Відео

If you Don't know the diffrence between Disipline when needed and Abuse please dont have kids. Why we have so many disrespectful kids today nobody Loves them enough to make them mind.King James Bible He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. About 3 wack to the behind works wonders

Sapaking Is not Abuse its disipling I thank God my parents loved me enough when i was bad to spank me Spare the rod spoil the child Proverbs 13 King James Bible He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Definitely. The revival brought about by the Holy Spirit through the apostles after Christ's resurrection and ascension was the definitive revival in the history of the world. Its the revival that everything else gets compared to.

We didn't say that the Open Brethren now have no leadership or offices in the church. In fact we referenced a man who used to be an elder in an open brethren church.

I think it's different than arguing against a straw man. Dispensationalism is almost 200 years old, starting out with John Nelson Darby in the 1830s and then fleshed out over the next 30 to 50 years, reinvigorated by the prophecy conferences in the late 1800s (where Scofield became involved), even more widely circulated in the early 1900s with the publishing of the Scofield Bible starting in 1909, leading up to the rapture craze in the 1980 and 90s, which was followed by MacArthur's rise to prominence and the development of his particular brand of dispensationalism. This is why we say in the episode that a lot of people who call themselves dispensational have never really studied dispensationalism any deeper than what they were taught in church, and to any of those people, they are going to think we are arguing against a straw man. But we really have tried to be fair. I've read Darby and Scofield and T.B. Baines, and Dwight Pentecost, and Michael Vlach (of Master's Seminary) and I've listened to Mid-Acts dispensationalists who still hold that there are two ways to salvation - salvation by faith and works for the Jews and salvation by faith alone for the church age before returning to faith and works in the tribulation. In a sense, what we're saying is that, sometimes in order to remind people of the history of a thing, and where it came from, you have to be willing to be blamed for making a straw-man argument. And in that sense, we're ok with it.

@@TheConqueringTruth I understand what you're saying, however I don't agree that one has to accept Darby or Schofield (whom I've never read), or any other men who dispensationalism is this or that, in fact teach dispensationalism as an ideology. I think we can, and should, as with any "teachers", understand that we need to consider what they say and then search the scriptures to see what is true. We can say, for example, that Calvin's TULIP is erroneous, and be scripturally accurate. That does not mean we can say, everything Calvin taught is therefor error. If you like Calvin, look at Leighton Flowers' teaching - just because you say he is wrong with respect to the doctrines of grace, you cannot say everything he teaches is wrong - the same logic applies to both. I don't think it is proper to view dispensationalism as an ideology or systematic theology. I do find it is a useful hermeneutical tool for resolving apparent contradictions. It is the best tool for this purpose I have found so far. If you can provide a better tool or method to resolve apparent conflicts, I'd listen. The classic example for me anyway is James 2:24 and Romans 3: 28. How do you resolve these verses if dispensationaly? If there's a better way than understanding these instructions are to different groups of people under different dispensations, Law and grace, which allows them both to be true, I'm happy to consider it. So far, I haven't found anyone offer a solution that doesn't require, at the end of the day, to some degree, saying "well this one is really true, or that one doesn't mean what it says"....

My point isn't that you have to accept Darby or Scofield, but that some of the ideas that still exist in dispensationalism cone more from those men than from scripture and it's useful to understand where ideas come from. I think your example of Calvin is a good example. If Calvin introduced an idea into Christianity that didn't come from the sound exegesis of scripture, it would be good to know that, is to follow ideas back to their source. Even things taught from a verse of scripture can be very wrong if that scripture is taken out of context or twisted to suit someone's purposes. That's why I'm saying we're not attacking a straw man, we're trying to draw out the origin. It's like when someone just plasters over something instead of fixing the underlying problem you often don't find out until the whole structure is crumbling.

James means exactly what he says, but part of the problem is that people want him to mean more than he is saying James starts by making his argument this way: Jas 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? James says that there is no benefit for faith without works. This matches Matthew 7 - depart from me you who practice lawlessness, Galatians 5 - those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God and I John 1:6 - If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. Among others. Jas 2:15-16 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? If you say "be warmed and filled" but don't give them the things that are needed, what is the benefit. This is tied first and foremost to Ezekiel 36:26-27 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. and John 14:15-17 *If ye love me, keep my commandments*. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. Jas 2:17-19 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe-and tremble! James is contrasting those who have no more belief than the demons, which is not the faith that comes by the work of the Holy Spirit. Jas 2:20-22 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? This ties back to Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Was not Abraham shown to be righteous when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Do you understand how without that obedience, you would have had reason to doubt his faith? Do you see how through his works his faith was completed. Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. This ties back to Romans 3:21-4:25 but with particular focus on 4:2-3 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS ACCOUNTED TO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS." Jas 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. This goes back to where James started and should not be made to mean more than his point. A man cannot shown to be righteous by faith without works. Saving faith always, always, always produces works. Faith without works is dead (not regenerated) faith. This is why I reference Ephesians 2:10 up above and why James is not contradicting Paul in Romans. We are saved by Christ's work, but we are saved unto good works. We are Christ's workmanship. So James' focus on works is not contrary to Paul's arguments, but insuring that those who profess to be Christ's workmanship without works are shown to be false.

@@TheConqueringTruth there seems to be a fair amount of agreement here, I think the labels may be a problem. I don't know, and don't care what conclusions men like Darby or Schofield drew from this ideology that is referred to as dispensationalism. I'm not looking for an ideology, I 'm just looking for truth, and as far as I can tell, there are some things which are universally true, and some things which are conditionally, or contextually true - and here I don''t mean post-modern nonsense of your truth and my truth, or relative truth. Examples - universal truth - God created, God is and was and will be. Always true, independent of whether we believe it or not, He doesn't need our agreement. Contextual truths - Rom 3:38 & Jas 2:24. Even though they are contradictory to one another, and are not universally true (true for all people in all times), they are contextually true in the context of to whom they apply and what God had revealed to them. After the cross, salvation by faith in Jesus's work on the cross is offered to all men and applied to those who believe, without works - this is grace. To say the same applied to OT saints, under the law doesn't wash. If a OT Jew said, hey lord, I know you said you will bless those who obey your Law, see, I believe in you (they couldn't have believed in Jesus' work on the cross, for they didn't know who Him nor did they know what His work on the cross would mean - even the twelve Apostles didn't know this), anyway, I'm just gonna believe in you, with all my heart, I'm not gonna obey your commands and perform the works of the Law, and we're still gonna be good, right Lord? Two completely different contexts, or dispensations, before and after the cross. Don't look at dispensationalism as an ideology or even a propositional truth claim, but rather as a tool or mechanism for putting God's words in a proper context so that we can understand them without having to change the meaning or deciding which ones are really true and which ones aren't. Again, if you've got a better tool for reconciling apparent contradictions, like Rom 3:28 & Jas 2:24, or Mk 16:16 & 1 Cor 1:17, I'm all ears....

I want to make sure I am understanding your point. How do you handle Galatians 3:21: Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.

Thank you for the feedback. We tried to lay some groundwork right at the beginning, but I think there's plenty of times we could do a better job of that.

Wait, you are saying that we are attacking obedience and calling it works based righteousness? Did you watch the video?

@@TheConqueringTruth I watched a lot of it. Do you preach "faith alone", if so, that is demonic.

Salvation is by faith alone, but it unfailingly produces works. But preaching and teaching do not offset walking in the flesh and practicing lawlessness. That is the argument that we are fighting against. The Holy Spirit breaks the dominion of sin.

@@TheConqueringTruth Salvation is NOT by "faith alone" rather "through faith". Your works in Satan are disregarded. Your works after adoption will be weighed. Some will be found worthy. Most will fail. Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect (mature,complete).

@@TheConqueringTruth Water baptism is mentioned in Galatians 3:27 and Colossians 2:12 . Note "through faith" is mentioned there. "Faith Alone" is a doctrine of devils as even devil's just believe. By your works will you be justified , not by "Faith Alone". - James 2:24 I suggest you give up teaching others.

"Finally, in verse 12, Paul goes on to tell them that they are permitted to do these actions under grace, but they aren’t beneficial or profitable (v.12)." This list includes homosexuality. The author you are quoting is literally saying, being a sodomite is lawful but it's not necessarily beneficial or profitable. So, Romans 1 where Paul talks about people being turned over to a debased mind because they refused to retain God in their knowledge is that just more examples of lawful but not necessarily beneficial behavior? Christ tells those who he sends to hell, depart from me you who practice lawlessness. This view of grace is antithetical to what scripture teaches.

Classic free grace theology is the closest to scripture.

It depends if he has trusted Jesus alone for salvation.

Several things to distinguish here. I'll try to go through them in order. 1. "So do you all believe you can lose your salvation? I" No. Salvation is once and forever. Romans 8:30 says: Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. But making a profession of faith does not make someone saved either. Neither does making a profession and then going out into the world and doing what looks like great service for the kingdom of God. This is what Christ is teaching in Matthew 7. Right after he tells them "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit." he gives this example: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' Matthew 7:21-23 So, Christ wants us to be aware that many who say they are saved are not, and not just those who go out and live in open obvious sin, but even many of those who go into the world and do what look like good works. 2. I know I have sinned after my salvation so does that mean I'm not truly saved and I'm going to hell now? How is it possible to never sin? No. Those who have been saved do sin. Let's look at 1 John: This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. 1John 1:5-10 John is trying to be clear. Those who walk in darkness are not saved. This is much like where Jesus said, "depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness". It's also the same as what Paul says in Galatians 5 when he give a long list of sins and says that "those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." But John is trying to make a distinction between falling into sin and practicing sin. He says in verse 10: If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. So, this is what scripture says about sinning. Christians sin. But they do not walk in sin. And so, when you see someone like Ravi Zacharias who pressured the massage therapists that he employed to sleep with him and who told a married woman that he had seduced that he would kill himself if she went public with what they had done or Steve Lawson, who was forced by a girl's father to reveal that he had a 5 or so year long relationship with her, we aren't judging the invisible workings of their heart, we are judging what scripture says can be judged, which is the manifestation of their sin.

So when Jesus talks about false teachers and good trees and bad trees, he is also talking about salvation. "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire" So the question becomes, how we do tell the difference between good fruit and bad fruit. This is why Lawson's statement is important and why we are tying it to works-based righteousness. Jesus doesn't say "You will know them by their fruits because you will see more good fruit than bad fruit." He says, "You will know them by their fruits. ... A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit." A lot of people take this to mean, if I see what I call good fruit, then they are saved. But right after Christ gives this teaching about false teachers and bad trees and good trees, he goes on to give this example: Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' Christ is teaching us that it can be really hard to determine what is good fruit in this life. There will be people who look like they are servants of God, who when the day of judgment comes are revealed to have been those who "practice lawlessness". And let's focus on that phrase, because that helps us to tie in Paul's teaching in Galatians 5. Paul says: "Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." Paul is saying the same thing that Christ was teaching. All men sin, but those who have been set free from the bondage of sin do not practice lawlessness. And so when we see someone who is "practicing such things", we can say this is bad fruit. And a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit. This is why Steve Lawson's statement should not be used to defend his ministry from the revelation that he had a five-year relationship with a young woman. We are never to weigh "good fruit" vs "bad fruit". If God sees fit to reveal that person has been practicing lawlessness, or as Paul says, practicing such things, we should be grateful to God and treat that person as if they are unsaved. The temptation to excuse manifest sin because of past "good works" is an appeal to works-based righteousness. And we should understand how tempting it is.

@@TheConqueringTruth Well said, thanks. So Lawson, aware of the impending exposure, is basically telling people not to recognize him as the "bad tree" that he is.

That's how we took it and even if Lawson didn't mean it that way, we certainly saw many people defending him along those same lines. We felt it was worth addressing and it certainly has been something that people have disagreed with.

His whole ministry was works salvation.

​@TheConqueringTruth You are misinterpreting scripture. Only he that does the will of the Father is saved. The will of the Father is to believe on Jesus alone according to John.

Where are we biblicizing domestic violence? We just touched on marriage in this episode, the primary focus in our discussion here was on other relationships. We've done a few episodes on divorce. Rather than respond to everything you've said here, I'd point you (and others interested) to look those up on our channel first as we've spent a bit of time talking about abuse in marriage and biblical grounds for divorce.

Of course none of us can say that we have no sin. But we can say that we do not have a mistress with whom we are in an adulterous relationship. Scripture does not call us to always treat all sin the same - see 1 Corinthians 6 and many other passages. Why do we need to have committed a sin to apply scripture to it? Do you only listen to what heretics have to say about heresy, and what murderers say about murder?

@@TheConqueringTruth As YOU stated clearly "NOT ONE of you (on the panel) can say (I have no sin in my life as you recorded the show" but you call into question the salvation (by saying he's a wolf) of a man when one sin in his life is revealed. "We have no mistresses" but are you porn addicted and the list could go on. Brothers, WE are to hold each other accountable I AGREE - but this show should be deleted and another recorded after the beams are removed from your eyes. Love geace and peace

Steve Lawson was not removed from office for one sin found in his life. How can you even suggest that he was?

True…there is degrees of sin! There are sins God clearly says if habitually practiced… will send you to Hell! There are sins of the flesh that we need forgiveness for everyday…weaknesses of the flesh…yes they are sin…but not in the category of adultery…fornication……unbelief! Thank the Lord for His great salvation…that cover all our sin…even serious sin if we turn from it!

Is this Steve Lawson‘s throwaway account?

I genuinely don't know how you think we are giddy or lacking compassion. Having been there during the storm, sending supplies and workers to help, we have prayed for and have done what we are able to help those in need. As for the rest of your comment about the storm being engineered by man, no, we do not believe that to be the case. While man has the ability to seed clouds to increase the likelihood of rain, the amount of energy necessary to create or even influence a storm of this magnitude would require more power than what is produced by every power plant in the world many times over. You have believed men when they claim to have power far beyond their capacity. And while you say God is "ultimately in control of the weather" you believe he has ceded that control to men, which is not the case. Charles

I wouldn't say it's always idolatry, though you could idolaize it, like most anything else. We need to recognize that it doesn't guarantee that we know anything. I think it could be seen more as a sign of the government's oppression. And for most of us, to get it is to submit to the magistrate we have over us.

Both those situations are more complex than this reply can unpack, but the church's false theology of Israel has entwined America far too closely with the modern nation of Israel.

Thanks for commenting. I understand what you are saying, but ad hominem, is when the issue raised against the man is irrelevant to the argument. For example, a man's lack of fashion sense is not relevant to his mathematical knowledge, but is if he's applying to manage a fashion house. Scripture says that false teachers are known by their fruit. It cannot be illogical to demonstrate that the primary promoters/developers of a systematic approach to biblical study were likely false teachers. But to your point about dealing with the doctrinal issue, we generally agree with you. Prior to this episode (as well as afterwards), we've published multiple other videos on the theology and scriptural inconsistency of dispensationalism. But we do believe that the history of dispensationalism and the story of how it was developed, and how it was promoted and grew to be successful is very relevant. Charles

Interestingly enough, we've actually recorded an episode on logical fallacies and covered ad hominem attacks. Here's the link if you are interested (ad hominem is the first fallacy covered starting at 1:10) ua-cam.com/video/YCjwTz2fPXU/v-deo.htmlsi=P_OLlt86YkU7DsFt

@@TheConqueringTruth Thank-you. I did not mean to be unappreciative. Only to say I am more interested in an examination of Dispensationalism's tenet's infidelity to scripture.

If you actually have any concern for us at all, maybe you can point out where we are incorrect about Finney and his teaching.

@@TheConqueringTruth God has used Charles Finney in a mighty way to teach holiness. You come along with your twisted theology teaching division. What have you done for the kingdom?

I don't know who told you that Finney taught holiness. Finney was one of the most divisive men of his generation. He was ordained in the Presbyterian church and at his examination said that he agreed with their doctrines though he later admitted he had not read them. He said as soon as he read them he rejected them and taught against them, standing against their doctrines wherever he encountered them. He taught that a man could live without sinning, because as soon as a Christian sinned he was once again under the full condemnation of the law. Here he is in his own words: "Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned; he must incur the penalty of the law of God ... If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that with respect to the Christian, the penalty is forever set aside, or abrogated, I reply, that to abrogate the penalty is to repeal the precept, for a precept without penalty is no law. It is only counsel or advice. The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys or Antinomianism is true ... In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground" He denied substitutionary atonement: ""If he [Christ] had obeyed the Law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation" and believed that the purpose of the atonement was to set an example before us: "The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue. Example is the highest moral influence that can be exerted ... If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless" Finney called men to the holiness of the flesh, to works, and not to the gospel and grace of Christ. You should read more about him. His doctrine continues to impact the church negatively today.

@@TheConqueringTruth Charles Finney was chosen by God to lead America in what is known as the Second Great awakening, a revival that lasted more than 20 years and changed the country and helped abolish slavery. He led 500,000 people to the Lord in his lifetime. Sorry to disagree with you but Charles Finney is without a doubt in heaven!

You should read Revival and Revivalism by Iain Murray.

I don't think we were addressing every "prepper," but specifically those who prepare to have everything they need and keep it all for themselves while they watch their neighbors die. I know some people prepare for disasters not just for their family, but to be able to help others as well.

Thank you for your comment. I haven't had a chance to go back and listen (as sometimes parts of the conversation get edited out) but I remember specifically trying to make the point that there is a part of Prepper subculture that is built around setting yourself up to be in a position of power in a doomsday scenario. I've read plenty of rants by people who think thiis way where they talk about sitting in their bunker and watching the idiots who didn't prepare beg them for help (or worse). That sort of selfish thinking is what we were addressing. Charles

As you can see from the video we have no problem with saying Jehovah's name and agree that his name is important. But knowing his name is not enough. He must know us and we must be reconciled to Him and that can only be done through Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God. Jehovah's Witnesses do not have the promise that the power of sin has been broken in their lives. And if the power of sin is not broken then death still has the victory. If you watch, over time you will see, there is no breaking of the power of sin. And that makes all the difference.

@@TheConqueringTruth Thank you for acknowledging my text. I just wanted to explain our conviction to be loved and recognized by Jehovah and Jesus. The Hebrew scriptures reveal how Jehovah cared and loved his chosen people and mankind in general. He also expressed many times the earth is man's home and will not be destroyed or replaced but will be cleansed of wickedness, ps104:5; ps 37:29. We understand beginning at gen3:15, Jehovah purposed those loving him was given a way back to him and his perfect will for us . Jesus is that way as ISA 53:1-12 explains. Jesus's perfect life and sinless blood offered that solid hope for everlasting life but wehave to be obedient in order to receive that promise. Jesus's words reached out to all whose heart is rightly disposed to hear and obey. Your podcast members criticized our ministry, but yet We are the only ones consistently proclaiming God's kingdom as the only true hope for mankind as Jesus said we should do. Most religions encourage their members to get involved in worldly politics but Jesus ran away when they wanted to make him king. He also said his kingdom is not of this world and Revelation tells us the nations get their power from the dragon, which is Satan. We understand what Jesus's blood did for us and are very careful to follow him as best as possible. We make mistakes, and need to correct ourselves as the light gets brighter. Your podcast criticized our witness work, however Jesus said the harvest is great, beg the master to send more workers Matt 9:37,38. Where would these workers come from, evidently the world, so that's why our ministry is so important. We have deep faith in Jehovah's promises but we also need works to accomplish our ministry. We are Organized to accomplish our ministry. 2tim4:2 says preach the word, be at it urgently in favorable times and difficult times. Rom10:13-15 says people need to hear about Jehovah and Jesus so the feet that bring the good news are beautiful. Jehovah doesn't need people that just sit around and say they have faith. He needs diligent workers. Revelation 14: 13 says those resurrected to heavenly existence have worked for the Lord and their labors go right with them. We're also encouraged to have plenty to do in the work of the lord. The most important thing is the ministry Jesus gave us because it proclaims the Kingdom of God, also along with helping others and showing love. Again I respect what others believe and I don't want to offend anyone but we must be obedient to our exemplar, savior, eternal father because he received all he gave us from his Father, Jehovah. That's why we cherish the name Jehovah's witnesses. We are also Christians because we follow Jesus's example and appreciate his sacrifice

We would gladly surrender any good thing you might ever think of us if you would actually listen to the episode and consider the truth about Billy Graham.

​@@TheConqueringTruth Billy Graham is dead and putting him down is like taking the 7 things God hates and speaking one of them. . I am sure we all are sick of this sort of talk at least I am. I prefer to talk about all the good he did. He wasn't perfect and neither are you or I.

Apostolic succession in and of itself is of no credit. It has never been. Fear of God and worshipping God in Spirit and in Truth is all that matters.

Just refining a reply. I agree with what you say of Fear of the Lord but what's your beef with the true church? With no apostolic succession, you have no connection to any apostolic líne. Do you think that might be a problem? You know, "You are Peter and on this rock I shall build my Church"... And the binding and losing... It's problematic isn't it?

It's not even a little bit of a problem. Christ's church is given life by His Spirit, not by apostolic succession. Peter's ministry and even Christ's recognition in Matthew 16 is because he proclaimed the truth of God that God had revealed unto him. This idea of apostolic succession is addressed by Paul in Galatians 1:6-12 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. 11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Why then are the Coptics, EO, Catholics (even Anglicans up to a point) so similar in doctrine and yours so different? I mean, I don't exactly know what you believe but I would have the same argument thrown at me (Gal 1) from universalists, JW's, other non trinitarians like SDA's (are they still non trinitarians? I forget... Let's say millerites, shall we), Baptists, tulip reformists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, AoG non trinitarians Pentecostals etc. Who's right? Scripture unfortunate does not help tremendously, does it? I mean, if you follow tradition, you go to church on Sunday. If you follow the book... Arguably, the SDA's et al can and do make a stronger argument for the Sabbath. So if you think tradition helps, why not go the church that was founded on Peter and carried on by Paul et al?

Sorry, I got busy and forgot about replying to this. I'll try to respond over the weekend.

I think it' just wasn't reported on by the mainstream Christian media, but Graham's issues go back as far as the 50s and 60s in quotes and interviews, intensifying in the 70s. In 1978, in an interview with James Michael Beam for McCall's magazine he declared plainly, "I used to believe that pagans in far-off countries are lost-were going to hell-if they did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that. I believe that there are other ways of recognizing the existence of God-through nature, for instance-and plenty of other opportunities, there-fore, of saying `yes' to God, " and "I've found that my beliefs are essentially the same as those of orthodox Roman Catholics, for instance. They believe in the Virgin Birth, and so do I. They believe in the blood atonement of the cross, and so do I. They believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, and the coming judgment of God, and so do I. We only differ on some matters of later church tradition." We focused on the most significant issues because we have limited time and we believe the church should understand that the work that the Holy Spirit does in a person's life is over time it's not like they're faithful in the beginning and then they fall away that's not the fruit of the Holy Spirit's ministry.

We aren't aware of any major changes in the situation since we published this video.

Who cares if Finney wrote a useful book if in his core teachings, where he explains salvation, he denies sound doctrine and teaches a false gospel? Do you believe that Satan deceives by appearing as obvious evil? No, read the words of scripture: 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 (NKJV) 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works. The world is full of people who have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. Finney in his systematic theology denies the power of God in salvation. His view of walking in the Spirit begins and ends with the will of man. You should watch the video where we deal with Finney's own words or read monergism.com's articles on his teaching and his deception. But please don't point people to Finney.

Are U a Cessationist? Are U a Calvinist? I suspect two yeses would be the answer. If so, then U have no right to judge what heresy is. Cessationism is the most evil and destructive heresy of our time. I hope at the very least you’re born-again. If so, maybe U should stick with that and leave the deep things of God to those of us who are baptized in the Holy Spirit. I don’t want to sound mean but I can’t think of a better way to say it. Blessings!

Wait, so if we are cessationists, then we can't tell if someone is preaching a false gospel? So, when Paul said: [8] But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! [9] As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! He must have meant something completely different? I'm sorry you are so confused. (For what it's worth, I doubt we agree with a lot of people who call themselves Cessationists, but when it comes to God's revelation of Scripture, then we are absolutely Cessationists. There is no new revelation. Heresy can be known.) Run to Christ.