Early Church Doctrine: David Instone Brewer
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 гру 2020
- Donate (Paypal)
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
___________________________________________________________________________________
Exclusive Content (Patreon)
/ theremnantradio
__________________________________________________________________________________
We're social!
Facebook: / theremnantradio
Instagram: / theremnantradio
___________________________________________________________________________________
Our Favorite Books
www.amazon.com/shop/theremnan...
Wish the majority of Christians would learn about early church doctrine. Interesting discussion. Liked Dr Brewers boldness. Don’t agree with everything (but who does). LOVED what he said about not submitting to any (man or woman’s) authority for teaching. In terms of needing discernment. I too will not submit to any teacher without truly doing my homework, having peace from The Holy Spirit and the Sword of truth (the Bible) to reference.
Most of the nonsense in modern churches today would likely not exist if people read their church history, particularly of the first 500 years or so.
The more I learn about church history, the more respect I have for the early teachers.
At 18:18 your guest makes the same point I’ve heard Michael Heiser make- the NT was written to the 1st Century followers of Christ, and in order to grasp the original meaning without superimposing 21st Century ideology into it, we need to humbly attempt to let it speak for itself from the context. Thanks for having this discussion.
If true, GIGANTIC implications. Seems plausible to me.
Michael Heiser would say written TO first century Christians and FOR us today!
Just as he says about the Hebrew Bible TO the Hebrews but FOR Christians!
@@davidjanbaz7728 - thank you for the correction. You are 100% correct. I misspoke. I learn so much from Mr Heiser but I didn’t quote him properly. I will correct my comment.
The problem is many early christians were wrong about plenty.
@@007Tinkins no, problem ,keep watching his videos, they are really good!
Dang, I really wanted to see this live. Patristics is something I don’t see us Protestants talk about too much and there’s a lot of interesting stuff the early church fathers wrote and did. I’ll be listening as I doodle
You're welcome to swing by my channel where I cover early Christianity (1st-3rd century). I'd be happy to connect with you there :)
@@ApostolicChristianity Hey that sounds cool I'll check it out
Please consider bringing in and interviewing Harold Eberle who wrote Victorious Eschatology. He, RC Sproul and my pastor helped me become a partial preterist. In terms of end times eschatology. I highly recommend you bring on a Partial preterist. Half of revelation occurred around 70AD and the rest is yet to come. It’s a victorious mindset. A victorious eschatology. BOOM!!!💥
Sounds interesting and seems to make more sense than either full preterist or non preterist. I would love to hear this as well. Michael Heiser seems to take this view also.
@@HazerGore1185 👍👏
💯💯💯🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
Excellent. I was a "7 year tribulation rapture" person, until I looked into church history. It never existed until the 1830s.
Suddenly, so many passages in Revelation or in Matthew made much more sense.
Partial preterism is not only more logical, it's got a much longer history in the church.
Pre millennial ideas were largely discarded by the early church as Chilism. Nicean creed specifically was written to reject it.
Getting rid of the "end times" doomsday thinking gives a new hope for what the Spirit will do in the future.
Great episode!
One question for you guys in regards to women’s authority is how do we explain Phoebe in that she was used to bring one of Paul’s letters in Romans. I recently heard N.T. Wright make the statement that whomever bore a message would also be the one to elaborate on the contents due to first hand experience with what was the original intent of the writer. Would this not be considered “teaching”?
So much to think about… wow
I believe baptism is more I don't have scripture to back it up but when I was 9 years old in 1964 our church was having Revival meeting and no adult and ever said anything to me about needing to get saved but the Holy Spirit drew me to the altar at nine years old and I repented of my sins few days later I was baptized and I will never forget I'm 65 now and I have not forgetting the feeling I'm being so clean on the inside it has stayed with me all of my life
For those interested - the early Christians all used the Septuagint for their Bible. It can read quite differently from the masoretic text used in Bibles since Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Check out Isaiah 53 here in this LXX translation to English - biblehub.com/sep/isaiah/53.htm (The PSA verses (like 4, 6 & 11) that we are all familiar with a rendered quite differently here).
Great video. You guys should interview Fr. Josiah Trenham on the same topic. I think your audience would find it highly beneficial
Fascinating to hear his view of toddlers sinning. I've never heard of his argument: toddlers not knowing right from wrong, explore and make a mistake and then it be labeled as sin. Isn't sin against the moral law or a matter of the heart, when you do something you know is wrong?
I'll be honest, I was hoping he'd talk about beliefs of the early church after the Bible, and compare them to the Bible. But hey, I'll get what I can take.
EDIT:
Come to think of it...
After recalling other conversations I've heard him in (like on the Unbelievable? radio show), I remember having this same thought, ie "why isn't he talking abut the early church?" Then it hit me.
When he says "early church", he doesn't mean what we typically think of. We typically think of Ignatius and beyond, until about Augustine. But when he says "early church", he means, like, right at the time of the NT itself. He's thinking mostly about the Jewish thought and background. So actually, he did talk about "the early church". Like, the earliest.
These discussions are pretty hit and miss...it's most likely because he's studied other scholarly works but hasn't read a lot of the source material
Come to think of it, I have to eat my words. After recalling other conversations I've heard him in (like on the Unbelievable? radio show), I remember having this same thought, ie "why isn't he talking abut the early church?" Then it hit me.
When he says early church, he doesn't mean what we typically think of. We typically think of Ignatius and beyond, until about Augustine. But when he says "early church", he means, like, right at the time f the NT itself. He's thnking mostly Jewish thought. So really, I guess he did talk about it.
I wished I'd have thought about and recalled all this, before I was like, "Well he didn't talk about it...". Now I feel silly, haha
Yeah me too.
Again, iI recommend Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History of the Church, all ante-nicean. Also Sir Robert Anderson. The Key is Daniel Read Anderson's The Coming Prince
You should have David Bercot from Scroll publishing on. @remnantradio
I want Josh's view on end times and obviously more videos.
Check out partial preterism. RC Sproul wrote a book called The End Times According to Jesus. Harold Eberle snd Martin Trench wrote Victorious Eschatology. It lines up with most of what the early church forefathers believed. Half of revelation occurred around 70AD and the rest is still to come.
Steve Gregg at TheNarrowPath.com has great end times views.
Bruce Gore has an excellent verse by verse sermon series on Revelation.
He is a partial preterist and always connects the book to other scripture and the historical context of the time. Title:
Apocalypse in Space and Time
Your guest said some things in regards to PSA that are refuted in great detail in the AG #2 movie. But it was very interesting to hear his interpretation.
Can we get some “Remnant recommended readings” for studying the early church fathers and their beliefs?
Try the Ante Nicene writings. They're on line. A lot of writings
@@pappap1702 Thank you!
@@wilbr11 You're welcome my friend.
If you click on the description of the video you'll find an Amazon link with their favourite books sorted in categories.
🤯
The biggest problem with original guilt is that Jesus being a human would have inherited that same original guilt as well. It doesn't seem to logically follow in my mind.
It's too bad, Evangelicals seem to think, that no one had anything worth listening to from St. Paul, all the way to Luther, then nothing else until DL Moody.
Probably 95% of the "new" innovations of today, is just some old Heresy warmed over. You don't have to agree with everything an early church thinker said to glean some good insights.
Baptisms one is water 💧One is of the Holy Spirit 🌬and one is of fire 🔥 The early Jews that converted to Christianity we’re doing daily baptisms because they were still thinking of the law and trying to get set free of the law and not understanding that Jesus did it once and for all. I’m sure it was a process for them to really let go of works.
His view on PSA is bizzare.
My first question to him would be, who punished Jesus then?
What cup was it that Jesus wanted to be removed from in gethsemene?
In John 3 Jesus tells niccodemus that the wrath of God abides on the sons of disobedience (present, active) the very thing Jesus took.
There are tons of other clues in the text that indicate this is the case.
It's the same as the doctrine of the trinity it's not strictly mentioned in scripture as the trinity, but it's themes are found in scripture that you build the doctrine on.
I think he was only going so far as he saw the Bible go, which doesn't answer every little question, leaves some questions unanswered.
water baptism, when the Holy Spirit baptizes us into the body of Christ, and when Jesus baptizes us in the Holy Spirit were 3 different baptisms in the new covenant. Heb. 6 baptism plural
Great conversation on the early church my kind of Baptist who is honest. The mikvahs is the perspective we should have for baptisms as a foundation totally cool he is talking on this. One baptism and many fillings. Amen we die with him glory it was a slur. Note it is more then symbolic but the water does not save but the ideas of more then symbols came before Augustine Lol. I pull from many traditions personally. It seems that the messengers were ignored by cultures. Authority is Authority amen !!! The context of 1 Timothy is not speaking to all times this scholar is talking British know better Lol !!! Ancestrial sin vs Original sin is different then Pelagius great thoughts. Amen guilt and shame is the context Romans 5:12, Romans 3 in early church understanding great conversation. Yes we inherit a bent nature but we our not guilty of the shame and guilt. Amen the natural consequence He is teaching the Eastern view on this subject with a moderation to the western view together !!!I seem to agree with this guy in many ways but have slight differences of opinions .This scholar is my new guy to look at his books. I argue for Recapitulation, Ransom and Substitution together as a rich balance. This scholar makes great points in this idea. God does not directly teach the Father punishes the Son but indirectly through secondary means basically. Isaiah 53:10 . Love this stuff great discussion. Been in the church for 35 years from my own experience in salvation though been in a building for all my life. Wow this guy is basically were I am.Great unpacking the word Atonement and Propitiation.
Haha. This British Baptist would have some spats with Spurgeon over the atonement.
Hmmmm the cup of wrath??????? I list respect for this man , Jesus drank the cup of wrath for the believers
The answer to the Baptism question was rather unsatisfying as it completely dodged the fact that virtually (if not actually) all of the Early Church Writings we have, point to Baptism being regenerative in some fashion.
Also, the whole idea that because there is only "one Baptism," that that means the Apostles and other early Jewish disciples didn't Mikvah every day, is not only not taught in the Scriptures, it runs contrary to Paul's statements about being blameless as far as the commandments are concerned (not to mention the 10,000+ Jewish Christians, in Acts, who were all "zealous of the Law"). The Apostles and early believers would absolutely have continued to Mikvah each day (especially given that the met in the Temple each day). It would just have been distinguished from the Baptism, which is done in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for the remission of sins, and the receiving of the Holy Spirit.
Doesn't Isaiah 53:4-6 describe penal substitutionary atonement?
Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned-every one-to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isaiah 53:4-6 ESV
All early Christians read the LXX and Isaiah 53 is rendered differently there. Our modern Bibles follow the masoretic text which Jerome based the Vulgate off of. biblehub.com/sep/isaiah/53.htm (Here's an LXX translation to English of Isaiah 53)
@@ApostolicChristianity thanks I didn't know it was so different in the LXX.
Consider this: the Masoretic text was written 4th Century? Does it make sense for the jews to steel man the case for penal substitutionary atonement, or even steel man the case for Christ in any way unless that passage is a faithful rendering of the original manuscripts? Isn't it true that the Masoretic text is preferred for accuracy unless there are issues with translation, in which case they go to the septuagint for backup?
God the Father does not offer up His Son in sacrifice. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.
Jack Van Impe listed quite a few church fathers who taught pre-trib rapture. It did not start with Darby. Besides, if you really look at Darby's teaching, he taught post-trib...
He took every. Single. One. Out. Of. Context
Nobody taught it, and Jack Van Impe is not an authority on church history. There were people who believed in historic Premillenialism but not a single person divided the rapture from the second coming
Yes there was heretics who taught chiliasm like Cerinthus going back to the first century
Anybody taking Jack Van Impe a seriously as an authority on early church fathers needs to have their head examined. And yes, sorry to break it to you. No early church leader talked about pretribulational Rapture. The first inkling of it was from Margaret McDonald, a teenager in Scotland who would have extra biblical Revelations from the Holy Spirit. Later Darby included a modified version of it in his teaching. He likely just plagiarized it off of Margaret. There were people who believed in pre-millennial ideas, but nobody prior to the nineteenth Century had a pre-wrath or pre-tribulation rapture period that is a nineteenth-century fabrication that the majority of ignorant evangelicals have unfortunately taken on as truth. The further I read back into church doctrines of the past, the less evidence I see for the Darby dispensational thinking.
Trouble is another "expert" might not have these same views on the early church fathers So just more confusion within the body of Christ
Adam's death only reigned until Moses. Romans 5:14. I see Adam's death was confinement to mortality by the removal of the tree of life. The law brought back a way out of mortality.
Mar 7:4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they [fn]cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the [fn]washing G909 of cups and pitchers and copper.
Heb 6:2 of instruction about washings G909 and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.
Heb 9:10 since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, G909 regulations for the [fn]body imposed until a time of reformation.
Why do you have a Baptist as an early church father expert? He is obviously biased about church tradition. To be fair, you should be interviewing a Catholic or Orthodox on early church history. The councils of these groups formed the crux of Protestant theology. They defined the Trinity, canonized the Bible, developed liturgy, etc.
I believe any scholar would be “biased” on the issue in that they will each consider it from a certain perspective. It is problematic to assume any particular scholar would not be biased in their estimation due to holding a particular perspective. That perspective is their bias.
I do believe that a woman shouldn’t have pastoral/eldership over a man. YET! There are issues that haven’t been thoroughly addressed.
Let’s explore the amazing roles women took on in the church. Why can’t they practice that now?
1. Phoebe was a deacon. Romans, verses 16:1-2.
2. Junia! The controversy of the lost woman apostle. (Shock horror) could there have been a woman apostle?
3. The first evangelist was the Samaritan woman. in John 4.
4. The critical role all the women played in discovering Jesus’ empty tomb to encouraging and building up the body of Christ. Throughout all of Acts. Including some powerful, wealthy women.
5. Deborah, was a prophet and heroine in the Old Testament (Judg. 4 and 5), who inspired and lead the Israelites to a mighty victory over their Canaanite oppressors. The Bible clearly shows she had a husband, yet it was HER who lead her people to victory. God chose a woman for a critical and powerful job.
Looking at the above, there are clear examples of how God can use women in powerful ways in the church today. Not all women were created to bake sugar cookies and sit quietly at home. When men are failing the church, failing to uphold Gods word. Failing to be active in our communities. Then sometimes it will require a woman to do the job. If it please the LORD and be according to His will. 🔥
@Desire Of All Nations What’s the definition of an evangelist? She was one. The woman immediately departs, going into the city saying: “Come and see a man who told me everything I have done. Could he possibly be the Christ?” (Jn 4:29). Her assertion and question prompt people to go find out more about Jesus. Her preaching motivates her community, and many “began to believe in him because of the word of the woman who testified, ‘He told me everything I have done’” (Jn 4:39). After encountering Jesus themselves, the Samaritans invite him to stay with them, and they begin to believe that he is the Messiah.
@Desire Of All Nations God created Deborah as a Prophet and Judge. Look into her name. I find this fascinating. “Deborah is a prophet‑woman, someone who speaks with divine authority, and she is ‑woman. could be translated “wife of Lapidot,” but it also means “woman of torches.” , “torches,” comes where we would ordinarily expect a husband’s name, but it is a strange‑sounding name for a man and, moreover, does not have the standard patronymic “son of.”
@Desire Of All Nations “On the other hand, “woman of torches” or “fiery woman” fits the image of Deborah and would fit the story in the manner of biblical names. “Torch‑Lady” provides a significant wordplay, for it is Deborah, not her husband, who is the torch that sets the general Barak (whose name means “lightning”) on fire.Moreover, in Mesopotamian mythology, the torch and the lightning ( and ) are the heralds of the storm god. In the same way, “Torch Lady” and “Lightning” are fit agents for the God of Israel, who defeats Sisera by creating a river of mud to incapacitate his chariots.”
@Desire Of All Nations Let’s not forget she was appointed as a Judge over Israel. This requires qualification. You might find this article an interesting read. www.google.com/amp/s/www.myjewishlearning.com/article/deborah/amp/
@Desire Of All Nations Here’s a definition of an evangelist “a person who seeks to convert others to the Christian faith, especially by public preaching.” Deborah did have authority over men as a judge. So a Female Supreme Court Judge doesn’t have any authority today either? Okay. Think whatever you want. Cheers and God bless. Peace out. ✌️
The Pre-Trib rapture is in the Bible, Who would have thunk? From the time I became a new Christian, 40 years ago, I saw it immediately. Read Daniel along with Matthew 24, both Thess., Luke 21 Matt 24, can't really miss it, Read Titus, and Romans 5, and above all, know your terms, "The Day of The Lord". Without knowing what that is, all will stay in the dark
It's actually not in the bible. The verses you think are teaching pre trib are actually teaching the ressurection in context.
Yeahhhh not even close friend I’m sorry
@@theneverending9319 Duh,when do you think the resurrection takes place? During the rapture, that is why those who have survived martyrdom in the tribulation will go into the millennial Kingdom in natural bodies.
Matthew 24 was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem. Not every "coming of the Lord" refers to the second coming. And we know this from Old Testament passages. The coming of the Lord usually referred to his coming in time with physical judgement through other nations. This generation shall not pass until all of these things be fulfilled. This is an unambiguous statement that the Judgment was going to happen before everyone alive at that time died. The only possibility would be 70AD.
Earlier in Matthew Jesus reinforces this, by saying, some people standing here will not taste death until they see the son of man coming in power and Glory. That coming in power and Glory was Christ judging the unbelieving Israelites and destroying their Temple. You cannot wiggle out of the phrase "this generation". It means exactly a chronological generation, nothing else. It's very clear that the Christians of the time understood this, because when Rome first attack Jerusalem then withdrew, ALL of the Christians immediately left Jerusalem. No Christian was killed in The Siege of Jerusalem, 1 million unbelieving Jews died.
I’m sorry but this gentleman seems to have some pretty unusual ideas about the early church lol I think I’d rather hear from an Anglican lol
John’s baptism was for the nation of Israel, that is, those of the Jewish faith only. No gentiles except “proselytes”
Mark 1:4 John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.
Acts 13: 24 after John had proclaimed before His coming a baptism of repentance to ALL THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL.
The Greek word ποιμήν poimēn is translated, shepherd, or pastor.
Pastor comes from Latin (meaning shepherd) due to Roman Catholicism influence in the King James Bible.
The Greek word ποιμήν poimēn is translated, shepherd, or pastor.
(12c.) and directly from Latin pastor "shepherd," from pastus, past participle of pascere "to lead to pasture, set to grazing, cause to eat," from PIE root *pa- "to feed; tend, guard, protect.
KJV translates Strong's G4166 in the following manner: shepherd (15x), Shepherd (2x), pastor (1x).
Eph 4:11
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors G4166 and teachers,
A shepherd in the Near East was responsible for watching out for enemies trying to attack the sheep, defending the sheep from attackers, healing the wounded and sick sheep, finding and saving lost or trapped sheep, loving them, and sharing their lives and to earn their trust.
Something smells pelagian.
Awh not going to touch the golden cafe that is the Catholic communion just canabaalism in sheep’s clothing, as apposed to the cup is persecution and the bread is participation in the body.
I just gotta say that at 26:30 Brewer's explanation of 1 Timothy 2:12 is a complete sham. The passage is unambiguous. Brewer says that it is the Word of God that has authority, not the teacher. I agree. But...the authoritative Word of God says - "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man" and the context is so clear and the charge plain. So...is the Word of God authoritative or not? If Brewer believed it to be so then he wouldn't be trying to flip the passage on its head. In the end his argument actually leaves the authority in our hands - we can make the Bible say whatever we want it to say. I reject that. It would be right to ask what theologian he got that bogus piece of malarkey from.
Don't let anyone play jedi mind tricks on you, especially when it comes to God's eternal Word. The early Christians weren't clever enough to explain the truth of God's Word away (nor would they have desired to) like some (if not most) theologians and scholars do. However, they were wise enough to obey. Who's example should we follow?
I'm going to assume you wrote this comment before listening to the next 2 minutes of the video, so instead of correcting you I'll just encourage you to continue watching
@@ExcalibursLPs 27:44 He affirms what Paul says in the passage and adds, "But I wouldn't say that necessarily applies today". The next 2 minutes only happened because Josh and Michael were unsympathetic towards his initial statement. So he nuanced his position slightly in order to establish more points of agreement. But his initial statement shows what he really thinks about the passage. It pains me to have to say anything but I have to call stuff like this out when I see it. If it places me in the line of fire, so be it.
@@ApostolicChristianity Especially when accompanied by 1 Corinthians 14:33-36
“since God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but are to submit themselves, as the law also says. If they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home, since it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Or did the word of God originate from you, or did it come to you only?”
I had to rewatch it. He clearly says he won’t submit to any authority teaching from a man or woman. Indicating that the final authority is in Gods word. I believe if we look at that in terms of discernment over whose authority we submit under. Regardless of it being a man or woman. That’s wise counsel in today’s world of false teachers/teachings.
Now I’m in agreement that a woman shouldn’t have pastoral/elder ship over a man in the church. Yet there are wise women who give good counsel. If you watched the most recent video from Remnant Radio on women in ministry. A woman does bring a strength of wisdom. They talked about this in terms of marriage too. A Godly woman is strong in the word, wise and brings that strength to her brothers and husband in Christ. So there is a sense of wise learning from her too. Discernment is key.
@@assyrianrelief I appreciate your comment. My issue is not with women it is with the way he handled the passage. If he had mishandled another passage I would address it the same way.
He clearly sees the passage as a cultural relic and not applicable today. But instead of outright saying that he initially gives a completely new, unwarranted interpretation. I’m saying that’s no way to handle Scripture no matter what the passage is about. And his whole thing about the Word of God being the authority is a joke when in the very same breath he disregards the passage. I don’t buy it and others should be on guard against this kind of thing that is common in scholarly/liberal circles.
Early Church Fathers believed in Col 1:15, Rev 3:14, Joh 1:18: FIRSTBORN OF EVERY CREATURE & BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD & (LITERAL) ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. They believed only God the Father is the MOST HIGH GOD!!!!
see church fathers quotes below....
Origen
Contra Celsum
Book 8 Chapter 8
We are ourselves benefited by the service of GOD,and because we are freed from Griefs and Troubles by serving the *Most High GOD through his only-begotten Son,* the Word and Wisdom.
Book 8 Chapter 13
Accordingly,we worship with all our Power the one GOD, and *HIS only Son,* the Word and the Image of GOD,by Prayers and Supplications; and we offer our Petitions to the GOD of the Universe *through his only-begotten Son.
*
Book 8 Chapter 14
We know,therefore,that he is the *Son of GOD, and that GOD is His FATHER.* And there is nothing extravagant or unbecoming the character of GOD in the Doctrine *that he should have begotten such an only Son;* and no one will persuade us that such a one is not a Son of the unbegotten GOD and Father. If Celsus has heard something of certain Persons holding that the Son of GOD is not the Son of the Creator of the Universe,that is a Matter which lies between him and the Supporters of such an Opinion.
Book 8 Chapter 14
And it is he whom we call *Son of GOD-Son of that GOD,* namely,whom,to quote the Words of Celsus, we most highly reverence; and *he is the Son who has been most highly exalted by the FATHER. Grant that there may be some Individuals among the Multitudes of Believers who are not in entire Agreement with us,and who incautiously assert that the Saviour is the Most High GOD; however,we do not hold with them,but rather believe him when he says:“The FATHER who sent me is greater than I.“
We would not therefore make him whom we call FATHER inferior - as Celsus accuses us of doing -
to the Son of GOD.
*
Book 8 Chapter 15
For we who say that the visible World is under the Government to him who created all Things,do thereby declare *that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to him.And this Belief we ground on the saying of Jesus himself:“The Father who sent Me is greater than I.“
*
Commentary On The Book of John
Book 2 Chapter 2
GOD on the one Hand is Very GOD (Autotheos,GOD of himself); *and so the Saviour says in his Prayer to the FATHER,John 17:3: “ That they may know you the only true GOD“;* but that all beyond the very GOD is made God by Participation in his Divinity,and is not to be called simply GOD
(with the Article),but rather God (without Article).
And thus the *first-born of all Creation, who is the first to be with GOD,and to attract to himself Divinity,is a being of more exalted Rank than the other gods beside him,* of whom GOD is the GOD,
as it is written:
“The GOD of gods,the LORD,has spoken and called the Earth.
*It was by the Offices of the first-born that they became gods,for he drew from GOD in generous Measure that they should be made gods,and he communicated it to them according to his own Bounty.
*
The true GOD, then, is The GOD, and those who are formed after him are gods, Images, as it were, of him the Prototype.
But the archetypal Image,again,of all these Images is *the Word of GOD,who was in the Beginning,and who by being with GOD* is at all times God,not possessing that of himself,but by his Being with the FATHER,and not continuing to be God,if we should think of this, *except by remaining always in uninterrupted Contemplation of the Depths of the FATHER.
*
Tertullian
against Praxeas
Chapter 2
We,however,as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete,who leads Men indeed into all Truth), *believe that there is one only GOD,* but under the following Dispensation,or οἰκονομία,as it is called, *that this one only GOD has also a Son,* his Word,who proceeded from himself,by whom all Things were made,and without whom nothing was made.
Chapter 4
Now,from this one Passage of the Epistle of the inspired Apostle,we have been already able to show that the FATHER and the Son are two separate Persons,not only by the Mention of their separate Names as FATHER and the Son,but also by the Fact that he who delivered up the Kingdom,and he to whom it is delivered up-and in like Manner,he who subjected (all Things),and he to whom they were subjected- must necessarily be two different Beings.
Chapter 7
He became also the Son of GOD,and was begotten when he proceeded forth from HIM.
Chapter 8
We declare that the Son is a Prolation from the FATHER,without being separated from HIM.
For GOD sent forth the Word,as the Paraclete also declares,just as the Root puts forth the Tree,
and the Fountain the River,and the Sun the Ray.
For these are προβολαί,or Emanations,of the Substances from which they proceed.
I should not hesitate,indeed,to call the Tree the Son or Offspring of the Root,and the River of the Fountain,and the Ray of the Sun; because every original Source is a Parent,and everything which issues from the Origin is an Offspring.
Much more is (this true of) the Word of GOD,who has actually received as his own peculiar Designation the Name of Son.
Chapter 9
For the FATHER is the entire Substance,but the Son is a Derivation and Portion of the Whole,
as he himself acknowledges:
“My FATHER is greater than I.“- John 14:28
Thus the FATHER is distinct from the Son,being greater than the Son,inasmuch as he who begets is one,and he who is begotten is another;
HE,too,who sends is one,and he who is sent is another;and HE,again,who makes is one,and he through whom the Thing is made is another.
Chapter 12
Now if he too is GOD,according to John,(who says,)The Word was God in John 1:1,
then you have two Beings.
One that commands that the Thing be made,
and the other that executes the Order and creates.
If the Number of the Trinity also offends you,as if it were not connected in the simple Unity,
I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular,to speak in plural Phrase, saying:
“Let us make Man in our own Image,and after our own Likeness“- Genesis 1:26
whereas he ought to have said:
“Let me make Man in my own Image,and after my own Likeness,as being a unique and singular Being?
In the following Passage,however:“Behold the Man has become as one of us“-Genesis 3:22
he is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally,if he is One only and singular.
Or was it to the Angels that he spoke,as the Jews interpret the Passage,because these also acknowledge not the Son?
Or was it because he was at once the FATHER,the Son,and the Spirit,that he spoke to himself in plural Terms,making himself plural on that very Account?
Nay,it was because he had already his Son close at his Side,as a second Person,his own Word,
and a third Person also,the Spirit in the Word,that he purposely adopted the plural Phrase:
“Let us make“;and,“in our Image“;and,“become as one of us.“
Chapter 13
For we,who by the Grace of GOD possess an Insight into both the Times and the Occasions of the sacred Writings,especially we who are Followers of the Paraclete,not of human Teachers,do indeed definitively declare that two Beings are GOD,the FATHER and the Son.
I will therefore not speak of gods at all,nor of lords,but I shall follow the Apostle;so that if the FATHER and the Son,are alike to be invoked,I shall call the FATHER GOD,and invoke Jesus Christ as Lord.
Romans 1:7 But when Christ alone (is mentioned),I shall be able to call him God,as the same Apostle says:Of whom is Christ,who is over all,God blessed forever.
Romans 9:5 For I should give the Name of Sun even to a Sunbeam,considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the Sun from which the Ray emanates,I certainly should at once withdraw the Name of Sun from the mere Beam.
For although I make not two Suns,still I shall reckon both the Sun and its Ray to be as much two Things and two Forms of one undivided Substance,as GOD and his Word,as the FATHER and the Son.
more in comment below....
Chapter 17
And as for the FATHER´S Names,“GOD Almighty“,“the MOST HIGH“,“the LORD of Hosts“,“the King of Israel“, „the One that is“,we say (for so much do the Scriptures teach us) that they belonged suitably to the Son also,and that the Son came under these Designations,and has always acted in them,and has thus manifested them in himself to Men.
All things,says he,which the FATHER has are mine.John 16:15 Then why not his Names also?When,therefore,you read of Almighty GOD,and the MOST HIGH,and the GOD of Hosts,and the King of Israel,the One that is,consider whether the Son also be not indicated by these Designations,who in his own Right is GOD Almighty,in that he is the Word of Almighty GOD,and has received Power over all; is the MOST HIGH,in that he is exalted at the right Hand of GOD,
as Peter declares in the Acts; Acts 2:22 is the LORD of Hosts,because all Things are by the FATHER made Subject to him; is the King of Israel because to him has especially been committed the Destiny of that Nation; and is likewise the One that is,because there are many who are called Sons,but are not.
Chapter 18
For,without any Detriment to the Son,it is quite possible for it to have rightly determined that GOD is only One,to whom the Son belongs; since he who has a Son ceases not on that Account to exist- himself being One only,that is,on his own Account,whenever he is named without the Son.
And he is named without the Son whenever he is defined as the Principle (of Deity) in the Character of its first Person,which had to be mentioned before the Name of the Son; because it is the FATHER who is acknowledged in the first Place,and after the FATHER the Son is named.
Therefore there is one GOD,the FATHER,and without him there is none else.
Suppose the Sun to say,I am the Sun,and there is none other besides me,except my Ray,would you not have remarked how useless was such a Statement,as if the Ray were not itself reckoned in the Sun? He says,then,that there is no god besides himself in Respect of the Idolatry both of the Gentiles as well as of Israel; nay,even on Account of our Heretics also,who fabricate Idols with their Words,just as the Heathen do with their Hands; that is to say,they make another GOD and another Christ.
When,therefore,he attested his own Unity,the FATHER took care of the Son's Interests,that Christ should not be supposed to have come from another god,but from him who had already said:
“I am GOD and there is none other beside me“,who shows us that he is the only GOD.
Chapter 22
He therefore adds to this very Statement,that he had showed them many Works from the FATHER,
for none of which did he deserve to be stoned.John 10:32
And to prevent their Thinking him deserving of this Fate,as if he had claimed to be considered as GOD himself,that is,the FATHER,by having said:
“I and my FATHER are One“,
representing himself as the FATHER´S divine Son,and not as GOD himself,he says:
“If it is written in your Law,I said,you are gods; and if the Scripture cannot be broken,say of him whom the FATHER has sanctified and sent into the World,that he blasphemes,because he said:
“I am the Son of GOD?If I do not the Works of my FATHERbelieve me not; but if I do,even if you will not believe me,still believe the Works; and know that I am in the FATHER,and the FATHER in me.“
It must therefore be by the Works that the FATHER is in the Son,and the Son in the FATHER; and so it is by the Works that we understand that the FATHER is one with the Son.
All along did he therefore strenuously aim at this Conclusion,that while they were of one Power and Essence,they should still be believed to be Two
Chapter 24
This,then,being the Case,it was not the FATHER whom,after his lengthened Intercourse with them,they were ignorant of,but it was the Son; and accordingly the Lord,while upbraiding Philip for not knowing himself who was the Object of their Ignorance,wished himself to be acknowledged indeed as that Being whom he had reproached them for being ignorant of after so long a Time in a Word,as the Son.
Chapter 26
Nothing which belongs to something else is actually the very same Thing as that to which it belongs. Clearly,when anything proceeds from a personal Subject,and so belongs to him,since it comes from him,it may possibly be such in quality exactly as the personal Subject himself is from whom it proceeds, and to whom it belongs.And thus the Spirit is GOD,and the Word is God,because proceeding from GOD,but yet is not actually the very same as he from whom he proceeds.
Tertullian against Hermogenes - Chapter 3
I maintain that the Substance existed always with its own Name,which is GOD; the title LORD was afterwards added,as the Indication indeed of something accruing.
For from the Moment when those Things began to exist,over which the Power of a LORD was to act,GOD,by the Accession of that Power,both became LORD and received the Name thereof.
Because GOD is in like Manner a FATHER,and HE is also a Judge; but HE has not always been FATHER and Judge,merely on the Ground of HIS having always been GOD.
For HE could not have been the FATHER previous to the Son,nor a Judge previous to Sin.
There was,however,a Time when neither Sin existed with HIM,nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the LORD a Judge,and the latter a FATHER.In this Way HE was not LORD previous to those Things of which HE was to be the LORD.But HE was only to become LORD at some future Time:
just as HE became the FATHER by the Son,and a Judge by Sin,so also did HE become LORD by means of those Things which HE had made,in Order that they might serve HIM.
Irenaeus against Heresies - Book 1,Chapter 9
For when John,proclaiming one GOD,the Almighty,and one Jesus Christ,the only-begotten,by whom all Things were made,declares that this was the Son of GOD,this the only-begotten,this the Former of all Things,this the true Light who enlighteneth every Man,this the Creator of the World,this he that came to his own,this he that became Flesh and dwelt among us
Irenaeus against Heresies - Book 3,Chapter 9
This,therefore,having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still more clearly),that neither the Prophets,nor the Apostles,nor the Lord Christ in his own Person,did acknowledge any other LORD or GOD,but the GOD and LORD supreme:
the Prophets and the Apostles confessing the FATHER and the Son; but naming no other as GOD,
and confessing no other as LORD: and the Lord himself handing down to His Disciples,that HE,
the FATHER,is the only GOD and LORD,who alone is GOD and Ruler of all; it is incumbent on us to follow,if we are their Disciples indeed,their testimonies to this Effect.
Irenaeus against Heresies - Book 4,Chapter 1
Since,therefore,this is sure and stedfast,that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit,except him who,as GOD,rules over all,together with his Word,and those who receive the Spirit of Adoption,that is,those who believe in the one and true GOD,and in Jesus Christ the Son of GOD; and likewise that the Apostles did of themselves Term no one else as GOD,or Name (no other) as LORD; and,what is much more important,(since it is true) that our Lord (acted likewise),who did also command us to confess no one as FATHER,except him who is in the Heavens,who is the one GOD and the one FATHER.
Now to whom is it not clear,that if the Lord had known many Fathers and gods,he would not have taught His Disciples to know (only) one GOD,and to call him alone FATHER?
But he did the rather distinguish those who by Word merely (verbo tenus) are termed gods,
from him who is truly GOD,that they should not err as to his Doctrine,nor understand one (in Mistake) for another.
And if he did indeed teach us to call one Being FATHER and GOD,while he does from Time to Time himself confess other Fathers and gods in the same Sense,then he will appear to enjoin a different Course upon his Disciples from what he follows himself.
Irenaeus against Heresies - Book 2,Chapter 28
For consider,all ye who invent such Opinions,since the FATHER himself is alone called GOD,
who has a real Existence,but whom ye style the Demiurge; since,moreover,the Scriptures acknowledge HIM alone as GOD; and yet again,since the Lord confesses him alone as his own FATHER,and knows no other,as I shall show from his very Words
Against Hermogenes - Chapter 18
Indeed,as soon as he perceived it to be necessary for his Creation of the World,he immediately creates it,and generates it in himself.
The Lord,says the Scripture,possessed me,the Beginning of his Ways for the Creation of his Works.
Before the Worlds HE founded me; before HE made the Earth,before the Mountains were settled in their Places; moreover,before the Hills HE generated me,and prior to the Depths was I begotten.
Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Wisdom of GOD is declared to be born and created,
for the special Reason that we should not suppose that there is any other Being than GOD alone who is unbegotten and uncreated.
For if that,which from its Being inherent in the Lord was of him and in him,was yet not without a Beginning-I mean his Wisdom,which was then born and created, when in the Thought of GOD it began to assume Motion for the Arrangement of his creative Works-how much more impossible is it that anything should have been without a Beginning which was extrinsic to the Lord!
But if this same Wisdom is the Word of GOD,in the Capacity of Wisdom,and (as being he) without whom nothing was made
With respect to early church fathers they also had bad doctrines. They should be viewed a commentary but not authority. Not even those who hold to them as authority believe everything they did. Especially the idea sins after baptism not being forgiven.
Re: Rapture History and Darby.
Darby was a Solicitor for the Crown, I think, not a mathematician. I see no way he could consider his reading of "harpazo" would require a future understanding of a field of physics yet to be imagined in his era.
Any understanding of harpazo, will come from physics. Because it is a phenomenon involving the nature of matter, and it's behavior, an understanding of matter is required. The North American Church has significant anti-modern issues. To be "saved" during the Modernist/Fundamentalists war era, partialy meant a hostile disposition to anything labeled as modern.
So, one can not understand harpazo, without reexamining words introduced to us in Genesis ch.1: Light, Waters, Divide, Firmament.ect.
When Jacob saw the angels at Bethel-Luz, my position is he witnessed harpazo as they ascended. Harpazo is misunderstood if visualized as an event. However if someone outlives this age, they don't get penalized for such s thing. Nor is it like going out of bounds in football. Survivors would need to be collected at expiration of regulation time.
The lack of importance in Scripture to awaiting a harpazo is this: A person enters the life to come through death and Resurrection. But, somebody somewhere will outlive the Church, and not see death.
The blessed hope is not harpazo. It is to be changed, at the Resurrection. Change that comes after the process of death.
Edit- Harpazo is crossing of the what Physics calls an event horizon. Genesis call it Firmament. Daniel, The Great Sea. Revelation, discribed a sea of glass. ect. The Elders of Israel saw it from beneath and discribed it like a mosiac.
Rapture before tribulation not so much
The tribulation is not for the church, its for the Jews to repent and see Jesus as messiah. We do not need to prove our love by going through any tribulation, either the cross of Christ saved us or it didn’t.
@@drewstillwell6016 Gathering of his elect in Matthew 24 after the tribulation is what group of people?
@@drewstillwell6016 those who desire to live a Godly life in Christ Jesus will suffer tribulation. 2 Tim 3:12
@@drewstillwell6016 there's no future tribulation. This is a contrived Doctrine. Research partial Preterism it will absolutely be a game changer
@@jeffm8423 "*Gathering of his elect in Matthew 24 after the tribulation is what group of people?*"
No where in Matthew 24 are those people, that you're specifically talking about, called the elect. Actually, Jesus referred to them as the ones who rejected Noah's dire message. So, the answer to your question is summed up in Luke 17 verses 31-37 (emphasis on 37). I guess you could call them the tares, or goats.
This video made me lose hope in Christianity if you guys are true representatives and expressions of a personal relationship with the creator of the universe. You guys, all 3 of you, are in your head, speaking about God as an ideology. If Christianity were a gateway to direct experience, direct relationship with God it wouldn't look like you guys being in your head and mental ideas about words in a book. You would speak from experience.
If someone asked you about your dad, you wouldn't be referring to a book and debating how he is and what he thinks and feels. "Oh I'm a Baptist son of the living God thats the kind of relationship I have with my dad". Really?
You would refer to your own experience with him. And if it was unclear you could ask him yourself.
"My sheep hear my voice". You are not in his flock if this is all you've got.
Why would you assume we have no experience with God? Paul was told “your great learning has driven you mad.” His scholarship was evident to all. We are a theology broadcast, not a show of testimonials. Those have their place and we have plenty of testimonies. But it’s pretty judgmental to assume that someone who talks about theology on a theology broadcast has no experience with God.
It’s a dangerous position to put experience and emotions on a pedestal over Scripture and the intellectual pursuit of understanding Scripture that is theology. THIS is the failure of the typical charismatic in that we put our personal experience as the determining factor in how we view our faith. It’s this anti intellectualism that is killing the current generation in relation to the Charismatic movement
@@mattbaldwin247 So its dangerous to pursue the promises Christ left his followers, such as a personal relationship with the living God. Or being able to hear his voice.
And therefore we should settle for a relationship that consists of studying scripture through our internal dialog and the internal dialog of others who agree that its dangerous to believe or pursue the basic promises Christ left his followers
@@michaelrowntree2005 Based on the hour long discussion it's pretty self evident the majority of your (and the other's) relationship with God is your relationship to an idea or dialog in your head about what you believe the text says and not direct relationship.
One of the greatest claims of scripture is that through Christ you have a personal relationship with the *living* God.
Watch your livestream again and tell me sincerely if you really get the impression that any of those 3 guys on there have a "personal relationship with the living God" based on what comes out of their mouth or being.
Shouldn't the personal relationship with the living God, who is now your Father, make it self evident to you what he meant?
"My sheep hear my voice".
Not apparent from this livestream.
Do you hear his voice?
It seems internal dialog about scripture (religion/denomination) is sufficient enough a spiritual life for you.
@beyond the veil honestly don't know how you are reading into my comment like you are. Balance is where its at my friend. When we stress one to much over the other we fall into the dangers of legalism (hyperintellectualism) or mysticism (hyper-charismatic, experience driven). This video is evidence of the struggle to articulate balance while your comment reveals more of the NAR theology unfortunately.
At 18:18 your guest makes the same point I’ve heard Michael Heiser make- the NT was written FOR the 1st Century followers of Christ, and in order to grasp the original meaning without superimposing 21st Century ideology into it, we need to humbly attempt to let it speak for itself from the context. Thanks for having this discussion.