Why I am not Reformed
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2018
- This is a clip from a podcast in which I answered a listener question about why I left the Reformed church. This gives a basic overview of some of the reasons, though they are much more extensive than can be explained here.
The full podcast is here:
• Q&A Live Podcast Recor...
Help us out on Patreon:
/ justandsinner
Thank you! You're the first Lutheran UA-camr I've found and I'll definitely be watching more of your videos on the Reformed tradition. I'm a new believer and attend a Reformed church. I love love LOVE the community there, their high view of Scripture, and rich expository preaching. I am simply a child of God searching for the treasures of truth within Scripture, and your videos will help me do that. I will always love my church (and Jonathan Edwards) but, as I read more and more Scripture, I cannot help but feel the Reformed tradition does not fully capture God's unified message to us.
This is the first? Check out Lutheran Satire haha
Watch pastor Wolfmuller. Simply brilliant
I love hearing critiques of the Reformed tradition from someone who is so informed and friendly. Have been a follower of your channel for a long time and have listened to your concerns, as well as others, and I am still very comfortably settled within the Reformed tradition. What is so fascinating to me is how some doctrines are seen as weak from other perspectives when I find them so strong. You brought up Perseverance of the Saints as one, and if my knowledge is correct, I think this was even a difficulty at the Counsel of Dordt! I have tried going over the NT time and time again and the doctrine seems so obvious (Acknowledged I have my own biases and presuppositions). I'm sure these things will be a lifelong journey of discipleship. One thing I have appreciated greatly from your channel is the historic polemics between Lutheran and Catholic theologians and I can say that we Reformed folk can learn A LOT from our Lutheran brothers on this topic. So thankful for your ministry!
Lutheran greetings from an ex-Reformed guy! I've subscribed and
my like is #100 :)
3:12. I thought almsgiving like Chrysostom said is a way God forgives sins is actually stated in the Lutheran confessions as an affirmarion? I can't remember where. Can u comment on that?
I'm a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church and I've always felt like the episcopal polity was so obvious from the early church texts and even the NT like epistles to Timothy etc. However recently I started to delve more deeply into this topic and I found out that there used to be a different meaning to the word „episcopos“ in the NT and the apostolic fathers like 1Clem, Didache and even Hermas. Only with Ignatius we have a shift toward a more centralized organization.. so basically I'm not sure what to think anymore. It is kinda frustrating that there is not a single unambiguous solution to this dilemma.. It feels like we're only left to differing opinions and having preferences
+Y. Nikolich Yes, you are right about that. I think the solution is simply to say that the New Testament does not necessitate any one particular polity.
I agree about church government. It's almost as if the Reformed project is more of an attempt to re-assert a Roman Catholic style view of the Church onto the Reformation, by instituting different, but still divinely ordained structures. This also ties into Law and Gospel issues as well, since the transformationalism implicit in the Reformed assumptions is there behind the desire to transform church government into a more godly form. This isn't simply about returning to clear preaching of the Gospel, but a desire to rid the Church of perceived "idolatry" in a broad sense.
There are some churches such as the early Anglicans, however, that did not reject episcopal polity. However I doubt many modern, conservative Reformed Christians would recognize Anglicanism as Reformed.
Episkopos (overseer, bondslave who looks after his master's household) and presbyteros (elder) are used of the same authoritative office in the New Testament, as apostolic successors leading the churches, but almost immediately the term bishop was reserved for the chief presbyter (priest). Some churches viewed bishops as mere protopresbyters (archpriests), first among equals, but most considered priests as having a derived authority from the singular bishop of the city/diocese. The Ignatian vision of a monarchical episcopate was universalized at Nicaea.
There is room for various approaches and interpretations while accepting the episcopal polity as faithful to the biblical and apostolic model, but congregationalism's idea of one pastor answerable only to the people in his own parish and presbyterianism's peculiar division of ruling and teaching elders are decidedly not what the apostolic or postapostolic writers had in mind. The Orthodox threefold clerical model is consistent with Scripture and was normative for early Christian churches.
@@DrJordanBCooper is Catholicism heretical?
Always glad to hear from an ex-reformed Lutheran like myself. I made the change almost 35 years ago from the Reformed Church of America. Lutheranism is the way to go. I have never regretted it for a moment.
ua-cam.com/video/XyFuaXlYo8Q/v-deo.html
I'm going through it right.now. leaving the URCNA.
So true
the way to go is Jesus and a right hermaneutical approach to the scripture. denominationalism is not the answer.
Lutheran theology is anti-biblical, but okay.
I am on the same journey you went through. Returning to the Lutheran Church I was baptized into as a baby . The Liturgy and Sacraments, theology, and other smaller issues drawing me. Informed my reformed pastor this week. Found a wonderful faithful LCMS church nearby.
What about plural elders and deacons appointed in every church?
Just a couple of questions, doesn’t acts describe a kind of church govern in the response to circumcision? And also how does limited atonement fall apart?
What are your thoughts about the CREC?
Who is the church father you mention at around the 2:50 mark?
st. john chrysostom
Maybe you could do in a video explaining what the Lutheran view of church government is. Because having bishops and a hierarchical structure did not prevent the Roman Catholic Church from going into grave error. I do see the idea of elders being appointed in every city. So maybe you have already addressed this but if not that would be interesting.
More and more, I'm thinking that a lot of these controversies, scandals and disagreements various sects have that go so far beyond anything that Christ or the apostles taught aren't actually as important as people make them out to be. A lot of it ultimately all boils down to arguing over abstract ideas that are beyond our natural comprehension anyway, and clearly Cbrist himself didn't feel it all that necessary for us to have clear answers to a lot of the things that have preoccupied our minds for so long. Otherwise, he would've actually told us. I think it's important to agree on how we ought to live lives of love toward others and that there are certain core beliefs we have to agree on for a baseline (a lot of stuff like the apostles creed and maybe even the first few ecumenical councils that were really focused on hammering out the basics if Christian identity, but debate and disagreement has always been an element of the community of Christ since day one. Having come from a more reformed background and having explored the various avenues, I wholeheartedly believe that the truth matters, but I also think that nobody actually, verifiably knows half as much as they think they do and that everybody's right about certain things and wrong about others. Following Christ and Christian faith is supposed to be simple enough that a child could wholly embrace it, and while I too am academically and philosophically minded, it kind of feels like all of the academics and philosophers, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike, have so thoroughly convoluted and over complicated what was kind of supposed to have a degree of beautiful simplicity and accessibility to everyone because the gospel is supposed to be for everyone, not just for the academics and philosophers who burden the unwashed masses with their endless traditions lthat don't actually bring pepple closer to godly living in a relationship of love toward God and fellow man like Jesus criticized the Jewish religious leaders for doing. Who knows? Lots of people are probably gonna tell me I'm completely off base, and maybe I am, but that's kinda where I'm at with this whole thing. As far as I'm concerned, do you have the fundamental, core doctrines down, and do you actually try to teach following Christ and strive ti live that example of faith and love toward others in practice? If you do, I embrace you as a brother or sister in Christ. Anything beyond that I leave for God to judge.
That is a magnificent beard!
ua-cam.com/video/XyFuaXlYo8Q/v-deo.html
@@davido3026
Figures .. "A Lutheran in Reverse" ???
(The bogeyman of the RCC is Luther!)
S. Hahn was a Presbyterian (i.e. a
"Reformed" Calvinist), not a Lutheran.
beards are reformed... look at Calvin's.. then look at luther's...
If I may ask, how does one circumvent definite atonement with Ephesians 5:25? *just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,*
Why don’t Lutherans believe in expository preaching? I’ve been a Lutheran my whole life (WELS) and have recently been exposed to expository preaching in a reformed church and it seems to be very worthwhile. Thanks in advance for your answer (maybe a video?).
I was a Calvinist for 20 plus years and am now a Lutheran by the grace of God. My "name" is Reformed Christian online because the Lutherans were the original reformers not the Calvinist. Why should they get the name reformed as if they started the reformation or was the main religious movement. Just saying. God's peace
Actually it was Augustine, in fact Luther claimed to be an augustian. Whether you’re reformed or not it doesn’t change the truth of the gospel. I’ll always hold to reformed theology because it is fully biblical and God gets all of the glory for our salvation, not us.
“ Why should they get the name reformed as if they started the reformation or was the main religious movement.”
Because Lutheranism is closer to “Papistry” than Calvinism was or aspired to be. The difference is well-illustrated by their attitudes to the *adiaphora* :
Lutheranism - crucifixes in church, though not commanded in Scripture, are not forbidden either, therefore Christian freedom can lawfully allow them a place in Divine worship;
Calvinism - whatever Scripture, the Word of God, does not command or allow in Divine worship, is to be given no place in Divine worship.
The difference in approach is interesting, because each approach is the converse of the other.
I WAS PCA for around 20 years before becoming Lutheran (LCMS) Peace
Interesting sidenote, Jordan: it seems that John Wesley also had a view of the sacraments that was far closer to Luther than it was to modern Methodism, which sees the sacraments as merely symbolic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wesley
@ J. Dean
Regarding John Wesley's view on the sacraments ….
"John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy" [PDF]
www.scribd.com/document/21551512/John-Wesley-Eastern-Orthodoxy
As Reformed not identical with Calvin as I reject double predestination, I respect the Lutherans and learn from them. If one learns and reads their own theology only and no other then you will have blind spots that you may never know about.
@Biblical Theology
Isn’t it true the Calvinists that don’t adhere to double predestination as equal ultimacy? I am not picking a fight I just want to understand better. If you could recommend any links to read or watch I would truly appreciate them.
@@pateunuchity884 Hey bro, sorry for the late reply.
Yeah, I know many Reformed argue out of consistency and logic, I think it goes against the clear teaching of Scripture sometimes. I see the teaching of God desires all saved and believe God calls and invites all to be saved, also the view Christ died for all especially for the elect (this is within the Reformed confessions acceptable, especially Heidelberg catechism).
Romans 9 I think may be the only support of double predestination, you need more passages to prove a doctrine not just one passage of Scripture.
I would recommemd Jordan Cooper exegesis of Romans 9, also Lutheran commentaries such as Kreitzman commentary of Romans 9, I can look them up for you.
6:00 I actually found the opposite in both cases of "perseverance of the saints" and "limited atonement".
You make a really good point at the end about Lutheranism giving pastors good tools in Law and Gospel. That is my experience as well. In every other church, it seems there's a tendency for laity to b seen primarily as objects that belong to the church, that can just be told "the way things are" and they can like it or lump it. Lutheranism actually seriously takes into consideration human subjectivity, and realizes how you say things is just as important as what you say.
Do you think The Didache, perhaps the earliest Christian writing outside the NT, teaches baptismal regeneration? Also, I'm not so sure going with the Apostolic Fathers concerning church government should be a rule, per se, as when you read through their writings they almost all move away from Paul's justification by faith teaching. In fact, it is quite shocking. So, if their soteriology is weak, perhaps their ecclesiology is also errant.
Your original video on the differences between the two was very helpful. I leaned more towards Reformed untill the past while, and so showing Lutheran understanding on these maters was poignant
I have a couple others on the differences on specific topics coming out.
Good stuff. Cannot wait.
Do you believe that evil is restrained and ultimately controlled by God? In other words, “The devil is on a leash.” Then what of this scripture, “But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.” Is this not a judicial blindness allowed by God? We are all born blind.
I have always had reformed leanings but not completely because I am more Baptist in my understanding. Thank you for your clear and concise presentation.
Check out the reformed baptists, the 1689 London Baptist Confession really brings those two things together. Also I believe the reformed baptists understanding of covenant theology has worked out a lot of the bugs that are in a more presbyterion covenant theology
Doctrines of men vary greatly, and many end up lost for trusting the fallible. Instead of going to the source The Word itself, it happened even with the "experts" of the Law in Jesus days that were responsible for His very crucifixion. In seeing different beliefs and how they are founded on men's views I realize that I must just stick to how I learned Of Christ when I met Him and He changed my heart. Holding to that Truth. We are fallen and in need of Jesus redemptive power to be free from sin and from the deceit of this World.
Not so, my friend. What you - and everybody - are to do is to take these differences in truth seriously and look out for the one Gospel. Amid so many man-made ones...
Do not trust your feelings, my friend; show Him your love for the truth...!
I'm really getting into your stuff as a former Evangelical leaning Charismatic turned atheist now looking back to faith. I would say not to downplay the existential stuff. It's an honest part of anyone's journey that no one is above. Also from a philosophical perspective I think that it unavoidably informs our judgements. What ultimately convinces a person of what is true are what the most intuitive conclusions are to them in comparing propositions, their arguments, and evidence. These judgements aren't all emotional and they are informed by our experiences in our particular journeys.
You mention "our judgement", "our experiences", "our journey". That's the evangelical/charismatic way of thinking. The way a Lutheran thinks is, it is not about how I feel about "me" at all (and wow, thank God for that! because I'm a mess!). It's about how God feels about me, or more accurately that he loves me so much more than I even love myself, and he knows me fully. Do experiences/emotions affect your judgement - certainly. But your judgments are irrelevant to the Truth. The Truth goes on with or without you.
@@johnm821 But, truth has to be subjectively apprehended by the heart and intellect, and then judged and recognised to be true. Truth is useless and meaningless otherwise. Mere dead impersonal intellectualism is utterly valueless for converting the heart of man. Merely objective truth is worthless, because it is not grasped personally, and thus, by the human person subjectively taking hold of it.
Faith is a relation. and believing is an act relative to someone or something else. But mere objective unapprehended truth not grasped by a believer subjectively laying hold of it, is truth that, in such a case, is not laid hold of personally, so it has no relation to the person who does not believe it. It is, for that person, a useless abstraction, if the person is even aware of it.
But personal experiences enter into the heart of man, and become elements in who a man is, so they cannot simply be treated as non-existent or unimportant - they are neither. Human subjectivity is part of what makes it possible for the “I” of the believer to say “Thou” to God. Without existing as subjective self-aware persons, people cannot be in a relation of faith, either to God, or to anything. Faith is given to living human personal subjects, with lives full of their subjectively-possessed experiences - not to impersonal robots or to corpses, nor even to angels.
Praying for you brother. Any news on your journey?
@@nicford1486 Still open. On the one hand I am genuinely grateful for the concern. On the other hand I think some of the motivations for these kinds of concerns which illicit prayerful responses are problematic. Why is there this heartfelt cause for concern that we don't really find mirrored outside of religious discussion? The issue is that this is often a response motivated by the worry that the person they are praying for is going to be tormented for all eternity in hell. I do my best to push back on this motivation as I see it as far too big an influence on people's ability to form beliefs objectively.
@@blamtasticful I understand. Heartfelt concerns is better received when the same person has been there for you in the other matters of life. Especially the non religious, and even the small trivial matters that can seem to bother us.
I hope you are able to navigate these waters with success. Life is hard and complicated enough as it is; particularly when God is involved. It shifts everything else in life.
Very informative. Thank you
This is my 3rd time watching this. It gets better each time. I too was once also reformed but also after studying the church fathers, it made me rethink similar things, especially about the sacraments, church gov. and the possibility of apostasy. So now, I read the Bible very differently. I've shifted to a strange eclectic mixture of lutheranism on justification and the sacraments, but to mostly Wesleyanism in the areas of mission and sanctification in the Christian life. Now I'm becoming confirmed as an Anglican later this year.
@David Ortiz Not every Protestant church or church member openly celebrates sin. I would never align myself to such a church, which you seem to suggest rather strongly. If you knew me, you'd know that my daily prayer and goal is God himself... thru Jesus and to enjoy fellowship and union with him in his death, burial, and resurrection as deeply as possible by the work of the Holy Spirit. "Unless two walk together, how can they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3).
@David Ortiz Anglicans of the non-calvinistic kind have been around since at least since the 200's A.D.
@@peacengrease3901 The Anglican faith is confessionally aligned with the reformed faith in the 39 articles. Sadly there is a great deal of apostasy within Anglicanism.
“There is NOT a tradition that teaches just like the fathers.” 8000% true! It’s funny, when I was younger I read through the apostolic fathers. While my reading was obviously cursory, it was abundantly evident that the religions of Rome and Constantinople are very serious departures from the early church.
You tube videos full of people transferring to this church or that church. Many of these people have a problem with orthodox teachings of the Bible.
C.H. Spurgeon is perhaps the most balanced I’ve studied. He had the right mix of Sovereignty and human responsibility. When you study it, the New Testament writers have the same balance. Even Jesus, I see verses on human responsibility; the ability to change your circumstances by right action, and also the inability to believe in some of the same passages. We should carry the load of biblical responsibility shrewdly with similar balance.
Spurgeon held to the reformed baptist position.
RisingDawn sure he did. It’s the most biblical approach you can take. Election is a biblical doctrine that doesn’t go away because some people don’t see any value in it. God chooses to love according to his own heart, not according to our version of what we think that should look like. I’m not sure what your position is, but the Bible does teach human responsibility. It also teaches inability. We must not allow human responsibility to. ASSUME ability. (John 6). (2nd Cor 4:4-6). Etc etc etc
@@godslittleman5451 Though I'm not a baptist like Mr Spurgeon, I heartily agree with his reformed theology and admire him greatly. I'm completely in agreement that the Bible teaches both human responsibility and divine sovereignty and we ought to upohld both.
I totally agree with you on Church Fathers. The beginning of this video could have been part of your video why you are not Eastern-Orthodox. Unfortunately, some EO believe in the Church Fathers (and try to reconcile their opposing views), just as RCs believe in the pope of Rome.
The CC does not *believe in* the Pope. *Believing* and *believing in* are not the same. One *believes in* the Triune God - one *believes* authorities in the Church, under certain circumstances, given that of themselves, without the Divine assistance, they are nothing.
The difference is, that God is trustworthy in & of Himself. God is the Uncreated Primal Truth, without Whom no truth in creation is possible. *All other* authorities - Scripture, the Church, all clergy of all ranks, the Fathers - have no truth or value in them that does not come from God. All that they have of truth, being, and goodness, they have as creations of God; & because they are created, they can do and be nothing without God.
So it is inaccurate to use language that suggests that a created, dependent, secondary source of authority such as a Father or a bishop of a Council or a Pope or Scripture is on a par with God. The very thought is an absurdity.
Christians don’t *believe in* these created beings - they *believe* and therefore accept their testimony.
Similarly, no Christian *believes in* the devil, or angels - Christians *believe that* such beings exist. To *believe in* them, would be to trust them as God.
Christians don’t believe Peter, Paul, John or the other disciples merely because they are the human beings they are - they are believed because the testimony they bear is the testimony of the Holy Spirit acting through them. Christians *believe in* the Holy Spirit, Who witnesses in Christ’s Church - and one of the ways in which the Spirit witnesses to Christ, is through those who teach as Fathers, bishops or other pastors. The life of the Church, and of the Christian, is impossible without the Holy Spirit and His life-giving work & witness. To believe the testimony of those whom one is persuaded pasture the Church by Christ’s appointment, is acceptance, not of the human pastors, but of Christ Whose function of Shepherd they share in.
Catholics don’t *believe in* Popes, any more than Lutherans *believe in* Luther, or than Evangelicals *believe in* Moses, David, St Matthew or St Paul.
Condemning what a Church teaches because some of its members mistake or distort its teaching, is not a fair test of the doctrine itself - the existence of a forged will does not deprive the genuine will of its authority, meaning, or force. So it with doctrines. That a doctrine can in practice be open to criticism on Biblical, rational, ethical or other grounds, is true - but this is a different objection from the objection to it that is based on how it is popularly understood.
interesting to hear your views. i grew up in four square full gospel dispensational and our pastor came in my teen years and he was a presbyterian, calvanist, reformed but he didnt push his doctrinal agenda in our charismatic full gospel church BUT later in my adult years i moved away and tried alot of churches. I ended up in a presbyterian church and found out why i am dispensational and charismatic. it all goes back to the teachings of Paul the apostle and the mysteries he reveals for gentiles. these are the instructions to parse out all the complications of rightly dividing scripture. paul is the apostle unto the Gentiles and HIS GOSPEL, is not the gospel of the kingdom that was preached to israel before the cross. the church began later after the outpouring of the holy spirit and the revelations of grace to gentiles. and the mystery of the church (the one new man) and several other mysteries. most churches ignore pauls doctrine and go for simple sermons that are not theologically divisive to what people already believe.
Dr. (quick tech tip) when you have a smudge on your lens - your face and office will look foggy like they do
I know. This is an old video.
At 5:57 you asked the question, are the early church fathers were wrong in their church government theology?
My answer to you would be that there seems to be in your mind some kind of equal authority between the apostles and the early church fathers. Personally I take the pattern of the apostles and the church government that the Apostle Paul establishes on his missionary journeys as the model that God gave us.
which is that of multiple elders in a church. Just like the Reformed teach.
It seems to me that you are somehow falling into the idea that the church fathers have more authority apostle's, at least when it comes to church government.
As for the Reformed tradition, they hold to this church government which they find in the scriptures and and prove to be grounded on truth instead of on fallible human beings.
Shalom aleichem father..
ua-cam.com/video/XyFuaXlYo8Q/v-deo.html
Maybe you’re struggling with whether it is theology or anthropology that forms our theology. Looking to the self or looking to God as revealed in propositional truth verbally in the Bible.
Do you consider yourself a nominalist?
Absolutely not.
Do you consider Luther a nominalist?@@DrJordanBCooper
You should debate James White on one or more of these issues.
I challenged him to a debate once. He said no.
@Morgh123 I'm curious what the debate was on. When this was and how he was approached. I don't know if Dr. White has ever debated a Lutheran. He seems to specialize in Islam and Catholicism but he has taken on others.
@Morgh123 I'm actually trying to get Dr. White to address some of these issues on the Dividing Line. Specifically Radio Free Geneva.
@Morgh123 lets just say I know a guy that knows a guy that knows a guy.😁
Thanks for the video.
I learned a lot more about the Lutheran church. I'm more open-minded now to Protestant churches such as the Lutheran church. 😀👍
From a fellow (Eastern) Catholic.
My ancestors were part of the Church of the East, some 500 years back. But now I'm Catholic. I was born Catholic. God gave me this life. This gift. I did not choose my life. But rather it was given to me. As a Catholic. Into a Catholic family. I've thought a lot about theology and all. But ultimately I think it doesn't matter. Atleast for me. God chose this life for me. And that's all that matters.
BLOOM WHERE YOU ARE PLANTED 🤗
I AM CATHOLIC AND AM IGNORANT OF OTHERS FAITHS BUT LEARNING FAST
THE TRUE CHURCH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH MOST DO NOT APPRECIATE WHATWE HAVE
ALL OTHER CHURCHES ARE PROTESTANT CHURCH THAT LEFT FROM THE MARTIN LUTHER REFORMATION KINDS CUT THEMSELVES OFF WHICH IS SAD
David Ortiz
Explain trash 🗑
The Catholic Church is the one Church Appointed by Christ Jesus himself
And he dwells within it in the Tabernacle
David Ortiz
“I am The Bread that has come down from Heaven”
I go to Holy Mass daily when I can.
God is absolutely real in the Eucharist
I know this because I was given this singular gift
Dr jordan b Cooper, If one person is born from God, that means his heart of stone is removed and new heart of flesh is given (from Adam to Christ), and on that heart God has written His laws and to obey the law, God has given us His Holy Spirit permanently and sealed us with it. What I mean to say is, what God has done in us through Christ is not just superficial work but He has changed our roots (hearts)which were corrupted beyond repair. Now we are Born from God and are children of God and have Divine Nature of God inside us which wants us to please our Heavenly Father. Yes we sin sometimes but the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sins so after repenting we can always have fellowship with our Heavenly Father.
Going from reformed to Lutheran seems like a very small leap to me. Both still have one foot in the Roman church.
Not really
And where are your feet young sir? In the church of the Flower children.
@@pateunuchity884 Didn't see this sorry. My feet are in the Word of God, not man's theology.
@Philip Andrew Agreed.
If you think truth is more important than feelings then you are definitely on the right track. But historically did not Arius, Tertullian, Origen, Tyndale, Wesley, George Fox, Joseph Smith----and the worst one of all Martin Luther---put feelings ahead of truth? Did not Luther call reason a whore?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
@@snuurferalangur4357 Mainline Protestantism is not usually based on feelings but evangelical Christianity almost always is. "Hallelujah, brethren! The Holy Ghost moved my heart! I'm saved!! Saved, I tell you!! Born again! Sealed in Christ's Blood! I can now sin all I want and still go to Heaven because I had an emotional experience with Jesus!!! Hallelujah, brethren!!!"
I love your honesty, you are such a Westie, and unashamedly so ...
Intercession of the saints was part and parcel of every ecumenical council. If it is rejected you might as well say the church was wrong on everything else. It is illogical to accept the decrees as binding , eg the canon of scripture, and not accept the church has had this right. The intercession of the saints is the practical on going life of the church, just like the eucharist is.
The Lutheran Church has never put the councils on par with Scripture - for example, I Tim 2:5.
That is interesting if true. Could you please provide a reference?
Below is an archive of the canons.
www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/
I've been looking through the 7 councils and I can't find a thing about intersession of saints. Wanna throw me a bone?
Sorry bud, youre a bullshitter. No council is relevant to intercession of saints
@@bradenglass4753 That's how it seems. Unless you count Trent and later. But to call those "ecumenical" is like a cynical joke.
I was orthodox Presbyterian for many many years. I’m Lutheran now. But I agree with several points of Tulip. You talk too fast though 😉. Had to keep going back to re watch/ understand you lol.
I’m still confused as to how you claim to abandon reformed theology yet are a Lutheran. I know I am not capable of convincing you otherwise but Luther was one of the reformers. Any student of church history knows that none of the church fathers were perfect and only Jesus was but reformed theology is what got the church out of so many errors which plagued believers for a millennia.
Reformed Theology refers to the Theology of John Calvin, which is represented by "Reformed" Churches and Presbyterians. Lutherans disagree with Presbyterians on pretty fundamental issues.
Soldier, Lutherans only believe in total depravity (in tulip). The rest, I believe they disagree with.
I would agree and honest.
dispensationalism in my mind answers all the confusion of christian doctrinal and practice differences and abuses. by dispensationalism i mean not "classic dispensationalism" in all its finer points more dispenstional in understanding ages past, this present age, and the age to come. Also understanding "israelites in the flesh" "gentiles in the flesh" and the one new man mystery "the church" "the body of Christ", "the fellowship of the mystery" where there is "neither jew or gentile, neither slave or free, nor male or female" when you rightly divide scipture by Ages, people groups the bible books were written to with a "literal historical, contextual,grammatical, and typological interpretation you arrive at dispensational ideas if you have not been poisoned by denominational pressupositions and read the letters and epistles for the gentile church. understanding God has not forsaken nationa israel and has a future plan for them "the mystery of israel's future salvation" and "the mystery of his will, to unite everything in heaven and in earth (future) in the "millenium" the kingdom of God on earth reveals 3 unique groups of people in the kingdom "the bride of christ" returns with him at his coming in glorified bodies to rule and reign with him AND israelites saved in the tribulation and "tribulation saints" both having unglorified bodies likely. the purpose of the rapture is to select a bride for christ to go to the wedding supper, the purpose of the great tribulation is to "purify some" and to fulfill gods promises to the elect righteous remnant of ISRAEL and to judge the nations and pour out God's wrath on the wicked.
When Casiodoro de Reina sparked the little known Valencian Reformation, he very quickly had to flee the Inquisition to England. The Anglican Church welcomed him, but the Puritan Calvinists tried to have him jailed on false charges. Then he fled to Geneva, arriving on the very day Calvin approved the burning of fellow Spaniard, Servetus. De Reina wrote, "Calvin is worse than the Inquisition." He then fled to the Lutherans. They DID find De Reina's teachings heretical, but did NOT arrest or kill him. Instead, they dialogued with him, eventually coming to doctrinal agreement. He became the leader of all diaspora Spanish, Italian and Portuguese churches in Germany. He was also the first to complete a translation of the Bible, Luther's Catechisms, and the Augsburg Confessions into Spanish.
We should be building on the foundation of the apostles, prophets and Jesus, not church fathers.
The Portuguese taught the Dutch how to circumvent the world. Through trade, they became very rich. They did not want to share the money with poorer regions so they became heretics. They eradicated Indeginous everywhere they went
Theres just so many good and goofy things in every denomination. Right now i just consider myself Christian
I just realized I made that comment on this video about being reformed and I didn't want you the think that that's the direction I'm talking about. Every branch of the church right now is Off the Mark but obviously Roman Catholics are the farthest off and the reformed fellows you're a lot closer than you but they're still causing unnecessary division because of Augustine. Anywho I'll have you and the people who follow you using ecclesiastics 4 12 and Hebrews 4:12 and praying in the Spirit and setting people free in a couple years. I love you in the Lord be blessed
Good video, I'm am especially concerned with church governance and the institutional organization of the Church. So far, it's clear that there are only bishops and deacons. Bishops are to bring up every person into the perfect knowledge of Christ in doctrine and preach the word to the lost, and deacon are to see to the practical matters of the church living in one accord. Furthermore, Christ said that the church leadership will not be as the Gentiles, where they lord their authority, but those who seek to be the greatest will be servants (Luke 21). We have that thoroughly backwards today.
Open ur heart and rejoice
From your Church's website:
Scripture
We believe that the Holy Scriptures are God's inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word. The Bible does not simply contain the Word of God, but is the Word of God. Holy Scripture is the only infallible source of Christian doctrine and practice.
The bible is inspired and inerrant. Infallibility however is a human trait. It's a charism of the Church. Christ promised to lead his Church to *all* truth. He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail. He promised to be with it until the end of time. His protection, protects the Church from teaching what is false, as true. So when 4th century Catholic Bishops affirmed 27 books of the New Testament out of some 300+ early Christian writings, we can visible see Christ's promise.
However, these same 4th c Catholic Bishops affirmed 46 OT books. And they brought these 73 books into Church where they ALL presided over Mass. And none of them held to sola scriptura nor salvation by faith alone. And they all professed believe in the intercessory power of the Saints in heaven, those who are made righteous.
Of course, a Catholic priest some 1,100 years later said that they were all wrong. What authority he had to do so is a mystery. And saying after these 1,100 years that they error'd on the OT canon, 7 books not scripture according to him.
One wonders then about the trustworthiness of Jesus Christ.
_"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into _*_all_*_ the truth;"_ (Jn 16;13)
Evidently, Christ didn't mean what he said. And he let his Church error for these 1,100 years on multiple points, with no debate whatsoever.
Yet, someone without explanation, it was led to all truth on this NT canon or were mere men were able to get it right without error?
Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto; sicut erat in principio et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculorum. Amen.
#ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH! 📿💪
Pretty scattershot
The more I read and listen, the more I understand that the early church did have an Oral tradition which is not in the NT because it wasn’t needed to be, the church preserved it, much like the Jews preserving their scriptures. Most of the Nt is written to oppose challenges to the church and its doctrines. It is the pastoral epistles you do see a form of teaching about priests and bishops! It was after all the Church that gave us the NT (to oppose false doctrines), not the other way around!!
Doctor of mythology? Is the other religions taken as seriously?
All of you are mixed up. Apostolic and Christ’s authority resides not in scripture alone.
It should be explained for English speakers in England that Reformed is a codeword for Calvinist. Otherwise the title of this video sounds funny.
Catholic yes
I guess everyones experience is different. I started prior to seminary as a Calvinist. In last years of seminary switched to a Wesleyan and in my first pastorate switched back to a soft Calvinism because the senior pastor was a hard Calvinist. I found that Calvinists are generally unintelligent on biblical theology and i soon found myself giving the whole systematic theology trap away once i read the much more scholarly works and exegesis of the biblical texts. With biblical theology you can easily disagree with an author on a particurlar text and still follow their general themes. Its grounded in the documents..not an imposed system that you refer to texts to prove and it can be much more demanding intellectually.
The follower of Luther explain why he does not follow Calvin, just as the follower of Calvin explains why he does not follow Luther... each select their own teacher according to their wishes...
Wake up, people!! The Gospel of Jesus is not a matter of selection! It is not a matter of bricolage or development either. It is a matter of acceptance!!
They all got papacy and church authority wrong. And how does limited atonement fall apart? Pls use Bible in your talk.
Just an ordinary man
Limited atonement falls apart in 1John 2. Christ died for the sins of the whole world, not just for a few
@@medzuslovjansky3075 Don't limit the world to just people. All creation is groaning under sin, and Christ will redeem all creation and renew the earth.
Calvin's theology is a thing and ''calvinist''/''reformed'' tradition (T.U.L.I.P)is a totally another thing. Calvin was sacramentalist not a sacramentarian/symbolic as ''calvinists'' are. Calvin was a monergist, they are not. Calvin was a great stylist of the french language, they are not. Calvin was a very delicate and fine theologian, with greatly nuanced terms, they are not.
Calvin was willing to burn his opponents in Geneva; Luther was not (Parable of the Wheat and the Tares). No wonder Calvin's grave is lost - but Luther's is not.
@@ericrachut4207
Apparently servetus was not the only one too
@@prayunceasingly2029 Multiple.
@Morgh123 Only when he was old and crotchety and disappointed that the Hebrews had not converted (anybody ready the early tract he wrote, advocating tolerance for them?) Otherwise he quoted the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. No Calvinist lost his life simply for being a Calvinist where Luther was heard.
@@ericrachut4207 in England there was a Lutheran who burned Reformed because of their views on the supper.
Either way, with Luther's views on the Jews and peasants, I'm not sure how he can be freed from blame in that area
Yes! "Limited atonement" doctrine is so embarrassing and unfortunate to God; in my opinion. The God of the universe either can't or is unwilling to do so, is what it leads me to believe when I think through the doctrine to its end result anyway.
Being raised in Oneness Pentecostal (UPCI) no doubt influences so much of theology and doctrine for me, it can be very difficult when studying and researching for myself. For the past few months I've been attending a Lutheran Church and really like it, but before that I'd been looking into all kinds of Christian denominations, and really struggled with a few things in "TULIP" and the whole Calvinist-Arminian debate. After listening to some Lutherans on the subjects, I really sympathized with the "maybe, maybe not" answers to a lot of questions. I don't know, I'm still learning a lot of Lutheran stances, but at first it was if everyone was preaching certainity and only Lutherans were preaching uncertainity but hope. Which, since none are God but God alone, and who among us know the mind of God. Made a lot of sense to me so I figured I'd give it a shot. HA!
The Reformed emphasis on a presbyterial structure is really a kind of idolatry. A well-intentioned idolatry, but it's getting obsessed about the wrong things. In reality, Presbyterians and Reformed are almost just as capable of acting like mini-pontifs through a magisterium as Rome was.
ua-cam.com/video/XyFuaXlYo8Q/v-deo.html
Do you have any examples of such?
@@ninjacell2999 When Casiodoro de Reina sparked the little known Valencian Reformation, he very quickly had to flee the Inquisition to England. The Anglican Church welcomed him but the Puritan Calvinists tried to have him jailed on false charges. Then he fled to Geneva, arriving on the very day Calvin approved the burning of fellow Spaniard, Servetus. De Reina wrote, "Calvin is worse than the Inquisition." He then fled to the Lutherans. They DID find De Reinas teaching heretical but did NOT arrest or kill him. Instead, they dialogued with him, coming to an agreement. He became the leader of diaspora Spanish, Italian and Portuguese churches in Germany. He was also the first to complete a translation of the Bible, Luther's Catechisms, and the Augsburg Confessions into Spanish.
@@Mygoalwogel that's not really what I was after. Pretty much every tradition has their hands stained in that way. One may as well say that Lutherans are just as bad if not worse considering Luther's views on both Jews and peasants.
I'm Reformed but have a high view of apostasy and the sacraments and a softer view of Limited Atonement. I probably can't be a Lutheran because I don't like Martin Luther that much. LOL! I'm suspicious of him I guess
It mean ongoing confliction between reformed & Lutheran
Great! But what is reformed? You never said. Has it not become a wax nose? Do you agree? Certainly it emphasizes the five Solas and the Canons of Dordt. But it is much more than that - at least I think it is. You can start with the Regulative Principle or at least the Normanative Principle - thank you Martin. But I reject them both. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. However, like you, I am most definitely not reformed. Worse, I'm not even reformational as defined by Michael Allen (in his book anyway). Luther turns over in his grave.
However, those who equate 'Calvinism' with 'Reformed' are mistaken, but I understand their confusion. They haven't read enough, that's all. Just ignorance. Give them time. So I stick with 'historically reformed' folk like Gerhardus Vos. Good man. Great scholar, but probably wrong. Same goes for Cornelius Van Til. Hey, I live with uncertainty. I've read maybe 15K pages of church history and a great deal of theology. Yes, I'm a Christian ... to my Bible Baptist freinds, a "Born Again" Christian. To my Calvinistic friends, a true believer in the "Sovereignty of God" ... But I'm not Lutheran. Never could accept the ubiquity of Christ's body. But that's okay. I've been wrong so much well it won't matter whether I'm wrong again.
God bless you Jordan. I went to a reformed Church for the past three years. They were very friendly and orthodox, in fact they were Orthodox Presbyterian. The pastor was very kind, in fact he came by for three years every Sunday and took me to church because I do not have a car. He personally helped me in many ways when I had sick animals by bringing me to the vet or helping me have them euthanized. The people seemed to be kind and loving, the theology was fine in many ways.
And yet I was dying spiritually. I was wasting away. My heart had grown cold towards God and I was a mess spiritually, morally, mentally and emotionally. My finances took a nosedive when I lost all incentive for work. I prayed constantly but it seemed like there was no change. I finally realized that the problem was their Calvinist theology. They loved Calvinism more than they loved Jesus! They were more in love with their theology than they were with God. They were warm and loving, but they lacked ZEAL for God, they lacked the passion necessary to press in for the mark of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Their theology caused them to rest on their lees. They had lost their first love, even though they were full of good works. I finally realized this at a point of desperation and despair when I had to call out to God for deliverance.
Wolves in sheep's clothing aren't always the obvious heretics. They can be well meaning, loving people who hold to the Bible but if you miss the mark by one degree, that one degree over the course of time becomes wider and wider until you miss the straight and narrow gate that leads to salvation. God bless you in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.
I was raised in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and sadly, much of what you describe was my experience. While I'm thankful that I heard the gospel there, there were often times when the Westminster Standards seemed more important to people than God's Word. I finally reached a point when I realized I was languishing spiritually, because the focus of the church was more on Reformed theology than on growing in our walk with Christ and living out faith. Not only that, but I felt ignored. I didn't have any friends at church with whom I could be honest and transparent. Nine years ago, I moved my membership to a large nondenominational church, and my faith has grown by leaps and bounds. After some study and prayer, I decided that I wanted to be baptized as a believer by full immersion. I now consider myself a Baptist, although I never allow my convictions on nonessential doctrine to separate me from those who believe differently. Spiritual arrogance has no place in the life of anyone who professes Jesus as Lord and Savior.
I read the Word of GOD & trust it as it IS, perhaps you should trust in CHRIST & not the father`s you have been reading, Yielding to the Will of GOD is the right way to live not objecting to HIE Sovereignty.
What is your point ?
Honestly I've heard about this non conformity to Catholic Marian, papal and communion of the saints doctrine in the corpus tons from prots like yourself. I have never once seen it substantiated. Ignatius believed she was co meadtrix, from early on saints have been given doulus. And I have literally like 100 quotes from saints on the papacy.
Ignatius didnt believe that Mary was our Mediatrix.
On what basis do you make a claim that the Church Fathers got a certain thing wrong? Your own "autonomous" mind? I agree that certain Fathers got certain things wrong. No one man is infallible. But Protestantism has no coherent way to judge what is right and what is wrong. The Orthodox Church does.
According to tradition?
@@bobpolo2964
The Orthodox patriarchates and Believers
fought very hard to maintain the traditions
of the Church Fathers. Whom they believe,
correctly interpreted the meaning of the
scriptures; based on what the Apostles
and their immediate successors did and
said.
There were onslaughts from pagan Rome
as well as from the well-established Jews
of the first to early fourth century; whose
religion was viewed as ancient and
venerable (therefore acceptable) to most
Roman authorities.
Later the Eastern Church bore the brunt
of Islam. And it has still managed to
survive into the 21st century without
a centralized { *cou* -papacy- *gh* }
authority that forced compliance to
the beliefs of a minority within the
body.
@@here_we_go_again2571 Are you catholic?
@@bobpolo2964
For now, but (probably) not for
long. My husband, is a lapsed
Catholic … Since the clerical
abuse and, now, the financial
scandals; reinforcing his desire
to leave.
When he retires, we will be
relocating to a place that has
a vibrant O.C.A. church. Which
many of our friends attend.
My husband has no desire to
attend the Latin mass (although
about once a month he will drive
to one; if I ask him to so … It is
quite a distance) But the rest of
the time I attend Mass and
confession by myself.
My husband has dabbled in
Lutheranism; but he is put-off
by several things.
We shall see …. I do not
consider the Orthodox
Patriarchates to be a
lesser church than the
RCC. The two of them
developed differently for
historic reasons and the
limitations of travel and
communications prior to
the modern era.
Both are the two halves
of the One True Church
@@here_we_go_again2571 When did you meet the Lord?
So basically, these are some of the reasons: baptismal regeneration, church government, perseverance of the saints, and limited atonement.
Uhhh...maybe because Calvinism maligns God's character in double predestination, denies the possibility of apostasy, and demotes the sacraments to a place that for the first 6 centuries, the Church never knew. That's enough for me.
Martin Luther denied the immortal soul false doctrine in his writings yet the Lutheran Church accepts it.
+Jordan Lindo Since when does the Lutheran Church deny that we have immortal souls?
"Luther, with a greater emphasis on the resurrection, preferred to concentrate on the scriptural metaphor of sleep. 'For just as one who falls asleep and reaches morning unexpectedly when he awakes, without knowing what has happened to him, so we shall suddenly rise on the last day without knowing how we have come into death and through death.' 'We shall sleep, until He comes and knocks on the little grave and says, Doctor Martin, get up! Then I shall rise in a moment and be happy with Him forever."
It is everywhere in Commentaries. eg Ecclesiastes. He agreed with Tyndale who also wrote on this.
www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/death/froom/luther-conditionalism.php#.Wn9xananGM9
Ok, I'm not getting into the argument about Luther's view on the issue. Either way, the Lutheran Church does not just believe whatever Luther taught.
T.F. Torrance is the best theologian in my opinion!
I do really appreciate Torrance.
Something happens when you really focus on and study the Torrance teaching of the vicarious humanity of Christ!
Its like faith happens to you and your brought into and share in that reality by the Holy Spirit!
The Lord gives teachers in the church so I don't even understand your comment! Obviously the Holy Spirit is the best teacher! Thank you I appreciate that great insight
If you’re interested in profound theology, check out Catholicism.
But Catholicism lacks the Gospel. It can't answer who is the blessed man in Romans 4.
@@intothekey The world wouldn’t have The Gospels if it weren’t for The Catholic Church.
@@intothekey Please do some research.
2:30” and there is no point and it’s not even worth watching further and thanks for wasting my time to watch this video .
YOU WILL BE BACK IN 5 YEARS
NOTHING INFORMATIVE
Was for me, and I'm Presbyterian. 🤷♂️
Jon Watson
Exactly what was 🤔
@@dominicward1812 you said nothing informative. I'm assuming you mean the video. It was for me is what I'm saying. I used to be Presbyterian.
Jon Watson
Well it’s like this you have an agenda otherwise you would not have posted this!
Essentially there are two Bibles the Pre-reformation ( The Catholic ) and the Post-reformation (The King James)
The removal of books the difference in teaching are day and night.
King James was a Immoral Homosexual Freemason who wrote the (Daemonologie) Bible.
I think it’s Clear the Protestants all walked away from the teachings of Christ Jesus himself.
John 6:22-71
This division is clear and you just ignore it and swing round the fact.
You are not informative or helpful or are you dealing with the serious issues.
There is only one church Christ Jesus said so
www.google.co.uk/search?q=king+james+demonic+bible&hl=en-GB&prmd=sinv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJ-MXqxt3mAhUPYsAKHb6bBCEQ_AUIFSgC&biw=320&bih=452
@@dominicward1812
1. The good or bad qualities of the 1611 Authorised/King James Version of the Bible have little if anything to do with James VI & I himself. He commissioned it, in 1604 - he was not one of the 54 scholars who worked on it. Commissioning a version of Scripture =/////= the work of translating or editing it. The AV relies largely on previous English Bible translation: such as Tyndale’s New Testament (1525), the Bishops’ Bible of 1568, the Rheims NT of 1582. The AV translators were not trying to make a new version, “but to make an old one better”.
2. King James’ book “Daemonologie, In Forme of a Dialogue, Divided into three Books” was published years before the AV, and is a completely different work.
It is simply not true that “the Protestants all walked away from the teachings of Christ Jesus himself”. Catholics could learn a great deal from reading the Protestant theologians and commentators of the period from 1517 to 1685. Protestants “walked away” from what they (rightly or wrongly) judged to be the errors of the Papacy that were opposed to “the teachings of Christ Jesus” - they were trying to return to a purer Christian doctrine, practice & life; they were not trying to avoid the teachings of Christ; they were trying to follow Christ’s teachings. The Puritans, for example, were very concerned for the purity of doctrine, for godly order in worship, and for holiness of life, for that very reason.
3. As for there being one Church - the issue was not, *whether* there was One Church, but, *where* it was to be found, and *how* it was to be recognised.
4. The Authorised Version of the Bible was only version of the Bible - even in England. The last edition of the Geneva Bible was published in 1644 - just 7 years after the Dutch Statenbijbel of 1637, and 33 years after the first printing of the AV. The Statenbijbel was the Dutch equivalent of the AV in England, or of Luther’s Bible in the Protestant states of Germany. Europe by the 17th century was awash with translations, editions and versions of the Bible: many Catholic, most of them Protestant.
Luther was not the first translator of the Bible into German - but he was the first to translate it from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. All previous German editions of the Bible had been made from the Latin Vulgate, which was itself a translation.
And just think, a Calvinist can with a clear conscience sing this Calvinistic accurate song to their children.
How sick is that?
The Calvinist children's hymn:
"Jesus loves me, this I know.
As for you, I don't think so.
Only some to Him belong. We are right and you are wrong.
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
But
I hope this isn't effervescent grace that I'm walking in and instead
I'm actually deceived and one of the reprobates that He created to burn
as a candle for His glory in Hell forever."
TRUTH IN LOVE
Don't you love misrepresenting your brothers in Christ?
You're off the mark buddy. I believe God's Spirit just made it my responsibility 2 get you in the know. It's time to purify the bride. Peace out. Timotheus
why im not reformed = because it is opposite what scripture teaches .
@TRUTH & LIFE
Every part or just the bits that require chewing?
So, you're a Protestant. One flavor or the other, not much different.
@polemeros
Are you anti Protestant?
Your not save that,s why.