![Reformed Pilgrim](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- 77
- 24 292
Reformed Pilgrim
Приєднався 14 лис 2022
I'm a Christian who enjoys exploring Reformed Theology. I affirm the 1689 London Baptist Confession, the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Canons of Dort.
Here you'll find news, reviews, and commentary on a wide range of issues...maybe even some music.
This is a channel of topics that personally interest me and is not a ministry of a local church. All opinions are my own.
Below, you will find some links to various ministries I find encouraging.
Note: I'm not a theologian, pastor, or teacher. If you have theological questions, please go to your pastor or church leadership, and diligently search the Scriptures to see if these things are so.
Here you'll find news, reviews, and commentary on a wide range of issues...maybe even some music.
This is a channel of topics that personally interest me and is not a ministry of a local church. All opinions are my own.
Below, you will find some links to various ministries I find encouraging.
Note: I'm not a theologian, pastor, or teacher. If you have theological questions, please go to your pastor or church leadership, and diligently search the Scriptures to see if these things are so.
Dominion - All Things Under His Feet
Despite apparent differences, pushback, and attacks, there are opportunities for bridge-building. Here's one such opportunity exemplified by @faithonfireministries . What is the opportunity? To tell people about Christ's everlasting dominion!
#bible #theology #reformedtheology #eschatology #scripture #covenanttheology #christology
original video:
ua-cam.com/video/HbIoka48UW8/v-deo.htmlsi=-WqCPqyhTzu4NjNV
Bible Gateway
www.biblegateway.com/
#bible #theology #reformedtheology #eschatology #scripture #covenanttheology #christology
original video:
ua-cam.com/video/HbIoka48UW8/v-deo.htmlsi=-WqCPqyhTzu4NjNV
Bible Gateway
www.biblegateway.com/
Переглядів: 51
Відео
Open Theism - An Analysis
Переглядів 8714 днів тому
Open Theism has received some attention online lately. Let's take a look at what it is and attempt to analyze it on its own terms. #bible #theology #opentheism #dynamicomniscience
Ancient Literature Bookshelf Tour
Переглядів 16421 день тому
Here’s a modest collection of ancient literature on my bookshelf. #booktube #books #bookshelf Remember: all of this literature is in the public domain; you don’t have to spend money to read these books.
Predestination in the New Testament - Responding to @Soteriology101
Переглядів 10821 день тому
Quick video asking an important question of brothers and sisters about predestination. Passages mentioned: Acts 4:28 Romans 8:29-20 1 Corinthians 2:7 Ephesians 1:5; 11 Acts 17 #bible #theology #predestination #calvinism #reformedtheology Original video: ua-cam.com/users/livew02n0n5aIac?si=D5rWZWxSoKXjcmpc www.biblegateway.com/
Book Review: The Complete Odes & Epodes of Horace
Переглядів 2621 день тому
Here’s a quick review of The Complete Odes & Epodes of Horace. If you don’t know where to start with Roman poetry, consider starting with Horace. #booktube #books #bookreview #romanpoetry
Justified by Faith, Not by Works - Response to @ButItSays
Переглядів 127Місяць тому
Looking at the claims of @ButItSays in her two-part video series on Who Are the Saints?, a bigger problem in her theological foundation was revealed. #bible #theology #gospel Original Videos: E14. Who Are the Saints, Part 1 ua-cam.com/video/pmg4wCcYPwQ/v-deo.htmlsi=hRLX7amkYLRXUqGx E15. Who Are the Saints, Part 2 ua-cam.com/video/WnShW9sY9Bo/v-deo.htmlsi=3NOVbDQU8eF6DRoP My video on the word "s...
The Tyranny of "Free Will" & Responding to The Provisionist Perspective
Переглядів 251Місяць тому
This is a response to @TheProvisionistPerspective & @IdolKiller 's video on The Canons of Dort. #reformedtheology #theology #bible Original Video: ua-cam.com/users/liveWBiD75fP6yo?si=WGPm9oyW0H7zBXKJ Jeffery Rice's Videos (Open Air Theology) on "Leightonism" Part 1: ua-cam.com/video/Km4vMPxkjg0/v-deo.html Part 2: ua-cam.com/users/live7omwNa3n6AI?si=l8GVtCNrAGzkoUPT Canons of Dort: prts.edu/wp-c...
God Determines - Acts 17 - Greco-Roman Context
Переглядів 36Місяць тому
We can learn a bit more about what is being said in the New Testament by understanding the culture in which it was written, and to whom it was written. #bible #ancientliterature #grecoroman #theology #newtestament Literary Life Podcast Episode 60: Why Read Pagan Myths www.theliterary.life/060/? www.biblegateway.com/
Book Review: Metamorphoses by Ovid
Переглядів 110Місяць тому
Here’s a brief review of Ovid’s most famous work, Metamorphoses. Ovid is one of the greatest writers from Rome’s Golden Age of Literature. His writing has lasting impact and is worth your time. #booktube #ovid #literature #bookreview #ancientliterature
Make Your Own Exegetical Workbook for Free!
Переглядів 392 місяці тому
You don't have to pay someone to study the Bible on your own. Save your hard-earned cash, and make your own exegetical workbook with resources already available to you, including your preferred translations. #bible #biblestudy #exegesis www.biblegateway.com/
Channel Update: Studying The Greco-Roman Context of the New Testament
Переглядів 1752 місяці тому
I've been spending a lot of time with my nose in books lately, trying to absorb as much as I can about the Greco-Roman context of the New Testament. This involves reading notable Roman literature produced in the years preceding and around the time of Christ's birth (eg. Ovid, Vergil, and Horace), reading articles about Alexander the Great, the Seleucids, Pompey, Marc Antony, Cleopatra, Herod th...
Grammar Discussion for @GoodBerean
Переглядів 1003 місяці тому
Putting aside hermeneutics, confessions, theology, and theologians, let's look at the construction of a few verses. This is for @GoodBerean, Brent Lay, and their fanbase who agree with their rendering of Romans 1:13. #bible #literature #reading I've said some of these same things before, but perhaps it helps to say them again.
Book Review: The Aeneid by Vergil
Переглядів 343 місяці тому
This is a review of The Aeneid, by Roman poet Vergil, translated by Christopher Pearse Cranch, and published by Barnes & Noble. I highly recommend this book. It was very enjoyable! How did the Romans view themselves? How did they want to view themselves? Read this book! #aeneid #vergil #ancientliterature
Book Review: Two-Part Romans (2PR) by Brent Lay
Переглядів 1473 місяці тому
SPOILERS: This is a bad book. The author's Achilles heel is grammar. He misunderstands certain constructions or words, and gets mixed up on first and second person pronouns. He also concludes that if Calvinism were true for Gentiles, it would change the gospel, but the gospel remains the same if predestination, foreknowledge, and election apply to the Jewish believers only. #calvinism #theology...
Inconsistent Standard | Response for @GoodBerean
Переглядів 2913 місяці тому
This is in response to a question Jason @GoodBerean asked me in the comments section under his video: Two-Part Romans Session II | Historical Context Jason argues that because Original Sin was a new idea put forth by Augustine, it can't be true. Jason misses that Brent Lay *himself* claims that Two-Part Romans doctrine was *his own idea,* occurring to him in 2013. For a standard to have meaning...
Who Is My Teacher? | A Bit of Perspective
Переглядів 633 місяці тому
Who Is My Teacher? | A Bit of Perspective
The Shroud of Turin | An Exercise in Fakery
Переглядів 4714 місяці тому
The Shroud of Turin | An Exercise in Fakery
Penal Substitutionary Atonement | A Brief Overview
Переглядів 1094 місяці тому
Penal Substitutionary Atonement | A Brief Overview
To the Saints...as Among the Other Gentiles | A Strange Claim
Переглядів 1404 місяці тому
To the Saints...as Among the Other Gentiles | A Strange Claim
Negative Inference Fallacy Nonsense | Getting on the Right Footing
Переглядів 1045 місяців тому
Negative Inference Fallacy Nonsense | Getting on the Right Footing
Rejecting Lordship Salvation - A Burden of Legalism
Переглядів 1715 місяців тому
Rejecting Lordship Salvation - A Burden of Legalism
White Flowers Debate - A Few Thoughts
Переглядів 5 тис.5 місяців тому
White Flowers Debate - A Few Thoughts
Defending John 10 - The Good Shepherd
Переглядів 1465 місяців тому
Defending John 10 - The Good Shepherd
Review: The James White & Jason Breda Debate
Переглядів 2926 місяців тому
Review: The James White & Jason Breda Debate
Thanks for this, sadly some of my fellow saints have fallen foul of the false teacher Nick Craig.
Thank you for the comment. I'm sorry to hear about that person who is getting caught up with Nick's ideas. There's a lot of bad ideas online. A lot of them. Lord willing, we can respond to them thoughtfully, with the truth, and also that God will be pleased to frustrate the plans of those who come up with bad ideas.
@@reformedpilgrim Yes indeed.
Calvinism is a cult. I am not a Arminian, I am a Christian. I trust God before I believe in man made beliefs. I trust Jesus Christ who is in Truth.
My only problem with open theism is that I don’t have a church that lives it near me.
A very lovely review, I too adore the Metamorphosis. One thing for you, because I dont know if you are aware, most of these stories are Greek Mythology. Ovid enjoyed these stories, but didn't really believe in them. Anyways, keep up the good work.
19:04 Not at all. In the sentence “he raised his hands and the worship leader began to sing” does not have an ambiguous antecedent. The only possible antecedent is the worship pastor. Unless the context suggests there could be other men in the vicinity, this sentence identifies one man alone, who is naturally the antecedent. Unless context expands the pool of potential “he”’s.
It’s wildly bad grammatical understanding. And unfortunately, Breda is continuing that onward. Ugh.
Hey, man, thanks for the comment. It's not just the grammar that's at issue; it's understanding of historical events, as well, that is lacking as well. Just this morning I put a long comment on the Part 2 video, which addresses historical context. But inadequate and illogical conclusions are being drawn in that video, which classifies the expulsion of the Jews as a church split, requiring reconciliation. Brent Lay's question noted in my review at about 8:00 is where Jason is taking his cue from, unfortunately. So, Brent's misunderstanding of both grammar and history are clouding Jason's understanding. We need to pray for both Brent and Jason. (I'm aware you and I have differences, as well, but we can surely agree on this matter.)
@@reformedpilgrim UA-cam makes me so mad. I wrote you a nice reply, commented on how I was watching your other videos and you're obviously highly intelligent and analytical plus a great speaking voice, and I invited you to review my book, especially the part on Romans 9, but UA-cam deleted it! Grrr.
@@TheRomans9Guy Well, that's very nice of you and very improper of UA-cam. That's been happening to me this week. Unless some readers "sort by newest" they will never see some comments I've made recently. Oh well. If you want to send an email to me, we can chat about your book. I'm flattered to be considered. My email in my "About" section.
www.google.com/gasearch?q=bible%20translation%20NASBS&source=sh/x/gs/m2/5 I found this reference to NASBS and it seems to be the ‘Life bible’? I’ve never heard of it personally.
I've never heard of that, either. Interesting find, though.
There are some very strange beliefs out there. I recently had interactions with a channel, I think was called ‘michealchurch’ or something similar. I challenged something he said on a video short. I had never come across him before and I had not seen any other videos he had posted. Turns out he’s had his channel for a few years. Anyway, point is, as we got into discussion, which was respectful and wholesome, it became evident that he held some very heretic ideas. Although he was respectful, he was very stubborn, rather arrogant and prideful in his views. He was adamant he was correct and every one else was wrong. Even as it would seem the bible. He is teaching that Jesus, although God, came in the flesh, walk as a man and he had the same Adamic sin in him as man does! That Jesus’ flesh was inherently sinful, but his spirit had no sin and was perfect. He teaches that the Spirit gives us the power to physically, never sin in the flesh. , ever! So you are able to live by the law, follow all the commandments and never break them, never sin, just as Jesus never sinned. So Jesus did not sin, because the spirit empowered him not to sin, although he had the sinful nature that man has. He used the devils temptations as part of his proof texts, because if he had been perfect and sinless then they would not have been real temptations! I was a bit gob smacked at first and it took me a little time to get my head round it. So basically he is saying when you are born again the spirit empowers you not to sin! You perfect the law and are justified! ??? I mean I get the idea that with Christ we do not sin (in the Spirit of course) but in the flesh we most certainly do! Any one who says he is without sin, is a liar and the Father is not in him. To say Jesus was born sinful is perhaps the most heretical view I have ever come across! Oh I gave him so much scripture, chapter and verse, in fact, I was spoiled for choice. But he would have none of it and twisted it all to fit his view and beliefs. Unbelievable, he told me I don’t understand scripture because I don’t pray in tongues? It was the most bizarre conversation I have ever had. Sad thing is that man isn’t even saved. I’ve prayed for him and done everything I can, but in the end I had to shake the dust off my feet.
I've heard of a few Pentecostals who have held such beliefs. There's some strange and scary ideas out there.
How can I find a modern translation with commentary to help extract the meaning?
@@abacus813 I haven’t heard of one such book before, but I just looked into it a bit: There is an annotated edition with commentary by Joseph D. Reed, professor of Classics at Brown University. There’s another one that covers the first 5 books of Metamorphoses, with commentary by William S. Anderson, professor of Classics at UC Berkeley. Cambridge University Press has a commentary that is very expensive, but likely very thorough. I can’t vouch for any of these editions, though, as I haven’t read them. But if you want to start with the free option, I’m sure there are some videos on UA-cam by people versed in Roman literature that can offer some insight. It might also be helpful to read Edith Hamilton’s book Mythology, which will give you background on the underlying concepts in Metamorphoses. It’s important to remember that Ovid’s audience already knew these stories; he was merely telling them in a poetic way, skillfully weaving them together.
@reformedpilgrim Thanks for getting back, will read up on the suggestions. I came to Metamorphoses through the work of Joseph Campbell and Myth. So I might check out Edith Hamiltons book first. Thanks again!
I was blocked by him. I believe that a lot of these guys aren't trying to convince people or persuade Calvinists out of Calvinism. They are about establishing an audience and keeping it. I could be wrong.
@@dannymcmullan9375 It seems like a possible motive. Even if it is not, I have found Brian and similar channels resistant to correction, even by their own fanbase when they get some basic things wrong. That’s disappointing, but appears to be the norm online.
Thought this was very good and done fairly. I learned some things about open theism that I didn't know. There seems to be an underlying agenda or motive behind it. Like it a work around to maintain the free will of the individual while getting God off the hook for the evil in the world. But I don't really think it solves the problems they are trying to solve and in the end just makes God small and much more like a man.
Right on, man. There's more I could have said, but I wanted to keep this somewhat streamlined. It does seem like the concept of Open Theism is an attempt to get God off the hook for the existence of evil. However, even in their system, God knows that a given sin or sins is possible for a given person. But when it happens, He still allows it to happen, like theft, mass casualty events, or war. Open Theism, therefore, doesn't get around the issue; if God allows the sin, He still has to make it part of His plan in some way. And if God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, that necessarily means that Christ was the planned propitiation for sin from before the foundation of the world. If that's the case, sin has always been part of God's plan. But the Open Theist may be dealing with a terrible hurt, and may wish that God didn't specifically plan that hurt for him. Open Theism gives God that "out". This is a hard area to get into a meaningful exchange with an Open Theist over, as he will be assuming Presentism, without the Reformed person (or other non-Open Theist) understanding what is happening in the conversation. In many cases, such an exchange devolves into the Open Theist calling the other person a Neo-Platonist Augustinian Determinist who believes in a static God, and the other guy will have no idea what just happened. (I've personally had experiences like this and just heard a recording of Bob Enyart doing something similar years ago.) Listening to John Sanders, I've picked up a clue that helps. He said Cicero is the earliest pagan author who formulated the idea of Dynamic Omniscience. Since Cicero most often wrote about politics, government, and oratory, his theological/philosophical writings are few. I'm doing what I can to read Cicero's relevant writings and see if I can find what John was referring to. It may help me understand where John and similar Open Theists are coming from.
Do Open Theist not understand that time is a created thing/object? It's not like God existed in time before creation, then at one point in time he created heaven and earth. It's that he existed without time and created time, and time is relative which he is above/greater/outside of.
That is a major point of disconnect in discussion with an Open Theist. They will ask questions from a presupposition of Presentism, then work an interlocutor into a corner, making that person affirm that God is static or agree to Open Theism. But the starting presuppositions about time are completely incompatible.
@@reformedpilgrim gotcha. Yeah thanks for putting this video together and answering the question
@@Godfrey118 My pleasure. I hope you find this video useful.
What do you think about Open Theism? Do you see these same problems? Do you see other problems? Are there other texts Open Theists cite to support their position? Discuss!
My problem with the scripture thing is how do you know that the scripture used to clarify another in a completely different book of the gospel is the right one? Or is that a agreed upon determination by man? Even the apostles were corrected many times by their interpretations of Jesus teachings.
If you're looking for these books free online, search by title, author and add "PDF" or "archive.org" and you will usually find what you're looking for. The translations in this video are not necessarily all in the public domain, but you will likely find usable translations from the 1800s or the early 1900s.
Hello, new to your channel. I am exploring soteriology and have had questions about the exact passage that you touched on a bit in the video- Acts 17. Reading a little further down from the verses you mentioned, it says, “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” Acts 17:30-31 NKJV My question is, how does God calling all men, everywhere to repent align with the concepts of TULIP? Are all men truly able to repent? Are all men, everywhere being commanded to do something they cannot do? Does God desire all men to repent? Thank you in advance.
@@danijax24 Do you mean to ask, “ Is TULIP at odds with Acts 17?” Do you think it is? Why or why not? Since you zeroed in on a command, you could also ask, “Is TULIP at odds with the Ten Commandments?” If so, why? If not, why not?
Hi, thank you for your reply. TULIP does seem at odds with Acts 17 at first glance. Men seem to be called to repent, but T would suggest that we can’t repent on our own. “All men, everywhere” seems like every, single human being, unlike the U. If L is true, then men who have had no Savior provided for them, and thus no chance of being saved, are being called to repent. I have thought about the Ten Commandments in relation to TULIP as well. Good point. If God gave the commandments and we could not keep them, then is it plausible that a command to repent is also given to people who cannot repent? I’ve understood the law to be our tutor, used to bring us to Christ. As we look at the law we see both the holiness of God and our need to be rescued. This is described for us in Galatians. However, is there a precedent of the same concept in Scripture, showing us that God commands us to repent even though we cannot? Thank you for the dialogue.
@@danijax24 If repentance is commanded by God, does it stand to reason that repentance is good? Who does good?
Good stuff brother. Thanks for this
My pleasure. I hope you find it useful.
How do you think the Greco-Roman audience understood the concept of predestination? I have a more in-depth video on Ephesians 1 here: ua-cam.com/video/wUcCKr4Hii8/v-deo.htmlsi=aoaOzf-BE3qGJkff
Cornelius was an Old Testament saint. He feared God.
Whether or not Cornelius was a saint prior to Peter's arrival, he and his household clearly believed the gospel once Peter preached it to them.
@@reformedpilgrim yes. I agree
Ancient literature exists in the public domain. Here's a free version of Horace's Odes & Epodes: archive.org/details/odesandepodesho05horagoog/page/n8/mode/2up
If God decreed all things from eternity past which is how he has knowledge, and nothing happens that he has not decreed would happen...then God would not have to work all things for the good. If it's a decree, then God is not working anything at all. Unless you claim he decreed what he would do when he decrees person X to perform a certain action. But then even God is not free And No one is claiming that God is caught off guard or figuring things out.
It doesn't follow that if God decrees all things that He doesn't have to work all things for the good. It also doesn't follow that if God's own actions are part of the decree that He would not be free.
@@reformedpilgrim just because you say it doesn’t make it true. And yes, if God decreed everything down to the micro and moment and nothing can change it, the. His work was done upon the time of the decree. The decree is God and God is his decree. The problem is that’s not what the Bible describes. You see, I don’t have an issue if free will was a lie and that every thought deed and action was predetermined by God and I can do other than what he decreed me to do…I just don’t find it in scripture therefore that’s my problem. I’ll ask you as well, does the idea that God decrees everything that happens simply bring you comfort and peace? Why? Would you lack peace if you knew that we made choices that God does not decree and that he has to work all those things for the good? Is he unable to work all things for the good if he did not first decree the bad things that happened ?
@@beaberean3286 You said, _"His work was done upon the time of the decree."_ In what sense do you mean "done"? If it's true that His work is done upon the time of the decree, would that be a problem? Why or why not? Do you subscribe to Dynamic Omniscience/Open Theism? My feelings about God decreeing everything that happens are irrelevant. I've had my share of hurt and pain, some remarkably similar to what Idol Killer hinted at in his own life. Scripture tells me that God works it all together for good. And if there is more such hurt and pain for me in the future, then God is working that for good, as well, no matter how I feel about it. I love God, regardless of how I feel about various trials in my life.
@@reformedpilgrim if his work was done at the time of the decree then it’s not a problem at all, except that you stated that God IS working within time even though it’s the decree that determines what God does. Again, I don’t have an issue with total divine determinism except that it’s not found in the Bible. God decrees some things that are unchangeable like the cross of Christ, but other things that happen which he has not decreed, he works together for the good. I love the story of Joseph in this sense. Gods decree was that Joseph would be a ruler. But along the way, there were plans that man meant for evil, BUT GOD worked (weaved) them for the good. The reason I say “weaved” is because that’s the literal Hebrew word. חָשַׁב ḥâšaḇ - man has free will to plan and act but God will work those plans and actions for the good to show his great power. He weaves his plan into the plans of man in order to bring about His desired end and nothing can stop that. Did God know what all those evil people would freely choose to do to Joseph to hinder him? Absolutely! And so because he knew, he weaved his plan to ensure his end came about. So I’ll ask this, why it is bad or wrong for man to have free will and God to intervene in that free will to ensure his end? Since you hold free will in such a high esteem and power, doesn’t it make God even greater, bringing Him more glory in that he accomplishes his plans despite man’s free will, actions and desires?
@@beaberean3286 You said, _"if his work was done at the time of the decree then it’s not a problem at all."_ In what sense do you mean "done"? Done, as in planned out, or done as in fully completed? (Remember, you already granted that God's actions could be part of the decree.) You asked, _"why it is bad or wrong for man to have free will and God to intervene in that free will to ensure his end?"_ I don't know; I didn't say it is bad or wrong for man to have free will and God to intervene in that free will to ensure His end. In regards to your last question, could you please define "free will" in the way that you use it? Do you subscribe to Dynamic Omniscience/Open Theism?
Here's my video on who the saints are: ua-cam.com/video/wsgGL4dhRm4/v-deo.htmlsi=CqDpg8fK0yLrEWl2
@@reformedpilgrim Thank you, I will take a look.
I appreciate the encouragement. I don't doubt the goodness of God at all despite all this. I think its my doctrine of God that has helped me navigate all this. While God knew the sinful intentions of others before they acted on them, I do not believe He decreed any of it, but that He is capable and willing of redeeming it. My relationship with God has grown significantly during all this. Check out my latest songs "Theodicy", "Restless" and "Pointing to You" as I believe they depict my present beliefs pretty well.
Didn't God make all our inward parts and knew exactly how to make all people become believers if that was His plan? Didn't God know who both His sheep and the goats were before Creation ? God knew all this and still Created ,meaning Prov 16:4 The Lord made everything for it's own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil. This alone defeats open theism.
@CBALLEN yes, your presuppositions are at odds with Open Theism. This doesn't mean your presuppositions are correct. One will note upon examination of your claims, your assertions are additions to Scripture and not an accurate reflection of the Bible.
@IdolKiller The Lord declares the end at the very Beginning and that includes the middle too. WHO CAN SAY IT AND IT COMES TO PASS UNLESS THE LORD HAS DECREED IT? That's right, the heart of man plans his way,but the Lord decides what happens. Men want to do much,much more sin than God has decided that they do.So,if men cannot do all the sin that they truly want to do,then where is man's free will?? Men will only do what God has decreed they will do,nothing more and nothing less. We are all like David, all our days were written in God's book before a single moment was lived ,men don't like this and they will imagine all kinds of schemes to try to explain it away, but the truth remains the truth.
@CBALLEN your view denies God has any relationship to the beginning or end and flattens it all out to a single eternal decree. This is what you're reading into Scripture. Stop prooftexting in defense of an extra-Biblical presupposition and instead look at His self-revelation in Scripture and you'll see God describe Himself in ways the Classical Theist denies.
@IdolKiller Here's another thing to think about. If one is able to say,: " I made many terrible decisions in my life,but I did make one GREAT ONE " then this is boasting and since we are saved by God's grace, not by the will or works of man,then this makes it a false Gospel ,it's the same Gospel that those who'll hear,,DEPART, believed in.Remember they called Jesus Lord,they had a faith,in a Jesus, but it was a false faith,in a false Jesus. Their Gospel was based on their best decisions that they made .Eph 2:4-5 is key to the truth, IT WAS GOD WHO LOVED HIS PEOPLE, that Jesus died for and while we were still DEAD IN SIN ( GOD HATERS) ,He made us alive with Christ, by GRACE WE HAVE BEEN SAVED!! Grace is unmerrited favor . This is the new birth and with this new birth comes THE FAITH OF CHRIST that makes us cognizant of the fact that Jesus actually saved us and this faith gives us peace with God.
Sorry about the low audio volume. All the volumes on the computer are cranked up, but this is the best this microphone can do.
Be sure to check out the Literary Life Podcast Episode 60: Why Read Pagan Myths: www.theliterary.life/060/?
If you're interested in Roman literature, Ovid is a must-read. What ancient works have you read or would you like to read?
You are money bro!!! I just subbed!!!
You are too kind, brother! Thank you! Welcome to the channel!
I wish more Calvinists and anti Calvinists would read the Canons of Dort
Right on! Me, too!
I enjoyed your video. You made some very good points. The way I see it , the Anti-Calvinism of Mr. Flowers does nothing but pander to the pride that is in man.
Based!!!
Just doing what I can to point people to the free resources available out there.
You can set up your preferred layout with your preferred translation to aid your exegetical study. And better yet, you don't have to pay someone else for these workbooks. Here's a video highlighting some other *FREE* exegetical resources (this channel is not monetized): ua-cam.com/video/tXcnPy2mpUM/v-deo.htmlsi=qbGzpl-2L7hK0lX7
Check out Bruce Gore
Very interesting. Thanks! I just subscribed!
@@reformedpilgrim Bruce is the man. Enjoy
I'm one of those guys that doesn't go a day without thinking about the Roman Empire. The conquests of the Greeks and the Romans had lasting impacts on the New Testament world. We can learn about the historical and cultural context of the New Testament by studying the Roman world of that time.
Why are Calvinists upset about anything? Why is White upset about anything? Why was even Jesus upset, if he was, with Judas? Judas was part of the plan. Why doe Jesus get angry at Peter or the money changer? Is it real anger? Real anger wouldn't make sense, would it? Wouldn't that be anger at God's plan.
Well said!
Thank you for the encouragement!
Thank you. I just don’t understand the confusion on Brent/Breda’s part. It seems to me that it is pretty clear that Gentiles are included in Romans 1-8. I was getting depressed even considering Romans 1-8 being for Jews only. This entire thing is simply to get around the golden chain of redemption, as Dr. White says, and I would agree with that statement.
In the Preface of the 2017 book, Brent says, _"When I came upon this personal discovery, I spent several months searching for historical evidence of others who took this position. I say discovery because I first realized this revelation on Thursday, June 6, 2013, about 10:15 in the morning while on vacation in Florida. Recovering from a cancer treatment, I was confined to a condominium overlooking the beach for the week. In reading through the book of Romans for the 28th consecutive time on the sixth consecutive day, I realized for the first time the reality that Paul had written Romans in two part. He wrote the first eight chapters to the Jews and the later eight chapters to the Gentiles."_ In Chapter 1, Brent says, _"It is just like Paul said, '...first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles.' What difference does it make? A great difference in that the first eight chapters include the teaching of predestination, foreknowledge, and election which apply only to the Jewish believers (remnant)."_ I think this tips Brent's hand, in the same way that you and James White point out: Brent wanted a way to get around the Golden Chain of Redemption, and he found a way. His way is to misconstrue some rather plainly-written words. Brent has no apparent difficulty understanding that God foreknew, elected, and predestined _some_ people; he just can't allow those people to be Gentiles. I don't know why it makes him feel better that this is only Jewish Christians. I guess Brent is a Gentile, then? (Ancestry DNA tests can actually reveal a Jewish heritage some never knew about otherwise.) Why would it make Brent feel good that God didn't foreknow him, elect, and predestine him? He doesn't flesh out why in is book. He has some conception of what "whosoever will" means that he treats as a given understanding, rather than explaining. It makes his position that much stranger, actually. In the end, it's funny that the Golden Chain of Redemption is simple enough for him to understand, but Romans 1:5-6, and 13 are not.
I think the issue is just simply he struggles with reading comprehension. He’s probably a great guy. Maybe he’s great at math? But among any collection of individuals, some people are just going to be in the bottom percentiles in reading comprehension.
I love reformed people have been involved with this church for many years. But you are in essence limiting the gospel to the elect and fighting against plain texts of scripture that teach the exact opposite. Reformed theology is at war with the gospel and will lose. It stands on confessions of men and interjects determinism into every passage of scripture. Like the cults, it causes people to no longer believe that "all" means all and that "God's love" does not extend to all men in the salvific sense. While we were sinners Christ died for all of us so that all men would have the geniune opportunity to be saved. God is not a God of deception holding out something He never planned to give us. You stand on John 6 as your prooftext that God hates most men and only accepts the ones the Father gives to Him. In making this your position you overlook all the verses clearly telling us that Christ propitiated not only for the elects sins but for the for the sins of the whole world. In reality you have an agenda to undermine plain texts of scripture and promote election as the main thing above all else. In doing so you actually resist scripture in the name of scripture. You remind me of the Jews who claimed they believed scripture and Moses while hating Jesus. Jesus explained that scripture and Moses spoke of Himself and they really did not believe Moses or scripture. To limit salvation to only the elect is to undermine all the scriptures that say salvation is open to all men. This is clearly opposing "all men" and "all the world" passages because you want to emphasize the elect and what is the end result? You are attributing evil characteristic to God Himself. You are clearly teaching God hates most men whether you come out and say it or not. This is not the gospel. The gospel is not this: For God so hated the world that He predestinated most everyone to hell but gave his only begotten Son to only the few Elect, so that regardless of what they believe or not they will be unconditionally given irresistible grace and go to heaven. What kind of good news is this unless you are one of the secret elect. This is not the gospel and this is not what Jesus is teaching in John Chapter 6. Jesus is teaching us the same thing He does everywhere else. All men can be saved if they come to Him in faith. Two things are most important when it comes doctrine. First, do you believe that scripture is really history and true. Second, do you believe in the correct Jesus. Is the Jesus you follow one who demands infant baptism, eating and drinking His blood, etc. or is He the Christ who gave His body as a sacrifice once for the sins of the whole world yet does not accept all men into heaven because of unbelief, not because of election. It is easy to get caught up in traditions and interpretations of hard passages and go off the deep end like the Catholics have done. When your Christ becomes an arbitrary God that does things only for elections sake you have lost sight of the Christ of scripture who touched the leper and made him whole. Let us not lower Christ and make into a fickle man who is a bigot and for no reason other than bigotry he hates one person and accepts another. God is above such sinful things. His Character is perfect and impeccable. He cannot sin and does not create men for evil or even tempt men in the slightest to do evil things.
He doesn’t have to tempt man or make them evil, they did it themselves and God is just to leave them in their sin. Mercy and grace are not obligated, it’s optional, otherwise it would cease to be mercy and grace.
Warren is simply stating that God cannot do things like show partiality, do evil things (such as cause men to do evil). All scripture is just as important to Warren as it is to you. Warren is a smart man and sometimes smart men go off into la la land. People who get into annialism are going into a make believe Christianity and Christ Himself will one day reprove him for that unbelief. People who get involved with theistic evolution are fake Christians who in all actuality despise the authority of scripture. Many provisionists are in this camp. Warren is correct on everything he teaches about reformed theology, he is just ecumenical and leans towards being a worldy man in his stupid sensual music and messing with annialism. Yet he is smarter than you and more studied on this subject. Being more studied does not make a person correct but Warren is trying to point out that God has limits to being like us. God does not play games like we play. God does not hold to ludicrous positions that contradict one another and appeal to mystery or His Sovereignty as a reason for doing what any rational person would call a sin. Warren is dealing with the nonsense of compatiblism that many reformed theologians cling to. Embrace the good things and then cring at the hard things like God making men for the soul purpose to damning them for eternity for no apparent reason other than it pleases Him. Confessions of faith are flawed because they are not scripture and have an alternate motive to undermine clear simple texts all in the name of Soveignty and election. Reformed theology is an attack against simple faith and simple things like Christ dying for all men so that all have a genuine opportunity to repent. Reformed theology actually is the worldy deterministic philosophy of Augustine forced into scripture and this is what Paul is warning us against. Paul is not warning us to stop using are brains and believe in obvious contradictions and claim they are scripture. If election is the gospel then why do we not find a single mention of this in scripture. The gospel is always about believing in Christ. It is never prefaced with some sort of holy pixy dust that opens certain men's eyes to see. God has done the work necessary to open all men's eyes and is drawing all men unto Himself. But the bridge that the reformed person refuses to cross is the same bridge the unbeliever refuses to cross. This bridge is that you will not accept that you have a free will yet you are exercising it by making that dumb decision. It is that bridge of stubbornness that the reform theologian clings to just as the sinner clings to his love of his sin. You love your theology and it is the idol Warren is kicking against.
I've said some of these same things before, but it's worth saying them again.
Thanks for this! I particularly appreciate your assessment at the end of the video. I recently caught Jason in one of his 2PR streams and asked him to do a series walking through the WCF or the 1689 and explain where he agrees and disagrees. He seemed to like the idea. I think it would help him to work through the fullness of his beliefs....and by God's grace, perhaps such an endeavor would help to lead him away from this trendy reading he is on at the moment.
@@sevencrickets9258 That could be interesting. We'll see if he does. I get the sense he has a lot of content in the pipeline, waiting to get made.
@@reformedpilgrim Yep, probably true.
@@sevencrickets9258Just keep praying for him!
@@reformedpilgrim 💯
Here's one of Rome's founding myths, rooted in the defeat of the Trojans by the Greeks. How did the Romans view themselves? How did they want to view themselves? Read this book and see Aeneas and his companions go from being defeated Trojans to victorious Romans before your very eyes.
Reformation is just a cult designed to entice anyone that the cults of Catholicism and Orthodoxy don't appeal to.
Very good review. They will go to any length to try to refute reformed theology. They don't like that God decides, not them. They don't even care if God gets to decide for the Jews or for the Apostles. Just not for them.
Thanks, Danny. It's really astounding the lengths some will go to.
God decreed and predestined the refutation of reformed theology, because it debases his character and nature.
@@SheepDog1974are you taking a reformed position on the refutation of the reformed position? I think you might have some wires crossed there bud.
@@sevencrickets9258 precisely the absurdity of calvinism !!
@@SheepDog1974 Where does the Bible say that? Chapter and verse please