat in Lev. 16:8-9. Therefore 2 Cor. 5:21 talks about the atonement of sinless Christ made on the cross where He became sin (sin offering). What he did enable us to become the righteousness of God, partakers of divine nature (2 Pe. 1:4). If the goat in the Old Testament was able to atone the sins of all Israelites without their sins imputed on it, certainly Christ can atone the sins of all men without their sins imputed on Him. I look forward to receiving your response.

You’re one of my favorite protestants on YT. Keep up the good work, Sean! 🤝

Always a fan of thug life luther thumbnails

You're the GOAT 🐐 sean

Not infallible? That means you guys cannot excommunicate or disfellowshipping a misbehaved church member. If that church member uses the same Bible as you do and has an interpretation that differs and they're using their interpretation to justify their misconduct, you guys as an Anglican church, cannot excommunicate that member and must let them continue stumbling other brothers and sisters in the church. You see how messy things can get without an infallible interpreter?