Your closing observation is good. The BIBLE is written by the inspiration of the HOLY SPIRIT and it introduces itself and teach all those hungry for GOD. True it's not for theologians only. I'm a structural engineer and my expertise comes from studying the skills but the Bible is open for all who seek God sincerely.
Theology is a farce & Christians have no standards. 1 Corinthians 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. Is there a greater arrogance than expressing you have some sort of relationship with a deity? Question: How can you possibly take faith seriously? How can anyone in their right mind ask others to believe in the existence of a Deity who makes Mormons so Christians will know how Jews feel, having had their literature hijacked. Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital & indoctrinating children is criminal. The faith vocabulary causes the user to be avoided like the old woman with too many cats. Faith "comes not with peace, but sword." Faith comes with wolves dressed as sheep & preaching to the choir. Faith trades the last cow for a pocketful of magic beans & then expects everyone's appreciation. Jesus said, it is a wicked generations which seeks signs such as resurrection. Faith is as worthless as fantasyland magic, since you can't tell mountains to move. The only sign in reality is Jonah: A believer murdered by other believers because he is outnumbered. The context is Jesus seeing a gathering crowd.
@@munbruk I hope you are not going to continue trolling the channel. Nevertheless, how do you discern what is inspired and what is not? Is it based solely upon you authority for discerning what God inspired the biblical author to write and what the author decided to include?
I have to admit something shameful. I am new in my faith, I was saved and have been baptized recently and have been studying and learning in my journey with god. I’m 28 and when I looked up systematic theology trying to understand what it really means I almost didn’t click on this video because I judged it off the cover. An older man with books it just looked plain and dull to me. I clicked and watched and am thankful I did because not only is my man Monty got character but he straight up just explained everything and more so much clearer than anyone I’ve talked to in a long time. My generation is so bad at trying to get points across or talk clearly or at least the ones I talk to. I’m glad I’m changing because Im seeing more and more how my ignorant and judgmental ways have been my own reason for wondering in the dessert. Thank you Monty Shanks, this was very helpful.
Glad you found the video helpful and thanks for watching. Everyone has a "biases." They are usually formed by our personal experiences or a desire to be a part of group. The question is are we willing to hold our biases loosely or abandon them if given information that reveals that they are poorly supported by the evidence.
Thank you! Your explanation is extremely clear. I bought a book on Systematic Theology because I'm a first year theology student but I really had no idea what is meant truth be told so ive put off really grappling with it.but now I know. Thanks again
@@yongamadlamini9089i couldn't put it better than the video. I'd say just watch that. But basically systematic theology is a considered, systematic view on doctrine. I still think there are problems with the model, namely that theology shouldn't be systematised. I think Schleiermacher was against this too
Very inspirational though we need to depend your faith always.. for this we always speak the truth the rigthgospel of Jesus..but I'm blessed to hear and listening to this principle..God blessed you
Good teaching!! ❤ Now may the God of peace who by the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep, our Lord Jesus, equip you with every good thing to do his will, working in us what is pleasing before him through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever. Amen. Hebrews 13:20-21
BT focuses on 'the text in time' (lit and hist) whereas ST is totalizing of truth (lit, church trad, logic), regardless of original author, genre, or audience of the book. It is helpful to view these theological disciplines as different tools in understanding Scripture and teaching the church. ST is essential for core discipleship, but BT humanizes the historical text and helps people to understand that Romans is also a letter. Two helpful resources are The King in His Beauty: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Thomas Schreiner) and Old Testament Theology: Divine Call and Human Response (John Kessler).
I appreciate that you took the time to watch the video. However, the video dealt with "biblical theology," what you are referring to is "biblical hermeneutics." I agree that the proper approach to interpreting the scriptures is seeking to identify the author's meaning, which can only be achieved through understanding the text's historical, grammatical, and literary context. But again, that is an issue of hermeneutics, not an issue of theology. It is true that for some systematic theology can involve church traditions and the development of theology after the closing of the canon. However, for most Evangelicals, good systematic theology is grounded solely upon the scriptures because many Christian faith traditions have been based upon faulty exegesis, if not blatant esisegsis. . Again, that's for the interaction.
@@askabibleprof7099 what warrants the fact that Biblical theology is more faithful to God's revelation than systematic theology?? do you think that directly reading the biblical text assures independance from tradition?? - and why would traditional interpretations be false while your own 'biblical' reading would be truthful?? it seems to me that you go around insisting on protestant memes about tradition being negative, etc...
@@silveriorebelo2920 Thanks for the interaction, but I'm not sure that you understand my points. I did not suggest that one is more faithful than the other, I only attempting to explain their different approaches. There are excellent systematic theologies and there are excellent biblical theologies, and the opposite is also true. Some systematic theologies and not faithful to the scriptures and the same is true for some books that describe themselves as "biblical theology." Did you view the entire video? I believe I made these points clear.
Thank you for your presentation. I am a systematic theologian. I use the training I have received from various institutions as a means of research in determining the truth from a biblical standpoint. I have often avoided some of the methods taught by higher education. I enjoyed the video. May you continue to reach out to people through your message.
If we can't trust that Jesus Christ left us a valid priesthood to guide us in our interpretation of Scripture and theological concepts, how does the self-authentication of Scripture square with the numerous Protestant denominations that exist who disagree with each other on very untrivial matters?
I appreciate the interaction, so I will try to briefly address the questions as I understand them, but forgive me in I have miss understood what you are asking. Peter explained that all believers in Christ as part of a holy priesthood (1 Pet 2.4-5). All authentic born again believers have the Holy Spirit residing in them as their seal of eternal life and their guide in their practice of the Christian faith. Consequently, there is no longer a "valid priesthood" that polices orthodoxy and practice because we now have the scriptures and the indwelling Holy Spirit. Consequently, God expects believers to follow His word and their conscious concerning how to live out genuine faith in the Lord. Regrettably, the presence of a "valid priesthood" has never protected believers from theological error, nor has it protected believers from confusion over "untrival matters." The tract record of the Levitical priesthood provides ample evidence regarding this fact; not to mention the different Christian faith traditions that currently rely upon "priests." Even many priests can't agree on matters of great theological and practical import.
First Tom I heard “systematic” was from a Christian friend. Who over time I learn he was Calvinist!…. The more he talks about tulip to me it just makes no sense compared what I read in the Bible about Gods character! When he talks Bible it always goes to sovereignty and the elect…. It’s like he keeps his theological system as a bubble, and doesn’t go outside of it….
It is true that some that focus too heavily on a systematic theology can be misguided, regardless of what theological perspective they promote. Moreover, one's biblical theological perspective is only as good as their theology in general. Meaning, if they have weaknesses in their approach to the Bible, then whatever system they promote will have flaws. Consequently, one's hermeneutical approach to the scriptures is foundational to their capacity to develop a theology that is biblically sound. Thanks for watching.
Yes, I recommend all 3 of the ST that I mentioned in the video. That is not to say that I agree with everything that they all assert (which is impossible since at times they disagree with one another). Those STs should be viewed as representing main stream Evangelical theology. Thanks for asking and thanks for watching.
Thank you for this helpful video Professor. Gods Word is truly worth studying if we are to grow spiritually as Christians and followers of Jesus Christ. ❤
I’m currently working on a Master of Theological Studies degree which leans more towards the systematic side but I also took a course in biblical theology which used Ryrie’s “Biblical Theology of the New Testament” as a textbook. I thought it strange that Ryrie stuck exclusively to the particular books of a particular author (Johanine, Pauline, Petrine, Etc.) where I was expecting to compare all of scripture but I guess that is the principle behind biblical theology? I see Systematic Theology with each of the sub-categories (Theology Proper, Christology, Bibliology, Etc.) as being exhaustive of the whole of scripture whereas Biblical Theology is what we observe as we understand a biblical truth in context with a particular passage?
Correct, systematic theology should first a survey of the entire Bible with a view to categorize common themes, concepts, and doctrines. This focus is the primary goal of good STs. Some STs will also discuss how these doctrines have developed since the church’s inception; however, this focus should be secondary. Biblical theology attempts to explain how the theology of a particular book or biblical author (usually a specific book) contributes to the greater theological message of the entire Bible. Now BT can also focus on specific verses or passages and how they contribute to the greater theology of the Bible, but that is usually the practice of pastors. Theologians and scholars tend to focus more of specific authors and books in the Bible instead of single verses and passages. There are no perfect STs, all have their weaknesses and strengths. Ryrie may be weak in some areas, but that can be said for all STs. Thank you for taking the time to watch, I hope that you found it helpful.
@@kenmacrae6717 The interaction is appreciated, but it's unclear how your conclusions are relevant to the video. It is only an introductory video. Nevertheless, thanks for watching.
Excellent,Gods inspired word. The bible is good enough for me. Jesus reveals Himself through the scriptures to believers.This video is truly helpful. I was invited to attend a systematic bible study and instantly, the Holy Spirit said NO and won't be attending. I take my relationship with Jesus seriously and won't allow little foxes to spoil the vine ( the connection) Glad people such as you are used by God to speak truth so the sheep wont go astray from His divine word. His sheep know His voice and a stranger they will not follow.
Thank you for this video, well spoken. The Holy Spirit will help those seeking Jesus Christ with all of their heart mind and soul. Read prayerfully daily and read the history of the times, etc. Love Him with all of your heart mind and soul and love others as yourself. The joy of being a Christian is knowing we are forgiven as we live obediently and repentantly for His name's sake and for His Kingdome to come. The One Who died for us so that we may live for Him is so worthy. God bless your journey till the end
Thanks for watching and dialoguing. Yes, lasting joy comes from drawing closer to the one that has forgiven us of all our sins. Studying the Bible enables us to learn more about Him and his sovereignty, holiness, graciously, His glory, and His will for us and the future. All of which is a product of doing theology. Blessings.
Thank you, Monte. Very well done. My association with your father and you continues to be one of the great blessings in my life. Mark me down as a free grace dispensational believer im exegetical Biblical theology. Rev. John Page, retired.
The closing observation is true...if we do have that intimate relationship with God what is written and what we read, He will let us understand it and not because of what theologians are saying
The word of God was not given to Seminary theologians but to all of God's children, learned and unlearned a like. Is it not interesting to note that Christ's disciples were noted to be unlearned and yet they got learned people to marvel at their knowledge and wisdom and power? AND THE LEARNED ONES ALSO NOTED THAT THE UNLEARNED DISCIPLES had been HANGING WITH JESUS!
I appreciate the interaction and thanks for watching. You are correct, God's word is for everyone, both "learned" and "unlearned." The reality is that many "learned" are very foolish with respect to the Bible, and some "unlearned" are very wise and insightful with respect to the scriptures. Well said.
Thanks for watching. My PhD is a double major, it is primarily in NT Studies but I also earned a second major in Early Church History (i.e., Patristics), and I primarily focused on the development of the NT during that period of the church's history.
What I decided after research was to refuse to be either one school or another but rephrase my question, Can I support my doctrine on Biblical sources if I had no outside works? How does a house painter explain why he believes in the Trinity alone on scripture to a new believer. It proved challenging
Great question regarding explaining the Trinity to anyone, believer or not (but I'm not clear on what you mean be refusing one school or the other). I will attempt to be brief, but for a more thorough discussion on this type of issue I recommend C. S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity." Concerning the revelation of God. The OT points to God being One being but having persons in His "oneness." However, it is the NT that explains the Trinity more clearly. The systematic theologies that I referenced in the video will have good explanations on how the Bible supports the doctrine of the Trinity. Thanks for watching.
@@askabibleprof7099 My apologies. I was referencing Biblical vs Systematic Theology as my intended readers would benefit from focusing on the methodologies verses the basis for their beleifs.
@@richard-fy2mu I understand. Certainly people should invest time in their own reading of the scriptures, and then use commentaries and theologies to confirm what they have read or clarify what they misunderstand. Blessings.
I appreciate the point; however, that definition is but one of several possibilities. Nevertheless, in the New Testament it often means simply "word" or in the plural it means "teachings." While during the first centuries (BC and AD) it also had a particular philosophical significance beyond one's simply ability to think reasonably or logically. Thanks for watching.
This was really helpful, but the claim Biblical Theology is the opposite of a systematic theology seemed off to me. It seems that any use of Biblical theology is more of an authority claim that obfuscates the group of systematic theologies that the author accepts as biblical. Doesn’t every Biblical theology ultimately fall into presupposed systematic theologies? For example a biblical theology of Romans would have to view have to presuppose a systematic theology of soteriology. Granted everything I know about Biblical theology I learned from this video, so I may be way off base and I’m willing to be humbled.
I appreciate the comment and thanks for watching. Maybe I could have used a better word than "opposite." The point I was trying to make is that "Biblical theology" focuses on a single author or book in the Bible (e.g., the Gospel of Mark), and then discusses how that book or author's contribution relates to the entire theology of the Bible. Whereas Systematic theology combs the entire Bible (without respect to an individual author or book) in order to find what it teaches about specific themes, theological positions, or doctrines. Second, anyone can claim that their assertions and conclusions are "biblically" accurate, but that does not mean that they are. Lastly, one does not have to interact with Systematic Theology in order to "do" Biblical Theology, but it does help if one uses recognized terminology that has been developed by thousands of years of systematic theology developed by the church. Does this answer your questions?
@@askabibleprof7099 Yes, and thank you so much for the response! I think I understand your point better, I just got hung up on the use of “entire theology of the Bible.” What is the “entire theology of the Bible” if not a churches position on the distinct theological subcategories that you broke down in your video? Over the past 10 years I’ve moved from a charismatic mega church, to an independent church broken off from the Church of Christ (that taught baptismal regeneration), and now I am settled… more settled in a reformed Baptist church, but I’m starting to have paedobaptist leanings. All of the above churches would profess to teach “biblically” accurate theology, but all would disagree on what “the entire theology of the Bible,” reveals. Like you said, just because you assert something is biblical doesn’t mean that it is, but I’ve come to distrust pastors that dismiss Systematic Theology and make statements like, ‘we just teach the Bible.’ Again thank you for the response and your time, this is the first video I’ve seen for your channel and it was super helpful!
Thanks for watching. Briefly put, contextual theology tries to explain or observe the different ways different cultures "apply" biblical teaching to their specific context. It is mainly a field of Missiology. However, it is also dealt with in the field of "Historical Theology," which focuses on how the church has applied its understanding of biblical instruction throughout the church's history. Hope that helps.
And by defining your theology as being biblically based you ignored what Luke et al say in Lk 10:16 about the message being what Christianity is about. Theology must be composed of what is taught by God whether in the Bible or its true context the Divine Liturgy or just by those from God. The Bible is not the message in context.
I regret that you have concluded that we are in disagreement. I'm not clear on what your point is concerning Luke 10:16. The video simply attempts to clarify for others how scholars use terms such as theology and "biblical theology." If my points are unclear, then please excuse my attempt to assist others in understanding these concepts as they are used today. No offense is attempted.
@@DiscipleFiveActual Correct, and neither is the term "Godhead" or the word "rapture." These are just English words/terms that have been created to identify what the scripture teaches. Just because those that don't read the original biblical languages may create a term for efficient discussion doesn't demand that a term in not ground in the scriptures. But simply for the discussion, Jesus affirmed the "Godhead/Trinity" in Mt 28.19.
Hello and thanks for taking to time to interact. I see your point; however, if one starts with the study of God, then the natural progression can be to discuss Trinitarianism, which ultimately leads to Christology and Pneumatology. One doesn't have to study Theology Proper in order to discuss Christology, and if that is your point then you are certainly correct. There is a degree of subjectivity with respect to how one categorizes elements of systematic theology. But if one is rejecting the divinity of Jesus Christ, then that is a different issue altogether. Thanks for taking to time to interact.
@@askabibleprof7099 What's your opinion on why most if not all Theologians who built a systematic theology put their Christology after anthropology? We see this in historic confessions as well. I.e WCF and 2nd London etc. Thanks for responding
@@ParticularBaptist I appreciate the question. However, unless you have read "all" theologians, then I would refrain from implying that they all follow Reform categories. First, it is important to recognize that the term "Christology" is simply a heading/category. I don't believe the term appears in either of the 2 statements to which you refer. Given this issue, my edition of Erickson's ST treats Christology as its own chapter, so it is neither under TP or Anthropology. Ryrie on the other hand introduces the subject of the preincarnate Son as part of his treat of "God" (i.e., Theology Proper). The conundrum is that when discussing the nature and work of Jesus Christ, one is discussing a being that is both fully God and fully human. So where should one start the discussion? Should they only discuss an incarnation person under Anthropology? Are we not also be definition discussing Christology when we recognize the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ as part of the Trinity? Once anyone recognizes the divinity of Jesus Christ, then one has necessarily entered into a discussion of theology proper and Trinitarianism. To relegate the discussion of Jesus' divinity only to the category of Anthropology (another heading under which we discuss the nature of man), makes it obvious that one does not adequately appreciate the biblical revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ. I hope that helps in understanding the categories used in the video.
sorry folks I've read about 20-23 systematic theologies and been to 30 theological conferences over the years and this kind of abstract division of the "2" theologies doesn.t happen really. I've never heard a lecture that didn't move freely back and forth between biblical and systematic theology. This fellow makes it seem as if there is a clear line between the 2 ideas but as he himself said " there is no real definition of biblical theology" so how can u distinguish a thing that is ill-defined. In real life this is really sort of an irrelevant straw man. No theologian I've read forms his thoughts SOLELY on what other theologians think- none. they depend on original languages of scripture, the Bible, creeds, theologians, traditions, geography ie maps, archaeology biblical speculation (which you all do but wont admit it.) there are unorthodox or heretical theologies but not christian at all, and they often are required to tow the line of some cult or heretical teach but non I have read are that simplictic and thoughtless
Thanks for taking the time to watch, and I do appreciate your experience. The video only attempts to clarify concepts that cause confusion for some concerning these terms and how many theologians approach theology differently. It's not really a conservative vs heretic issue. You are correct, when one "does" theology, they often move back and forth throughout the scriptures. Nevertheless, among theologians today, many view the practice of "biblical theology" as a different approach than simply surveying theological themes and concepts in found throughout the Bible. That you disagree is simply the result of interacting with different theological perspectives and communities. It should not be cause for confrontation or division. Again, thanks for taking the time to interact with the video. May the Lord always be with you.
Honestly, I gave you a thumbs down because I felt you spent more time on systematic theology than on biblical theology. Perhaps a better presentation would be to have two scholars make their presentations of the theological approach they specialize in. Nevertheless, it was helpful to see how systematic theology can be used to support one denominational practice and denomination as a whole over another. Perhaps to acheive the unity that Jesus prayed for among believers, the two approaches and others might compliment each other. THANKS FOR YOUR PRESENTATION!
Thanks for watching. I regret my slow reply, I'm on vacation. The purpose of the video was not to provide alternative approaches from different view points. It was only an attempt to clarify the differences between the terms systematic theology and biblical theology. It was meant to explain the concepts to those that are new to theological studies. Blessing and thanks for the interaction.
Interesting, but most rational people understand that "ideas" can and do represent realities. "Love" is an idea that represents the reality of a functional and healthy relationship between a mother and her child, or of the relationship between a husband and wife. "Good" is a sensation that represents the state of being when one returns to his or her safe and well supplied dwelling that we commonly refer to as "home." And just for the record, although God of the Bible is a supernatural spirit that is "beyond" our understanding of time and space (which He created), He is relational and engaged within His creation.
Christianity is faith tradition based on the teachings of the risen savior and Lord Jesus Christ. Systematic theology is an organized discipline that through study categorizes themes and concepts found throughout Bible. Christians study the Bible in order to understand and do "theology." Non-Christians may do that same, but they have no faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; therefore, they are not adherents to "Christianity." Being "Christian" is something you are, theology the product of study. Thanks for watching.
A study focusing on Satan from a theological perspective would be properly found under Angelology or Pneumatology, depending on one's perspective concerning these categories. Thanks for asking.
Hold on.. These men were led by God to add truth to the body of Christ. I have a Systematic Theology Bible, by Wayne Grudem. When I prayed God gave me peace. God used these men just like He used Apostle Paul. Some people are trying to dispute the Bible. But The Bible says that The Holy Spirit will teach us all things.. so I thank God for those Believers, that God use to help us learn The Bible and etc...
It appears that you have misunderstood me. I was not criticizing Grudem, if that were true I would not have mentioned his ST. I don't necessarily agree with Grudem on everything, but his ST is one of the better ones available. He is definitely an Evangelical. Nevertheless, just because someone takes the time to write a ST and that you have prayed about what they wrote is no guarantee that what they wrote is accurate or "biblical." Moreover, they don't "add" truth to the Bible, then only help teach and clarify the truth that is in the Bible. Lastly, I don't believe that even Grudem would consider himself as used by God in the same manner as the apostle Paul. I hope this explanation provides some clarity. Thanks for watching and happy new year.
Systematic works are helpful until they promote conclusions that are contrary to the scriptures. The Bible is the only divinely inspired work; therefore, one should only depend on study aids (e.g., systematic theologies) that grounded in what the Bible clearly teaches. We should always avoid works that extrapolate on issues in which the scriptures are silent. Many systematic theologies are guilty of this weakness, regardless of which denomination they are loyal to. Thanks for watching.
While I can understand the value for loyalty, does that mean that you can't learn from Paul, Peter, John, or any of the other writers of the scriptures?
@askabibleprof7099 Absolutly! I don't trust what Paul says because Paul said it. I trust it because I have been convinced that the record of what Paul said is Inspired Scripture. Having said that, there are many things in scripture that good God-fearing men did and said that isn't correct. Just because something is recorded doesn't mean it's what should be taken at face value and trusted in. You may disagree and I've no problem with that. My proof, though, that you can't trust man is found in the very fact that man believes and teaches hundreds of different things just based upon any passage of Scripture. Looking to a more knowledgeable person for guidance is one thing trusting what that person says is true is another. Just as the Bereans didn't trust what was said but turned to scripture. I teach many things just as you do. I would be a fool if I taught something I didn't believe. However, someone would be an even bigger fool to believe something I taught was true just because I taught it. I hope that makes sense. It's been a long day, and I hate typing on this rinkydink phone keyboard. Thanks, and I loved the video.
@@One-Ruler-1Victor I see. And I do appreciate that you benefited from the video, so don't take what follows as a "criticism" of you. You do realize that you have created a circular argument that can't be defended by scripture. You won't learn from "men" because they are fallible, but you do believe in the inspiration of scripture, which teaches that God used men to write his word in order to "teach" other people. Therefore, you are willing to learn from men. The assertion that you won't learn from anyone else but only from God is contrary to the fact that God stated that He gave to the church leaders that can teach others how to live for Christ and share the gospel (Eph. 4.8-12; 1 Tim 3.2, Tit 1.9). I think I understand what you mean, but what you have stated is not compatible with what the Lord intends for those who follow him. Just food for thought.
@@askabibleprof7099 I actually think we are seeing the same thing from a different point of view. The problem is probably on my end. Now that I'm at my computer I will try to explain my view a little better. Who is the leader that I should look to to teach me? Is it a leader of a Catholic Church or maybe the Baptist Church. What man should I trust. I don't trust any man. That doesn't mean that what a man teaches will not lead me to finding that what he has said is true. However, even if what a man says is true, I will not believe it because he said it. We "should" believe it because we can see that it is true in scripture which we hold as being inspired by God. Paul might have penned what we read, however, I do not trust Paul because of who Paul was. I trust what Paul wrote because I believe that he comunicated what God wanted him to comunicate. Paul was a man, I trust what he wrote because it was what God told him to write not because a man named Paul wrote it. I see and understand scripture as authoritative because of inspiration of God not because of the men who wrote it. In the same way we do not trust what N.T. Write says because he said it. I don't think you or anybody else would claim that what N.T. Write, Michael Heiser ect. wrote is inspired. We do believe that what Paul wrote was inspired. However, we don't trust it because Paul wrote it we trust it because it was inspired. For example... I have a church leader teaching salvation by works, I have another church leader teaching salvation by faith and grace alone. Both are leaders both are teaching which one to I trust. Neither, I take what they have said and I go to what I have decided to trust is correct and that's the scriptures. When I go to scripture I can see that both men have valid refrences that they use. However, as I study God will show me the truth. Neither man taught me unless I learn from them and if I learn from them then that means I trust that what they said is true. I don't trust what someone says is true. That doesn't mean what they are saying is false, it means I don't trust that what they are saying is true until I have seen it though something I consider authoritative and that is scripture. I trust the Spritit to show me truth in scripture. If the Spirit uses a man to lead me there great. That's what I pray he does with every teaching I deliver. However, I hope that nobody ever believes something I say about God because I said it. I think this is one of the primary issues in the church today. Many people spend far more time reading and studying what men have written and said about what the Bible measns instead of reading the scriptures and seeing what God will show them. I know you see me as talking in circles and it might very well be a circular reasoning. After all I do trust what scripture says and it was indeed penned by men. However, I have decided to trust that while it might have been written by men, those men comunicated what God wanted comunicated. If we have that, why would we TRUST what a man says. Teachers teach a lot of things, however, I haven't learned it unless I have verified it in scripture. Therefore I haven't learned by trusting what a man said, I learned by trusting what scripture showed to be true. Splitting hairs... maybe but if I'm going to turst a church leader to teach me... I have to decide which one and of which church and which one has the spirit or which one followes it better or...ect. With scripture that need is elimnated. After all of that I should probably calrify that when I am talking about teaching, learning and trusting I am refering to Spritual truths and pricipals. Of course I don't look to the Spirit to teach me spelling and math. I know that confusion isn't here but I did want to clarify that. I guess when it comes to my Spiritual understanding and faith, I choose not to believe man, I seek the answers from the same person I'm going to give account to. That is God. I know we wont see eye to eye on this and I'm glad we can discuss this in a cordial and brotherly manner. I think this is something that is very lacking in Christianity today. Thanks again and may God continue to bless lead and guide you.
@@One-Ruler-1Victor That makes things much clearer, and you are correct, one only truly learns as they trust the scripture and evaluate what others teach in light of them. God's word is both our foundation and backstop, and no one has the authority to undermine or contradict it. Well said.
I'm at a complete loss as to where he gets the idea that his particular Canon is somehow inspired by God I just about cannot think of a more self-absorbed self-serving egocentric notion
I regret that you did not find the video beneficial. With respect to the question concerning whether "my" particular "canon" is inspired by God. The canon that I recognize as God inspired is the same canon that was received by the church as early as the second century. If your argument is that the “universal church" has never agreed on any particular canon, or that the “universal church” has regularly questioned whether some books were in fact inspired, then we will have to agree to disagree. Requiring universal agreement and uniformity on any position of the historic “church” fails to acknowledge that churches over the past 2 millennium have never universally agreed upon anything. The history of this period clearly documents that factions have always existed, and that minority groups have constantly splintered from the genuine orthodoxy church (not to be confused with the Greek Orthodox Church). The reality is, however, that the orthodox church came to recognize that God inspired through the Holy Spirit specific works to be composed by the biblical authors, and having made that recognition (as opposed to a “determination” contrived by human will) it received them as such. This same canon is the canon that I have also received, and the historic chain of custody of that reception is well documented over the past 2 millennium. That you may reject it is your right of course, but please understand that I have not invented a canon from my own egocentric imagination. The canon that I affirm as inspired by God is same the canon original orthodox church affirmed as well. Blessings.
@@askabibleprof7099 I appreciate your effort at responding! I am not sure that I did not find anything in the video beneficial - though need some practical examples re Historical Theology - perhaps those were included and I glossed over. Regardless, my criticism was toward one of your final, wrap-up comments. Regardless of anyone else - you, personally, have chosen a canon. There is no reason for you to have engaged with this particular canon OTHER THAN your own personal decision - and, perhaps I say this cautiously - you have a paycheck based on your acknowledgement of this canon. You and I both know that the early church had MANY canons - and various books, e.g. Rev, 2Pet, etc. took a long time before finally being stuffed into the canon. At the same time there were many other books that were considered by canon by many parts of the church AS THERE IS TO THIS DAY.... A criticism in your note above - you state "as early as the 2nd century".... Well, first the 2nd century was a LONG time - and there is certainly no basis for that notion in the first half of the 2nd century. I doubt there is meaningful basis well into the late third century - though I have not done the scholarly work that would be required to lay my head under a sword on the matter. Another criticism - you toss around "the orthodox" church as if there was ever such a beast - whereas in fact the only thing we know is a few writers - at best late 2nd C (small corpus from a couple prior) NONE of whom we have mss until, well, what - well into the 4th/5th C??? I have no interest in understanding Ignatius from a 5th C mss.... any more than I have an interest in understanding Jesus of Nazareth - a man - attested to by God - from 50 years of oral tradition that some guy compiled to which the name Luke was attached to.... We have got to do MUCH better in our critical analysis than such a reed. As to your own egocentric imagination - ultimately that is exactly where your canon came from - YOU alone chose that for YOUR alone canon. You cannot blame anyone else - just because EACH of those individuals made some kind of decision. You and both know that there were several books that were considered canonical in the early change - and text in the NT that were not until later... Each one is responsible for the canon we choose. Your chose yours...Rome choose theirs - the Ethiopic members chose theirs - and on it goes. Just trying to keep it real - and break down the facades of kind of pseudo-holiness - when in fact these are all very human traditions that each individual makes a decision about. If you were able to get this far - thanks for listening.
@@greglogan7706 Well, if you want to continue the discussion, then it must be in smaller bites. First, let's try to avoid personal issues. For example, I embraced the canon of the orthodox church well before I started a carrier as a professor. Whether I get paid to defend what I believe is not really relevant. Second, you are correct that everyone must make a faith decision regarding what they personally believe is the canon of the church. That decision, however, does not nullify the fact that the believing church (i.e., orthodox church) has had a canon since the 2nd century. Lastly, that lists existed in the 2nd century is undeniable, but just because they are partial is not proof that the church itself was moving towards a completed canon. No one asserts that the NT canon was completed by the end of the 1st century AD. It took time for the "universal church" to become familiar with all the books that make up the canon that was finally acknowledged and received. Life moved much slower for the early church than it does for us today. Expecting it to know what we know is unrealistic and anachronistic to say the least.
@@askabibleprof7099 I appreciate your acknowledgement that each person makes an individual decision for their own canon - essentially creating not only their own canon - but, in fact, what it means. Even the vaticanist has made a decision as to their canon...Simply put, each individuals canon is derived from their own ego - though the massive religious oppression/social pressure probably inhibits freedom - but that too is an ego decision. Once we get straight on this - each can interact with the matter in a much greater spirit of humility and graciousness toward one another (a rather godly characteristic as far as I know...🙂🙂) Now as to the historical side - I would suggest your notions are not nearly as solid as they appear... though you did sort of leave some processing. I totally challenge the whole notion of "the" believing church - as if that ever existed - or exists.... Most people were illiterate and ignorant and if anything would buy the latest and the greatest - JUST AS they do today (ever watch one of Hagin's "holy laughter" gigs...😖😖. Or whatever the yokel that managed to get himself into ecclesiastical power, etc., ad nauseum, e.g. so called "bishops". I am pretty sure you know as well as I that people including their respective canons were quite diverse. There was a long process well into the 4th C before the powers that be hammered out what their egos decided were the books - and for whatever reason eventually gathered enough political power to impose this IN GENERAL (there were always differences depending on location - cf Enoch in the Ethiopic church to this day). We know as an example that Martin Luther sort of well..didn't entirely buy it... Yes? Now re the personal side and influence the almighty buck. Yes, I fully expect you did adhere - and I suppose - though could be wrong - were indoctrinated to adhere to the standard canon (more or less just as I was though not raised in any sort of christian community). BUT here is the issue - if I understand you are a paid instructor in some kind of religious institution. Thus, NOW your income is dependent on you adhering not only to that canon but to certain creeds. I do believe you will find it much more difficult - in light of this - especially with a mortgage, a wife, kids to feed, clothe - and put through college - to perhaps fully critically analyze and discard such prior held notions. I am sure you are familiar with the incisive Upton Sinclair statement - "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." That being said, some men do it - Licona took a meager step though I am not sure he knew he would be canned. Admittedly, I am very thankful to not have such bondage around my heart and mind before God in Christ. And certainly wish you well in wrestling with what are challenging issues - most especially due to the massive epistemic impoverishment we all face.
@@askabibleprof7099 Just caught this in another context - I am sure you are quite familiar - A few months back I blogged in defense of one of evangelical Christianity’s leading apologists and academics, Michael Licona. Why? The poor chap actually had the temerity to raise probing, intellectually honest questions about the historicity of Matthew 27:51-54. Once the hounds of inerrancy caught poor Mike’s scent they started braying and the chase was on. For weeks they hounded him through the woods followed by a gaggle of Southern Baptist hillbillies. Sadly, according to Christianity Today it looks like the hounds finally caught up with Mike. According to “Interpretation Sparks a Grave Theology Debate” Mike resigned from his position at Southern Evangelical Seminary on October 4 as a direct result of the campaign carried out by cranks like Norman Geisler and Al Mohler. randalrauser.com/2011/11/first-they-came-for-michael-licona/
well the living book called the bible can only be understood by a true born again believer. the Holy Spirit must illuminate you unto salvation and open your eyes spiritually for you to understand the things of God. you sound like you are talking to unbelievers
I'm sorry that you didn't find the video helpful. However, is some theological circles there is a distinction, which is why some find the topic confusing. Thanks for watching.
@@askabibleprof7099 on the contrary, i found it refreshing. I gave it a like. well we all know that worshiping God is to worship him in spirit and in truth. There is only one truth everything else os a lie from Satan himself. :) God bless
@@The300ZXGuru Thanks for the like. May the Lord richly bless you and all those you love as you seek to magnify his name for the glory of God. Blessings.
The first thing that every Christian needs to know is that Jesus is not God and he never claimed to be. Get a Red Letter New Testament and read every word that Jesus said. Notice what he said at John 17:3, John 20:17, John 4:22-24. Also 1Corinthian 15: 24-28. The Trinity is a lie. Matthew 6:9 "Our FATHER who art in HEAVEN, hallowed be THY NAME.. (YEHOVAH.. Jehovah in English) Jesus is who Jehovah said he is, "This is my beloved Son.." .. there is only 1 group of people on earth who worship the Father and obey the Son. Why not answer your door when they call Saturday morning? Revelation 3:20. "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."
We will have to agree to disagree. First, only relying upon "red letters" found in a Bible is a poor study habit for developing sound and comprehensive theology. Second, what Jesus said concerning how he lived during his first coming is not proof that he was/is not divine and/or an equal member of the Trinity. Suggesting such reveals a misunderstanding of the purpose and importance incarnation with respect to dying for the sins of the world. Philippians 2.6-11makes it clear that Jesus is divinity (i.e., uncreated God), and John 1.1-18 makes it clear that he is the Creator (as does Col 1.16-17, 2.9). Nevertheless, thanks for watching.
@@askabibleprof7099 My friend I agree with you! Jehovah's Witnesses do not even use a red lettered Bible.. Jehovah's Witnesses spend their lives studying the entire Bible. 😀 I only suggested that people could more easily find Jesus's own words on the matter in a Red lettered Bible. 😀
@@lindastrang8703 Regrettably, Jehovah Witnesses don't respect the Greek text, they prefer inferior (i.e., incorrect and/or misguided) translations and interpretations of the original Greek. If one relies upon the NWT, then it doesn't matter how long they study the New Testament. In the end they will always be mislead because they are relying upon an inferior translation of the original Greek.
there is no good reason to believe in Moses Jealous God or Allah, high god of the ancient Arabic pagan pantheon. no good reason to believe in angels or divine revelation.
I appreciate that you too the time interact with the video, but I'm sure that you understand why we will have to agree to disagree. While not defending Islam or other pagan religions, for something to qualify as a "good" reason" there only needs to be the potential of a negative or positive outcome. If one recognizes that there is the potential for a place called Heaven and a place call Hell, then believing in God is a "good reason." No one lives there life solely in the realm of scientific certainty. Societies are built upon the premises of love, right, goodness, justice, and security. None of which can be scientifically proven or verified in a test tube. If you wish to reject the possibility that the spiritual realm exists, then that is your privilege, but asserting that there is no "good reason" to believe in God (as He has revealed himself in the Bible) or the Lord Jesus Christ is not a well defended assertion. Thanks for watching.
Your closing observation is good. The BIBLE is written by the inspiration of the HOLY SPIRIT and it introduces itself and teach all those hungry for GOD. True it's not for theologians only. I'm a structural engineer and my expertise comes from studying the skills but the Bible is open for all who seek God sincerely.
Glad that you find benefit in the video. Thanks for watching.
Theology is a farce & Christians have no standards.
1 Corinthians 9:20
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
Is there a greater arrogance than expressing you have some sort of relationship with a deity?
Question: How can you possibly take faith seriously? How can anyone in their right mind ask others to believe in the existence of a Deity who makes Mormons so Christians will know how Jews feel, having had their literature hijacked. Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital & indoctrinating children is criminal. The faith vocabulary causes the user to be avoided like the old woman with too many cats. Faith "comes not with peace, but sword." Faith comes with wolves dressed as sheep & preaching to the choir. Faith trades the last cow for a pocketful of magic beans & then expects everyone's appreciation. Jesus said, it is a wicked generations which seeks signs such as resurrection. Faith is as worthless as fantasyland magic, since you can't tell mountains to move. The only sign in reality is Jonah: A believer murdered by other believers because he is outnumbered. The context is Jesus seeing a gathering crowd.
Not true. A small portion was inspired, teh majority of the Bible was human product full of issues
@@munbruk I hope you are not going to continue trolling the channel. Nevertheless, how do you discern what is inspired and what is not? Is it based solely upon you authority for discerning what God inspired the biblical author to write and what the author decided to include?
@@munbruk shut the hell up idiot
I have to admit something shameful.
I am new in my faith, I was saved and have been baptized recently and have been studying and learning in my journey with god. I’m 28 and when I looked up systematic theology trying to understand what it really means I almost didn’t click on this video because I judged it off the cover. An older man with books it just looked plain and dull to me. I clicked and watched and am thankful I did because not only is my man Monty got character but he straight up just explained everything and more so much clearer than anyone I’ve talked to in a long time. My generation is so bad at trying to get points across or talk clearly or at least the ones I talk to. I’m glad I’m changing because Im seeing more and more how my ignorant and judgmental ways have been my own reason for wondering in the dessert.
Thank you Monty Shanks, this was very helpful.
Glad you benefited from the video, thanks for watching. But you are right, in real life I'm old and boring. lol.
Welcome to the family of God!❤
@@askabibleprof7099 I prefer to be around boring people lol
@@askabibleprof7099 don’t worry Professor God is very old and predict any time. ❤
Intense but incredibly succinctly put
Thank you for this video! I have used the book list you gave us over and over to rebuild my library. Thank you again for that!
Hey, good to know. Glad you found the video helpful. Planning on posting a new video with week, Lord willing. Blessings.
Well done ! Great introduction . I would be interested in some more content .
Glad to hear you found it helpful. We have over 20 videos and are always working towards creating more. Just look for our channel.
Your explanation is simple and clear. I've loved it. Blessed.
Thanks for watching, glad you found it helpful.
Very helpful. I appreciate the objectivity and the fact that you touched on subjects of bias in the Christian community.
Glad you found the video helpful and thanks for watching. Everyone has a "biases." They are usually formed by our personal experiences or a desire to be a part of group. The question is are we willing to hold our biases loosely or abandon them if given information that reveals that they are poorly supported by the evidence.
Thank you! Your explanation is extremely clear. I bought a book on Systematic Theology because I'm a first year theology student but I really had no idea what is meant truth be told so ive put off really grappling with it.but now I know. Thanks again
Great to know that you found the video helpful, that's what we are hear for.
Can you also assit me, I am a first year doing certificate in theology
@@yongamadlamini9089i couldn't put it better than the video. I'd say just watch that. But basically systematic theology is a considered, systematic view on doctrine. I still think there are problems with the model, namely that theology shouldn't be systematised. I think Schleiermacher was against this too
I like this man. New sub!!
I'm glad to hear that you found it helpful. Thanks for watching.
Very inspirational though we need to depend your faith always.. for this we always speak the truth the rigthgospel of Jesus..but I'm blessed to hear and listening to this principle..God blessed you
Glad that you found the video helpful. Thanks for watching.
Good morning am watching from Zambia Africa I student studying theology I have really learned from you I will be following you from now on
Glad to hear that you found the video helpful. Thanks for watching.
Thank you for sharing this video! God Bless! 🙏
Glad you found it helpful. Thanks for watching and merry Christmas.
@@askabibleprof7099 Merry Christmas!
Amazing video! Clear and watching thorough
Glad that you benefited from it, thanks for watching.
Thank you very much for your video. It is extremely helpful.
Glad to hear that you found it helpful.
Good teaching!! ❤
Now may the God of peace who by the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep, our Lord Jesus, equip you with every good thing to do his will, working in us what is pleasing before him through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever. Amen. Hebrews 13:20-21
Glad that you found it helpful, thanks for watching.
BT focuses on 'the text in time' (lit and hist) whereas ST is totalizing of truth (lit, church trad, logic), regardless of original author, genre, or audience of the book. It is helpful to view these theological disciplines as different tools in understanding Scripture and teaching the church. ST is essential for core discipleship, but BT humanizes the historical text and helps people to understand that Romans is also a letter. Two helpful resources are The King in His Beauty: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Thomas Schreiner) and Old Testament Theology: Divine Call and Human Response (John Kessler).
I appreciate that you took the time to watch the video. However, the video dealt with "biblical theology," what you are referring to is "biblical hermeneutics." I agree that the proper approach to interpreting the scriptures is seeking to identify the author's meaning, which can only be achieved through understanding the text's historical, grammatical, and literary context. But again, that is an issue of hermeneutics, not an issue of theology. It is true that for some systematic theology can involve church traditions and the development of theology after the closing of the canon. However, for most Evangelicals, good systematic theology is grounded solely upon the scriptures because many Christian faith traditions have been based upon faulty exegesis, if not blatant esisegsis. . Again, that's for the interaction.
@@askabibleprof7099 what warrants the fact that Biblical theology is more faithful to God's revelation than systematic theology?? do you think that directly reading the biblical text assures independance from tradition?? - and why would traditional interpretations be false while your own 'biblical' reading would be truthful?? it seems to me that you go around insisting on protestant memes about tradition being negative, etc...
@@silveriorebelo2920 Thanks for the interaction, but I'm not sure that you understand my points. I did not suggest that one is more faithful than the other, I only attempting to explain their different approaches. There are excellent systematic theologies and there are excellent biblical theologies, and the opposite is also true. Some systematic theologies and not faithful to the scriptures and the same is true for some books that describe themselves as "biblical theology." Did you view the entire video? I believe I made these points clear.
Thank you for your presentation. I am a systematic theologian. I use the training I have received from various institutions as a means of research in determining the truth from a biblical standpoint. I have often avoided some of the methods taught by higher education. I enjoyed the video. May you continue to reach out to people through your message.
Thank God for the gift of systematic theology, and more so, thank God for the accessibility of scripture to all men.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, and yes, we should always be thankful to God for his word and that some choose to study and understand it.
great explanation about systematic theology and biblical theology.
Good to hear that you found it helpful. Thanks for watching.
Thank you for this video.
Glad that you found it helpful. Thanks for watching.
God bless you and your family.
@@godfreedomandfamily7742 And may he do the same to yours as well.
If we can't trust that Jesus Christ left us a valid priesthood to guide us in our interpretation of Scripture and theological concepts, how does the self-authentication of Scripture square with the numerous Protestant denominations that exist who disagree with each other on very untrivial matters?
I appreciate the interaction, so I will try to briefly address the questions as I understand them, but forgive me in I have miss understood what you are asking. Peter explained that all believers in Christ as part of a holy priesthood (1 Pet 2.4-5). All authentic born again believers have the Holy Spirit residing in them as their seal of eternal life and their guide in their practice of the Christian faith. Consequently, there is no longer a "valid priesthood" that polices orthodoxy and practice because we now have the scriptures and the indwelling Holy Spirit. Consequently, God expects believers to follow His word and their conscious concerning how to live out genuine faith in the Lord. Regrettably, the presence of a "valid priesthood" has never protected believers from theological error, nor has it protected believers from confusion over "untrival matters." The tract record of the Levitical priesthood provides ample evidence regarding this fact; not to mention the different Christian faith traditions that currently rely upon "priests." Even many priests can't agree on matters of great theological and practical import.
Strange how similar the church of Rome and the LDS 'church' follow a similar line of argumentation. 🤔
In the closing sentences when you said "what do you say?"
I was expecting you to reply "what do you meeeeeme" for some reason 😭😭
First Tom I heard “systematic” was from a Christian friend. Who over time I learn he was Calvinist!….
The more he talks about tulip to me it just makes no sense compared what I read in the Bible about Gods character!
When he talks Bible it always goes to sovereignty and the elect….
It’s like he keeps his theological system as a bubble, and doesn’t go outside of it….
It is true that some that focus too heavily on a systematic theology can be misguided, regardless of what theological perspective they promote. Moreover, one's biblical theological perspective is only as good as their theology in general. Meaning, if they have weaknesses in their approach to the Bible, then whatever system they promote will have flaws. Consequently, one's hermeneutical approach to the scriptures is foundational to their capacity to develop a theology that is biblically sound. Thanks for watching.
Would you recommend Grudem's Systematic Theology?
Yes, I recommend all 3 of the ST that I mentioned in the video. That is not to say that I agree with everything that they all assert (which is impossible since at times they disagree with one another). Those STs should be viewed as representing main stream Evangelical theology. Thanks for asking and thanks for watching.
Thank you for this helpful video Professor. Gods Word is truly worth studying if we are to grow spiritually as Christians and followers of Jesus Christ. ❤
Glad that you found the video helpful. Thanks for watching.
I’m currently working on a Master of Theological Studies degree which leans more towards the systematic side but I also took a course in biblical theology which used Ryrie’s “Biblical Theology of the New Testament” as a textbook. I thought it strange that Ryrie stuck exclusively to the particular books of a particular author (Johanine, Pauline, Petrine, Etc.) where I was expecting to compare all of scripture but I guess that is the principle behind biblical theology? I see Systematic Theology with each of the sub-categories (Theology Proper, Christology, Bibliology, Etc.) as being exhaustive of the whole of scripture whereas Biblical Theology is what we observe as we understand a biblical truth in context with a particular passage?
Correct, systematic theology should first a survey of the entire Bible with a view to categorize common themes, concepts, and doctrines. This focus is the primary goal of good STs. Some STs will also discuss how these doctrines have developed since the church’s inception; however, this focus should be secondary. Biblical theology attempts to explain how the theology of a particular book or biblical author (usually a specific book) contributes to the greater theological message of the entire Bible. Now BT can also focus on specific verses or passages and how they contribute to the greater theology of the Bible, but that is usually the practice of pastors. Theologians and scholars tend to focus more of specific authors and books in the Bible instead of single verses and passages. There are no perfect STs, all have their weaknesses and strengths. Ryrie may be weak in some areas, but that can be said for all STs. Thank you for taking the time to watch, I hope that you found it helpful.
I'm a little surprised that your professor in a master's program didn't clarify the differences within your class.
@@kenmacrae6717 The interaction is appreciated, but it's unclear how your conclusions are relevant to the video. It is only an introductory video. Nevertheless, thanks for watching.
Great video.
Glad you found it helpful. Blessings.
Excellent,Gods inspired word. The bible is good enough for me. Jesus reveals Himself through the scriptures to believers.This video is truly helpful. I was invited to attend a systematic bible study and instantly, the Holy Spirit said NO and won't be attending. I take my relationship with Jesus seriously and won't allow little foxes to spoil the vine ( the connection) Glad people such as you are used by God to speak truth so the sheep wont go astray from His divine word.
His sheep know His voice and a stranger they will not follow.
Thanks for watching. Blessings.
Thank you for this video, well spoken. The Holy Spirit will help those seeking Jesus Christ with all of their heart mind and soul. Read prayerfully daily and read the history of the times, etc. Love Him with all of your heart mind and soul and love others as yourself. The joy of being a Christian is knowing we are forgiven as we live obediently and repentantly for His name's sake and for His Kingdome to come. The One Who died for us so that we may live for Him is so worthy. God bless your journey till the end
Thanks for watching and dialoguing. Yes, lasting joy comes from drawing closer to the one that has forgiven us of all our sins. Studying the Bible enables us to learn more about Him and his sovereignty, holiness, graciously, His glory, and His will for us and the future. All of which is a product of doing theology. Blessings.
@@askabibleprof7099 Praise God He is the Master Teacher
@@jeangreen432 May He always graciously teach us all. Well said.
Thank you, Monte. Very well done. My association with your father and you continues to be one of the great blessings in my life. Mark me down as a free grace dispensational believer im exegetical Biblical theology. Rev. John Page, retired.
Thanks for taking the time to watch and for the kind words. May your tribe increase!
The closing observation is true...if we do have that intimate relationship with God what is written and what we read, He will let us understand it and not because of what theologians are saying
Thanks for watching, hope you found it helpful.
Thankyou so much
Great, glad to know you found the video helpful. Blessings.
The word of God was not given to Seminary theologians but to all of God's children, learned and unlearned a like.
Is it not interesting to note that Christ's disciples were noted to be unlearned and yet they got learned people to marvel at their knowledge and wisdom and power? AND THE LEARNED ONES ALSO NOTED THAT THE UNLEARNED DISCIPLES had been HANGING WITH JESUS!
I appreciate the interaction and thanks for watching. You are correct, God's word is for everyone, both "learned" and "unlearned." The reality is that many "learned" are very foolish with respect to the Bible, and some "unlearned" are very wise and insightful with respect to the scriptures. Well said.
Thanks for the video🙏🏼 Just a question what do you have a PHD in?
Thanks for watching. My PhD is a double major, it is primarily in NT Studies but I also earned a second major in Early Church History (i.e., Patristics), and I primarily focused on the development of the NT during that period of the church's history.
What I decided after research was to refuse to be either one school or another but rephrase my question, Can I support my doctrine on Biblical sources if I had no outside works? How does a house painter explain why he believes in the Trinity alone on scripture to a new believer. It proved challenging
Great question regarding explaining the Trinity to anyone, believer or not (but I'm not clear on what you mean be refusing one school or the other). I will attempt to be brief, but for a more thorough discussion on this type of issue I recommend C. S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity." Concerning the revelation of God. The OT points to God being One being but having persons in His "oneness." However, it is the NT that explains the Trinity more clearly. The systematic theologies that I referenced in the video will have good explanations on how the Bible supports the doctrine of the Trinity. Thanks for watching.
@@askabibleprof7099 My apologies. I was referencing Biblical vs Systematic Theology as my intended readers would benefit from focusing on the methodologies verses the basis for their beleifs.
@@richard-fy2mu I understand. Certainly people should invest time in their own reading of the scriptures, and then use commentaries and theologies to confirm what they have read or clarify what they misunderstand. Blessings.
Amen!!!
Glad that you found the video helpful, thanks for watching.
Logos in greek means also reason(logic)
I appreciate the point; however, that definition is but one of several possibilities. Nevertheless, in the New Testament it often means simply "word" or in the plural it means "teachings." While during the first centuries (BC and AD) it also had a particular philosophical significance beyond one's simply ability to think reasonably or logically. Thanks for watching.
Excellent discussion, and advice at the end!
Glad you found the video helpful. Thanks for watching.
This was really helpful, but the claim Biblical Theology is the opposite of a systematic theology seemed off to me. It seems that any use of Biblical theology is more of an authority claim that obfuscates the group of systematic theologies that the author accepts as biblical. Doesn’t every Biblical theology ultimately fall into presupposed systematic theologies? For example a biblical theology of Romans would have to view have to presuppose a systematic theology of soteriology. Granted everything I know about Biblical theology I learned from this video, so I may be way off base and I’m willing to be humbled.
I appreciate the comment and thanks for watching. Maybe I could have used a better word than "opposite." The point I was trying to make is that "Biblical theology" focuses on a single author or book in the Bible (e.g., the Gospel of Mark), and then discusses how that book or author's contribution relates to the entire theology of the Bible. Whereas Systematic theology combs the entire Bible (without respect to an individual author or book) in order to find what it teaches about specific themes, theological positions, or doctrines. Second, anyone can claim that their assertions and conclusions are "biblically" accurate, but that does not mean that they are. Lastly, one does not have to interact with Systematic Theology in order to "do" Biblical Theology, but it does help if one uses recognized terminology that has been developed by thousands of years of systematic theology developed by the church. Does this answer your questions?
@@askabibleprof7099 Yes, and thank you so much for the response! I think I understand your point better, I just got hung up on the use of “entire theology of the Bible.” What is the “entire theology of the Bible” if not a churches position on the distinct theological subcategories that you broke down in your video? Over the past 10 years I’ve moved from a charismatic mega church, to an independent church broken off from the Church of Christ (that taught baptismal regeneration), and now I am settled… more settled in a reformed Baptist church, but I’m starting to have paedobaptist leanings. All of the above churches would profess to teach “biblically” accurate theology, but all would disagree on what “the entire theology of the Bible,” reveals. Like you said, just because you assert something is biblical doesn’t mean that it is, but I’ve come to distrust pastors that dismiss Systematic Theology and make statements like, ‘we just teach the Bible.’ Again thank you for the response and your time, this is the first video I’ve seen for your channel and it was super helpful!
Explain the contours of contextual theolog
Thanks for watching. Briefly put, contextual theology tries to explain or observe the different ways different cultures "apply" biblical teaching to their specific context. It is mainly a field of Missiology. However, it is also dealt with in the field of "Historical Theology," which focuses on how the church has applied its understanding of biblical instruction throughout the church's history. Hope that helps.
And by defining your theology as being biblically based you ignored what Luke et al say in Lk 10:16 about the message being what Christianity is about. Theology must be composed of what is taught by God whether in the Bible or its true context the Divine Liturgy or just by those from God. The Bible is not the message in context.
I regret that you have concluded that we are in disagreement. I'm not clear on what your point is concerning Luke 10:16. The video simply attempts to clarify for others how scholars use terms such as theology and "biblical theology." If my points are unclear, then please excuse my attempt to assist others in understanding these concepts as they are used today. No offense is attempted.
❤ Great
Glad you found it helpful, thanks for watching.
I've come to a place I don't accept anything I can't find in scripture verbatim. God bless.
I can certainly appreciate your caution. Thanks for watching.
The word "Trinity" isn't found in Scripture verbatim.
@@DiscipleFiveActual Exactly I can preach you the Gospel and never say that word. If Jesus did then so would I.
@@DiscipleFiveActual Correct, and neither is the term "Godhead" or the word "rapture." These are just English words/terms that have been created to identify what the scripture teaches. Just because those that don't read the original biblical languages may create a term for efficient discussion doesn't demand that a term in not ground in the scriptures. But simply for the discussion, Jesus affirmed the "Godhead/Trinity" in Mt 28.19.
The pretrib rapture is not biblical nor historical. 2 Thessalonians 2 refutes it
Thanks for the video, I don't believe Christology is a sub category of Theology Proper.
Hello and thanks for taking to time to interact. I see your point; however, if one starts with the study of God, then the natural progression can be to discuss Trinitarianism, which ultimately leads to Christology and Pneumatology. One doesn't have to study Theology Proper in order to discuss Christology, and if that is your point then you are certainly correct. There is a degree of subjectivity with respect to how one categorizes elements of systematic theology. But if one is rejecting the divinity of Jesus Christ, then that is a different issue altogether. Thanks for taking to time to interact.
@@askabibleprof7099 What's your opinion on why most if not all Theologians who built a systematic theology put their Christology after anthropology? We see this in historic confessions as well. I.e WCF and 2nd London etc. Thanks for responding
@@ParticularBaptist I appreciate the question. However, unless you have read "all" theologians, then I would refrain from implying that they all follow Reform categories. First, it is important to recognize that the term "Christology" is simply a heading/category. I don't believe the term appears in either of the 2 statements to which you refer. Given this issue, my edition of Erickson's ST treats Christology as its own chapter, so it is neither under TP or Anthropology. Ryrie on the other hand introduces the subject of the preincarnate Son as part of his treat of "God" (i.e., Theology Proper). The conundrum is that when discussing the nature and work of Jesus Christ, one is discussing a being that is both fully God and fully human. So where should one start the discussion? Should they only discuss an incarnation person under Anthropology? Are we not also be definition discussing Christology when we recognize the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ as part of the Trinity? Once anyone recognizes the divinity of Jesus Christ, then one has necessarily entered into a discussion of theology proper and Trinitarianism. To relegate the discussion of Jesus' divinity only to the category of Anthropology (another heading under which we discuss the nature of man), makes it obvious that one does not adequately appreciate the biblical revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ. I hope that helps in understanding the categories used in the video.
sorry folks I've read about 20-23 systematic theologies and been to 30 theological conferences over the years and this kind of abstract division of the "2" theologies doesn.t happen really. I've never heard a lecture that didn't move freely back and forth between biblical and systematic theology. This fellow makes it seem as if there is a clear line between the 2 ideas but as he himself said " there is no real definition of biblical theology" so how can u distinguish a thing that is ill-defined. In real life this is really sort of an irrelevant straw man. No theologian I've read forms his thoughts SOLELY on what other theologians think- none. they depend on original languages of scripture, the Bible, creeds, theologians, traditions, geography ie maps, archaeology biblical speculation (which you all do but wont admit it.) there are unorthodox or heretical theologies but not christian at all, and they often are required to tow the line of some cult or heretical teach but non I have read are that simplictic and thoughtless
Thanks for taking the time to watch, and I do appreciate your experience. The video only attempts to clarify concepts that cause confusion for some concerning these terms and how many theologians approach theology differently. It's not really a conservative vs heretic issue. You are correct, when one "does" theology, they often move back and forth throughout the scriptures. Nevertheless, among theologians today, many view the practice of "biblical theology" as a different approach than simply surveying theological themes and concepts in found throughout the Bible. That you disagree is simply the result of interacting with different theological perspectives and communities. It should not be cause for confrontation or division. Again, thanks for taking the time to interact with the video. May the Lord always be with you.
Honestly, I gave you a thumbs down because I felt you spent more time on systematic theology than on biblical theology. Perhaps a better presentation would be to have two scholars make their presentations of the theological approach they specialize in. Nevertheless, it was helpful to see how systematic theology can be used to support one denominational practice and denomination as a whole over another. Perhaps to acheive the unity that Jesus prayed for among believers, the two approaches and others might compliment each other. THANKS FOR YOUR PRESENTATION!
Thanks for watching. I regret my slow reply, I'm on vacation. The purpose of the video was not to provide alternative approaches from different view points. It was only an attempt to clarify the differences between the terms systematic theology and biblical theology. It was meant to explain the concepts to those that are new to theological studies. Blessing and thanks for the interaction.
@@askabibleprof7099 I hope you are enjoying your vacation!
Theology.. study of a supposed Spiritual noncorpeal Divine Being which exists outside of time and space..
which means that it is an idea..
Interesting, but most rational people understand that "ideas" can and do represent realities. "Love" is an idea that represents the reality of a functional and healthy relationship between a mother and her child, or of the relationship between a husband and wife. "Good" is a sensation that represents the state of being when one returns to his or her safe and well supplied dwelling that we commonly refer to as "home." And just for the record, although God of the Bible is a supernatural spirit that is "beyond" our understanding of time and space (which He created), He is relational and engaged within His creation.
Why isn't it called Systematic Christianity?
Christianity is faith tradition based on the teachings of the risen savior and Lord Jesus Christ. Systematic theology is an organized discipline that through study categorizes themes and concepts found throughout Bible. Christians study the Bible in order to understand and do "theology." Non-Christians may do that same, but they have no faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; therefore, they are not adherents to "Christianity." Being "Christian" is something you are, theology the product of study. Thanks for watching.
Doesn't Theology encompass Satanism (as God of this world) & all other NON Christian religions?
A study focusing on Satan from a theological perspective would be properly found under Angelology or Pneumatology, depending on one's perspective concerning these categories. Thanks for asking.
That's Apologetics.
You build systematic theology from the Bible. Blessings.
Agreed, all good systematic theologies are grounded solely upon the objective teachings contained in the Bible.
@@askabibleprof7099 Yup. Blessings.
Hold on.. These men were led by God to add truth to the body of Christ. I have a Systematic Theology Bible, by Wayne Grudem. When I prayed God gave me peace. God used these men just like He used Apostle Paul. Some people are trying to dispute the Bible. But The Bible says that The Holy Spirit will teach us all things.. so I thank God for those Believers, that God use to help us learn The Bible and etc...
It appears that you have misunderstood me. I was not criticizing Grudem, if that were true I would not have mentioned his ST. I don't necessarily agree with Grudem on everything, but his ST is one of the better ones available. He is definitely an Evangelical. Nevertheless, just because someone takes the time to write a ST and that you have prayed about what they wrote is no guarantee that what they wrote is accurate or "biblical." Moreover, they don't "add" truth to the Bible, then only help teach and clarify the truth that is in the Bible. Lastly, I don't believe that even Grudem would consider himself as used by God in the same manner as the apostle Paul. I hope this explanation provides some clarity. Thanks for watching and happy new year.
The Roman Catholic Church seminaries teach Aquinas. Therefore, systematic theology is the way to go.
Systematic works are helpful until they promote conclusions that are contrary to the scriptures. The Bible is the only divinely inspired work; therefore, one should only depend on study aids (e.g., systematic theologies) that grounded in what the Bible clearly teaches. We should always avoid works that extrapolate on issues in which the scriptures are silent. Many systematic theologies are guilty of this weakness, regardless of which denomination they are loyal to. Thanks for watching.
Since I'm going to give account to YAHAVAH I choose to trust Him and not man to teach me.
While I can understand the value for loyalty, does that mean that you can't learn from Paul, Peter, John, or any of the other writers of the scriptures?
@askabibleprof7099 Absolutly! I don't trust what Paul says because Paul said it. I trust it because I have been convinced that the record of what Paul said is Inspired Scripture. Having said that, there are many things in scripture that good God-fearing men did and said that isn't correct. Just because something is recorded doesn't mean it's what should be taken at face value and trusted in. You may disagree and I've no problem with that. My proof, though, that you can't trust man is found in the very fact that man believes and teaches hundreds of different things just based upon any passage of Scripture. Looking to a more knowledgeable person for guidance is one thing trusting what that person says is true is another. Just as the Bereans didn't trust what was said but turned to scripture. I teach many things just as you do. I would be a fool if I taught something I didn't believe. However, someone would be an even bigger fool to believe something I taught was true just because I taught it. I hope that makes sense. It's been a long day, and I hate typing on this rinkydink phone keyboard. Thanks, and I loved the video.
@@One-Ruler-1Victor I see. And I do appreciate that you benefited from the video, so don't take what follows as a "criticism" of you. You do realize that you have created a circular argument that can't be defended by scripture. You won't learn from "men" because they are fallible, but you do believe in the inspiration of scripture, which teaches that God used men to write his word in order to "teach" other people. Therefore, you are willing to learn from men. The assertion that you won't learn from anyone else but only from God is contrary to the fact that God stated that He gave to the church leaders that can teach others how to live for Christ and share the gospel (Eph. 4.8-12; 1 Tim 3.2, Tit 1.9). I think I understand what you mean, but what you have stated is not compatible with what the Lord intends for those who follow him. Just food for thought.
@@askabibleprof7099 I actually think we are seeing the same thing from a different point of view. The problem is probably on my end. Now that I'm at my computer I will try to explain my view a little better. Who is the leader that I should look to to teach me? Is it a leader of a Catholic Church or maybe the Baptist Church. What man should I trust. I don't trust any man. That doesn't mean that what a man teaches will not lead me to finding that what he has said is true. However, even if what a man says is true, I will not believe it because he said it. We "should" believe it because we can see that it is true in scripture which we hold as being inspired by God. Paul might have penned what we read, however, I do not trust Paul because of who Paul was. I trust what Paul wrote because I believe that he comunicated what God wanted him to comunicate. Paul was a man, I trust what he wrote because it was what God told him to write not because a man named Paul wrote it. I see and understand scripture as authoritative because of inspiration of God not because of the men who wrote it. In the same way we do not trust what N.T. Write says because he said it. I don't think you or anybody else would claim that what N.T. Write, Michael Heiser ect. wrote is inspired. We do believe that what Paul wrote was inspired. However, we don't trust it because Paul wrote it we trust it because it was inspired. For example... I have a church leader teaching salvation by works, I have another church leader teaching salvation by faith and grace alone. Both are leaders both are teaching which one to I trust. Neither, I take what they have said and I go to what I have decided to trust is correct and that's the scriptures. When I go to scripture I can see that both men have valid refrences that they use. However, as I study God will show me the truth. Neither man taught me unless I learn from them and if I learn from them then that means I trust that what they said is true. I don't trust what someone says is true. That doesn't mean what they are saying is false, it means I don't trust that what they are saying is true until I have seen it though something I consider authoritative and that is scripture. I trust the Spritit to show me truth in scripture. If the Spirit uses a man to lead me there great. That's what I pray he does with every teaching I deliver. However, I hope that nobody ever believes something I say about God because I said it. I think this is one of the primary issues in the church today. Many people spend far more time reading and studying what men have written and said about what the Bible measns instead of reading the scriptures and seeing what God will show them. I know you see me as talking in circles and it might very well be a circular reasoning. After all I do trust what scripture says and it was indeed penned by men. However, I have decided to trust that while it might have been written by men, those men comunicated what God wanted comunicated. If we have that, why would we TRUST what a man says. Teachers teach a lot of things, however, I haven't learned it unless I have verified it in scripture. Therefore I haven't learned by trusting what a man said, I learned by trusting what scripture showed to be true. Splitting hairs... maybe but if I'm going to turst a church leader to teach me... I have to decide which one and of which church and which one has the spirit or which one followes it better or...ect. With scripture that need is elimnated. After all of that I should probably calrify that when I am talking about teaching, learning and trusting I am refering to Spritual truths and pricipals. Of course I don't look to the Spirit to teach me spelling and math. I know that confusion isn't here but I did want to clarify that. I guess when it comes to my Spiritual understanding and faith, I choose not to believe man, I seek the answers from the same person I'm going to give account to. That is God. I know we wont see eye to eye on this and I'm glad we can discuss this in a cordial and brotherly manner. I think this is something that is very lacking in Christianity today. Thanks again and may God continue to bless lead and guide you.
@@One-Ruler-1Victor That makes things much clearer, and you are correct, one only truly learns as they trust the scripture and evaluate what others teach in light of them. God's word is both our foundation and backstop, and no one has the authority to undermine or contradict it. Well said.
I'm at a complete loss as to where he gets the idea that his particular Canon is somehow inspired by God
I just about cannot think of a more self-absorbed self-serving egocentric notion
I regret that you did not find the video beneficial. With respect to the question concerning whether "my" particular "canon" is inspired by God. The canon that I recognize as God inspired is the same canon that was received by the church as early as the second century. If your argument is that the “universal church" has never agreed on any particular canon, or that the “universal church” has regularly questioned whether some books were in fact inspired, then we will have to agree to disagree. Requiring universal agreement and uniformity on any position of the historic “church” fails to acknowledge that churches over the past 2 millennium have never universally agreed upon anything. The history of this period clearly documents that factions have always existed, and that minority groups have constantly splintered from the genuine orthodoxy church (not to be confused with the Greek Orthodox Church). The reality is, however, that the orthodox church came to recognize that God inspired through the Holy Spirit specific works to be composed by the biblical authors, and having made that recognition (as opposed to a “determination” contrived by human will) it received them as such. This same canon is the canon that I have also received, and the historic chain of custody of that reception is well documented over the past 2 millennium. That you may reject it is your right of course, but please understand that I have not invented a canon from my own egocentric imagination. The canon that I affirm as inspired by God is same the canon original orthodox church affirmed as well. Blessings.
@@askabibleprof7099
I appreciate your effort at responding!
I am not sure that I did not find anything in the video beneficial - though need some practical examples re Historical Theology - perhaps those were included and I glossed over.
Regardless, my criticism was toward one of your final, wrap-up comments.
Regardless of anyone else - you, personally, have chosen a canon. There is no reason for you to have engaged with this particular canon OTHER THAN your own personal decision - and, perhaps I say this cautiously - you have a paycheck based on your acknowledgement of this canon.
You and I both know that the early church had MANY canons - and various books, e.g. Rev, 2Pet, etc. took a long time before finally being stuffed into the canon. At the same time there were many other books that were considered by canon by many parts of the church AS THERE IS TO THIS DAY....
A criticism in your note above - you state "as early as the 2nd century".... Well, first the 2nd century was a LONG time - and there is certainly no basis for that notion in the first half of the 2nd century. I doubt there is meaningful basis well into the late third century - though I have not done the scholarly work that would be required to lay my head under a sword on the matter.
Another criticism - you toss around "the orthodox" church as if there was ever such a beast - whereas in fact the only thing we know is a few writers - at best late 2nd C (small corpus from a couple prior) NONE of whom we have mss until, well, what - well into the 4th/5th C??? I have no interest in understanding Ignatius from a 5th C mss.... any more than I have an interest in understanding Jesus of Nazareth - a man - attested to by God - from 50 years of oral tradition that some guy compiled to which the name Luke was attached to.... We have got to do MUCH better in our critical analysis than such a reed.
As to your own egocentric imagination - ultimately that is exactly where your canon came from - YOU alone chose that for YOUR alone canon. You cannot blame anyone else - just because EACH of those individuals made some kind of decision.
You and both know that there were several books that were considered canonical in the early change - and text in the NT that were not until later...
Each one is responsible for the canon we choose. Your chose yours...Rome choose theirs - the Ethiopic members chose theirs - and on it goes.
Just trying to keep it real - and break down the facades of kind of pseudo-holiness - when in fact these are all very human traditions that each individual makes a decision about.
If you were able to get this far - thanks for listening.
@@greglogan7706 Well, if you want to continue the discussion, then it must be in smaller bites. First, let's try to avoid personal issues. For example, I embraced the canon of the orthodox church well before I started a carrier as a professor. Whether I get paid to defend what I believe is not really relevant. Second, you are correct that everyone must make a faith decision regarding what they personally believe is the canon of the church. That decision, however, does not nullify the fact that the believing church (i.e., orthodox church) has had a canon since the 2nd century. Lastly, that lists existed in the 2nd century is undeniable, but just because they are partial is not proof that the church itself was moving towards a completed canon. No one asserts that the NT canon was completed by the end of the 1st century AD. It took time for the "universal church" to become familiar with all the books that make up the canon that was finally acknowledged and received. Life moved much slower for the early church than it does for us today. Expecting it to know what we know is unrealistic and anachronistic to say the least.
@@askabibleprof7099
I appreciate your acknowledgement that each person makes an individual decision for their own canon - essentially creating not only their own canon - but, in fact, what it means. Even the vaticanist has made a decision as to their canon...Simply put, each individuals canon is derived from their own ego - though the massive religious oppression/social pressure probably inhibits freedom - but that too is an ego decision.
Once we get straight on this - each can interact with the matter in a much greater spirit of humility and graciousness toward one another (a rather godly characteristic as far as I know...🙂🙂)
Now as to the historical side - I would suggest your notions are not nearly as solid as they appear... though you did sort of leave some processing.
I totally challenge the whole notion of "the" believing church - as if that ever existed - or exists.... Most people were illiterate and ignorant and if anything would buy the latest and the greatest - JUST AS they do today (ever watch one of Hagin's "holy laughter" gigs...😖😖. Or whatever the yokel that managed to get himself into ecclesiastical power, etc., ad nauseum, e.g. so called "bishops".
I am pretty sure you know as well as I that people including their respective canons were quite diverse. There was a long process well into the 4th C before the powers that be hammered out what their egos decided were the books - and for whatever reason eventually gathered enough political power to impose this IN GENERAL (there were always differences depending on location - cf Enoch in the Ethiopic church to this day).
We know as an example that Martin Luther sort of well..didn't entirely buy it... Yes?
Now re the personal side and influence the almighty buck. Yes, I fully expect you did adhere - and I suppose - though could be wrong - were indoctrinated to adhere to the standard canon (more or less just as I was though not raised in any sort of christian community). BUT here is the issue - if I understand you are a paid instructor in some kind of religious institution. Thus, NOW your income is dependent on you adhering not only to that canon but to certain creeds. I do believe you will find it much more difficult - in light of this - especially with a mortgage, a wife, kids to feed, clothe - and put through college - to perhaps fully critically analyze and discard such prior held notions. I am sure you are familiar with the incisive Upton Sinclair statement - "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
That being said, some men do it - Licona took a meager step though I am not sure he knew he would be canned.
Admittedly, I am very thankful to not have such bondage around my heart and mind before God in Christ. And certainly wish you well in wrestling with what are challenging issues - most especially due to the massive epistemic impoverishment we all face.
@@askabibleprof7099
Just caught this in another context - I am sure you are quite familiar -
A few months back I blogged in defense of one of evangelical Christianity’s leading apologists and academics, Michael Licona. Why? The poor chap actually had the temerity to raise probing, intellectually honest questions about the historicity of Matthew 27:51-54. Once the hounds of inerrancy caught poor Mike’s scent they started braying and the chase was on. For weeks they hounded him through the woods followed by a gaggle of Southern Baptist hillbillies. Sadly, according to Christianity Today it looks like the hounds finally caught up with Mike. According to “Interpretation Sparks a Grave Theology Debate” Mike resigned from his position at Southern Evangelical Seminary on October 4 as a direct result of the campaign carried out by cranks like Norman Geisler and Al Mohler.
randalrauser.com/2011/11/first-they-came-for-michael-licona/
well the living book called the bible can only be understood by a true born again believer. the Holy Spirit must illuminate you unto salvation and open your eyes spiritually for you to understand the things of God. you sound like you are talking to unbelievers
I'm only trying to help some find answers to their questions, whether they are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ or not. Again, thanks for watching.
dude thats basically saying theres a difference between xian and a born again xian lol one and the same.
I'm sorry that you didn't find the video helpful. However, is some theological circles there is a distinction, which is why some find the topic confusing. Thanks for watching.
@@askabibleprof7099 on the contrary, i found it refreshing. I gave it a like. well we all know that worshiping God is to worship him in spirit and in truth. There is only one truth everything else os a lie from Satan himself. :) God bless
@@The300ZXGuru Thanks for the like. May the Lord richly bless you and all those you love as you seek to magnify his name for the glory of God. Blessings.
The first thing that every Christian needs to know is that Jesus is not God and he never claimed to be. Get a Red Letter New Testament and read every word that Jesus said. Notice what he said at John 17:3, John 20:17, John 4:22-24. Also 1Corinthian 15: 24-28. The Trinity is a lie. Matthew 6:9 "Our FATHER who art in HEAVEN, hallowed be THY NAME.. (YEHOVAH.. Jehovah in English) Jesus is who Jehovah said he is, "This is my beloved Son.." .. there is only 1 group of people on earth who worship the Father and obey the Son. Why not answer your door when they call Saturday morning? Revelation 3:20. "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."
We will have to agree to disagree. First, only relying upon "red letters" found in a Bible is a poor study habit for developing sound and comprehensive theology. Second, what Jesus said concerning how he lived during his first coming is not proof that he was/is not divine and/or an equal member of the Trinity. Suggesting such reveals a misunderstanding of the purpose and importance incarnation with respect to dying for the sins of the world. Philippians 2.6-11makes it clear that Jesus is divinity (i.e., uncreated God), and John 1.1-18 makes it clear that he is the Creator (as does Col 1.16-17, 2.9). Nevertheless, thanks for watching.
@@askabibleprof7099 My friend I agree with you! Jehovah's Witnesses do not even use a red lettered Bible.. Jehovah's Witnesses spend their lives studying the entire Bible. 😀 I only suggested that people could more easily find Jesus's own words on the matter in a Red lettered Bible. 😀
@@lindastrang8703 Regrettably, Jehovah Witnesses don't respect the Greek text, they prefer inferior (i.e., incorrect and/or misguided) translations and interpretations of the original Greek. If one relies upon the NWT, then it doesn't matter how long they study the New Testament. In the end they will always be mislead because they are relying upon an inferior translation of the original Greek.
Wrong on both accounts. Jesus is God and Jesus admitted to being God.
@@lindastrang8703Kind of hard to study the Bible when scripture is missing from many versions.
there is no good reason to believe in Moses Jealous God or Allah, high god of the ancient Arabic pagan pantheon.
no good reason to believe in angels or divine revelation.
I appreciate that you too the time interact with the video, but I'm sure that you understand why we will have to agree to disagree. While not defending Islam or other pagan religions, for something to qualify as a "good" reason" there only needs to be the potential of a negative or positive outcome. If one recognizes that there is the potential for a place called Heaven and a place call Hell, then believing in God is a "good reason." No one lives there life solely in the realm of scientific certainty. Societies are built upon the premises of love, right, goodness, justice, and security. None of which can be scientifically proven or verified in a test tube. If you wish to reject the possibility that the spiritual realm exists, then that is your privilege, but asserting that there is no "good reason" to believe in God (as He has revealed himself in the Bible) or the Lord Jesus Christ is not a well defended assertion. Thanks for watching.
Thank you for this video.
I'm glad that you found it helpful. Thanks for watching.