Former Charismatic here who fell in LOVE studying the lives and theology of all the Eastern Orthodox Saints from the 1st - 21st century! These same train of thoughts brought me brought me into the Orthodox Church and I'm so grateful to experience an "Ancient Settleness" with being in spiritual & theological continuity with the Church of Nicaea. You guys should host a discussion with Fr. Stephen De Young about 2nd Temple Jewish literature and it's reflection in the Apostles and early church.
As a lifelong charismatic, I'm becoming more aware that churches like the Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, etc., all claim to be "the one true church." What if one of them is correct? What if there's something to the traditions they hold? Wouldn't it be safer for me to convert to Orthodoxy than to just stay on the bandwagon of evangelical protestantism, which in a way also thinks their churches are the one true church?
Look at the Orthodox saints. They look like the early church. I was raised in SBC. I was told repeatedly that we needed to get back to living like the early Christians... But then you take a look and realize no one is doing anything like that... Except the Orthodox. Saints in Orthodoxy are continuing the ministry of Christ and the Apostles right now.
@alypiusloft my hesitancy is that the church seems extremely legalistic... it seems like Jesus spoke out most strongly against the staunchly religious of His day. What are your thoughts on that?
Josh shouldn't worry about Can. 9 or the icing on the cake Can 12 only, but also James 2: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." - James 2:24
Interesting perspective. You appealed several times during the video to St John Chrysostom, St Gregory of Nazianzus and other church fathers. How do you, as charismatic Protestants, reconcile your appeals with the doctrines they adhered to that you reject? The Church they were a part of, believes in the real presence in the Eucharist, venerates icons, believes that St Mary was a perpetual virgin, etc. They were Orthodox. You also appealed to the Councils of Nicea & Constantinople - do you endorse & adhere to the canons of these councils? As an Orthodox Christian, I am sincerely confused how you can lay claim to anything from either these fathers or these councils?
They weren't EO because EO only exists since the schism. The early ecumenical councils are accepted by almost everyone. Unless they declared things that are in direct contradiction to holy scripture.
They are unable to reconcile any of their appeals. They are not Protestants by definition; anyone who identifies as a charismatic Christian strays far from the traditional Protestantism. As evangelicals, they may discuss the creeds, but they have no intention of truly living by them or adhering to traditional Christian doctrines and practices. If they were sincere, they would embrace Protestantism, such as Anglican, Presbyterian, or Lutheran traditions. Evangelicals often cherry-pick aspects of the creeds, claiming to believe in them, but rarely confront the contradictions between their Christian walk and the teachings of the creeds.
@@MrSeedi76 Wildly biased & inaccurate. It was ROME that schismed away from the Orthodox church in 1094 with its formalisation of the filioque - the ADDITION to the Nicene Creed. The issues with Rome were brewing for centuries before this, most particularly around the Papacy, indulgences & other doctrines, but the filioque is the straw that broke the camel's back. You obviously don't understand Church history to make such a statement. The fact that ONE of the Patriarchates (Rome) made such a drastic change to dogma & Church governance that resulted in the OTHER Patriarchates all removing them from communion at the exact same time somehow equates to those OTHER churches going into schism is ludicrous. It was Rome that was condemned and removed herself from Orthodoxy. Or are you arguing you agree with the Papacy and all of Rome's other heresies? Eastern Orthodox is a modern term, again originating in Rome as part of their propaganda war on trying to make themselves out as the one true church. Please educate yourself. God bless.
@@thelimatheouexactly, it's Roman Pope who exited the church and started schism because of new doctrines that was rejected in the East. Eastern Orthodox remain the same and it's the true Church of the first millennium
I claim to believe the Bible. And I am happy to quote church fathers when they affirm the teachings of the bible. Not as a source of Authority, but as a corroborating interpretation of the authoritative scripture. I am not quoting them because I believe they are infallible. You and I would likely agree that "Church fathers" can believe falsehoods and accretions, none of them are perfect. I also believe in a real mystical presence of the eucharist, because that is what the Bible teaches. Mary's perpetual virginity however is a tradition that nullifies what the scriptures teach Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 6:3: names Jesus’ Brothers James, Joses, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. If I were to quote a politician who holds orthodox Christian beliefs about abortion. it does not mean I agree with that same politician's beliefs about the border. Its irrational to say I cant quote church fathers if I don't agree with everything they say.
I feel that as Christians, we are to persue the truth. For God is the ultimate truth. Not in a gnostic way of mental ascent, as our salvation is not a product of mental performance. But we do have to be intellectually honest with ourselves and be humble to follow the truth were it goes. I have been on my own journey and i would have to say that the Orthodox Church is objectively correct. Both from a theological and historic perspective. Ultimatly God is the one who passes judgement and meets people where they are at. But, I dont think God is favourable to the rejection of truth when he is the foundation of truth.
@@TheRemnantRadiothe Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) because she has Christ as her chief Cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). Where is that Church? The Church of Nicaea? The Church of the councils? The Church that Ignatius, Polycarp, etc. belonged to? It is the Orthodox Church. I strongly suggest you invite a learned Orthodox believer/priest/scholar to engage with you on these topics.
@@TheRemnantRadio Well, you can say tradition, though I personally did not chose that word. The Catholic Church has tradition, and a proper claim of apostolic sucessusion, but it isn't theologically sound. As well as Church Fathers putting importance on Antioch over Rome in some cases. We have to look back at the structure of the Church and the theology of the Church Fathers to parse out the truth.
When I was in college, I became aware of the Southern Baptist fights and the only two things the two sides could agree on was "doctrine divides!" and "we are not a 'creedal' people!" And when I would hear this, I would say something obnoxious like, "so, we don't stand for anything, but we are supposed to fall for every wind of doctrine that comes along." and another pastor, college pastor, BSU leader or whoever would ask me to either get with the program or leave. So to me, forty years later, it's not surprising that the Southern Baptist Convention would reject the Nicean Creed. Antinomianism should be the recognition that we, before we were saved, were condemned by the Law but after salvation, we are not under the Law, but under Christ. There's still no place for immortality.
I think you mean Immorality? You are correct the Law can not condemn a christian, however holiness unto God, ie (obedience To God's Commands) is our spiritual act of worship. So Immorality, is unholy worship.
@TheRemnantRadio stupid autocorrect. But in Christ, we obey, not by the power of our flesh or in fear but because we are new creations in Christ. Semantics?
Thank you Remnant. Good discussion of the Holy Ghost whom is God as well. Like Michael I am silent to my opinion on Catholicism..." Slow to speak and quick to listen"... Amen Maranatha Hallelujah
Wrt the segment on the RCC, Roundtree makes a VERY important point that folks need to know. His muddy water analogy is a good one and he asks the essential question that MUST be answered. He then goes on to do so but seemingly is unaware of it. So let me see if I can help Michael and others using his own words. The RCC has pronounced anathema upon others over the true Gospel. 151 anathemas to be exact. All done ex cathedra. Meaning it is the official doctrine of the RCC and can NOT be revoked. By Michael's own words they have a different gospel. See Gal. 1:8-9 for more on that. By their official pronouncement of the anathemas they have condemned themselves. See Matt. 7:2 for more on that. So what do we make of the individual RCC member? We talk to them. We ask them what the Gospel is and we ensure they understand what it is. (Most true Christians can't even do that!) We show them the EVIDENCE for the above. Some I will list below. And we let them know that if they have truly been Born Again they need to disavow themselves from the RCC and it's teachings or they too are condemned and doomed. Here are just a few of those anathemas: At the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the declarations of which are still in force, the Roman Catholic Church formally condemned the biblical doctrine of faith alone and grace alone. Consider the following declarations of Trent: “If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12). “If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24). In its most formal and authoritative statements since Trent, Rome has continued to deny that salvation is by grace alone through Christ's atonement alone through faith alone without works or sacraments. Consider the following statements of the authoritative Vatican II Council of the mid-1960s, called by Pope John Paul XXIII and attended by more than 2,400 Catholic bishops-- “For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, 'the work of our redemption is accomplished,' and it is through the liturgy, especially, that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church” (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Introduction, para. 2). “As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which 'Christ our Pasch is sacrificed' (1 Cor. 5:7) is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 1, 3, p. 324). “... [Christ] also willed that the work of salvation which they preached should be set in train through the sacrifice and sacraments, around which the entire liturgical [ritualistic] life revolves. Thus by Baptism men are grafted into the paschal mystery of Christ. ... They receive the spirit of adoption as sons” (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Chap. 1, I, 5,6, pp. 23-24). “From the most ancient times in the Church good works were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners, particularly the works which human weakness finds hard. Because the sufferings of the martyrs for the faith and for God's law were thought to be very valuable, penitents used to turn to the martyrs to be helped by their merits to obtain a more speedy reconciliation from the bishops. Indeed, the prayers and good works of holy people were regarded as of such great value that it could be asserted that the penitent was washed, cleansed and redeemed with the help of the entire Christian people” (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 3, 6, pp. 78,79). ETA: Just watched a bit more and saw Josh's additional comments and that he cited a couple of the above. I'd agree with Josh except for one thing. He says one can hold to the doctrines of the RCC and be saved. I say NO! I say some Catholics may be saved because they have trusted in Jesus alone and are ignorant of the RCC doctrines just as most evangelical Christians today are Biblically ignorant and have no clue what the Five Solas are. But if they pledge/vow to the RCC doctrines and are in agreement with them to be true they are anathema and can NOT be saved. God's grace is NEVER "sufficient" enough to contradict His promises.
Great talk show! It would be fantastic if you could also provide a transcription or a text document of your discussions. This would be especially helpful for deeper understanding and reference, particularly on important topics like the Nicene Creed. Thanks!
You can find a transcript of the show on UA-cam. Go to the show description and select more in the right-hand corner. Then scroll down, and you will see the transcript. You can copy and paste the transcript into a doc, if you like. In addition, we offer the show notes with Scripture references as extra content to our Patreon supporters on Patreon: www.patreon.com/TheRemnantRadio - Thanks for watching!
I have a question for you. I left catholicism because of how much it divluges from scripture. I have always wondered about the apparitions of Mary. Would you consider them demonic apparitions? I always thought they were. I would like to known what you think about it.
These guys. Same ol' same ol'. "Mormonism isn't Christian!" Why? "Because we're clueless on what Joseph Smith said during a sermon he gave!" Have you looked more in to what LDS theologians and scholars have said about the sermon? "No! That would require intellectual honesty! It's easier to present something we know nothing about in a false light and leave it at that!" Right...well ok then, carry on you honest seekers of "truth"
@TheRemnantRadio☝🏼this. I absolutely love this channel and that you are all so open to having discussions with different opinions! I was a Protestant pastor for 3 years in the Assembly of God denomination and through your channel I was introduced to Holy Orthodoxy and I am forever grateful to you for this. It has been truly life-changing for me and my wife. God bless you all.
There’s a “sparkler” at the church I just left. Just have to love them and give the Holy Spirit space is what I was told. Never addressed anything which is why I no longer go there.
Can you get the guys from FFOZ or the apocalyptic gospel podcast on at some point? It's time to talk about how the 4th century church pulled away from the Jewish practice that Jesus and the apostles continued on with.. The 7 festivals and keeping a sabbath for example but more importantly the Jewish idea of the Kingdom of God which the apostles stilled believed in the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel in the messianic age.
The main problem the early church had to solve was how to integrate Gentiles into the church without the need for them to become Jewish first. We see that through all the letters of Paul and in Acts. So it's a bit misleading to say that the church only pulled away from Judaism (modern Judaism developed parallel and in contrast to Christianity) in the 4th century. It was a slow process that started basically right away when the apostles started preaching to Gentiles.
@MrSeedi76 it is not misleading, yes there was some figuring out in the difference of how gentile beleivers and jewish background beleivers should practice their faith BUT there was no indication from the apostles that they should remove the festivals and sabbath. In fact, Paul even encouraged the corinthians (gentile congregation) to participate in the festivals - Paul encouraged the brethren in Corinth to observe the Days of Unleavened Bread in the proper spirit and mindset. He wrote, “Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Corinthians 5:8). Whereas in the 4th century, because of replacement theology pushed forward by church fathers at that time the church became a major persecutor of Jewish people and those Christians who still kept the sabbath and the festivals. Ever since then, the church in its arrogance, that Paul warned against, has disassociated itself from the tree that Jesus adopted us into. The Catholic Church under John Paul 2 led the way in admitting and apologising for the arrogance and terrible crimes of the church and said their is a distiction between jew and gentile. It is time the rest of the church caught up and recognised and celebrating this distinction because if you don't like it frankly you are not going to like the Kingdom that is coming.
I woke up one day, probably my 30th birthday and thought "22 years as a Christian and I know absolutely nothing about human Jesus", how he really lived and practiced Judaism, what he really believed was happening and was going to happen Talk about your dark night of the soul... {shudders} There comes a reckoning...
@@mrseph007 How did you get that interpretation from 1 Cor. 5:8? Read it carefully in context. Christ our Passover is slain for us (v.7). That sacrifice is one and done. The remembrance of the communion feast (which is addressed a bit later, ch.11) looks back to the sacrifice, but first -- just like the feast of unleavened bread required putting away leaven -- the approach to the Lord's table requires putting away sin which the believers in Corinth had flagrantly failed to do. Hence the surrounding context there in the first few verses of ch.5.
One correction 13:12 "You will not find the [Nicean] creed itself, as written today, in the Sciptures. However, you will find every statement in the creed in the Scriptures." Could someone please give me the chapter and verse that use the word homoousios, of one or the same substance, to describe God the Father and God the Son (Jesus)? It would seem to me that the Bible does not specify that the Father and Son are of the same substance. That is probably the case, but should a creed defining a Christian or not be more specific than the New Testament? Why not use the Apostles creed instead that is not more specific than the New Testament?
You know that the Bible does not use the Greek word homoousios-that's why you asked the question, LOL. But as you admitted, the Bible does teach that the Father and the Son are of the same substance. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Spirit is uncreated; yet there are not three uncreated beings but one uncreated being, thus one homoousios. This creed does not go beyond Scripture; it articulates what Scripture teaches. It's like saying, 'I believe in eschatology.' Some might ask, 'Why do you believe in eschatology? That word is not in the Bible.' Well, the word simply means 'the study of the end times,' and the end times are clearly taught in the Bible. Using new words to quickly describe biblical truths is biblical theology. It does not go beyond what is written; it merely condenses what is written into sound theological categories.
I think you three are getting into some dicey territory with Subordination. While there is evidently some areas that Subordinates get into that are troublesome there as things said in that segment that are too. Jesus did say that the Father is "greater" than He. (Jn. 14:28) Josh claims that in the historic formulation of the Trinity "we" have always said that the three Persons of the Trinity have shared the same divine will. Who is this "we" and where is that said? Jesus also said "not my will but your will be done". (Lk. 14:22) And Jesus said "I and the Father are one.” (Jn. 10:30) So it follows that Jesus has a separate will from the Father's and yet they are still one God. I doubt there is a way to adequately express how that works but I'll try with a military analogy. MANY people have a problem with subordination and submitting and consider the subordinate to be "lesser" in essence. An Enlisted Sailor is required to submit to an Officer and is subordinate to them BUT that does NOT make them any lesser of a Person. Now picture an Office & an Enlisted having the PERFECT relationship. Perfect trust and love and respect and of the same mind, so to speak. So maybe there is something to be done and the two have a different way they'd do it. Both may be good and right. Contrary to what Josh says it doesn't follow that Jesus would not be God because He submits to the Father. We see the same thing with the wife in a marriage. Even Josh's "well spring" and "fountain" analogy lends to the same. Frankly, I think it's territory that we just can't be sure of and don't know. It's like trying to define the very essence of God. Roundtree's argument breaks down because of just what he said. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God and yet the three are One God. And I don't know that there is a logical way to explain that. But it is true. As far as the "boss" argument, I'd simply ask Roundtree and Josh if the husband is the boss of the wife? I'd say no. I'd say he's the Head. And sometimes the Head submits to the wife. Who's to say the Father doesn't to the Son or Holy Spirit? This whole video is regarding the Nicene Creed and yet the word "will" isn't even found in the creed. Nor is "essence" for that matter. And I think another problem stems from a conflating "essence" with "will". My understanding is that all three Persons of the Trinity are of the same "essence". This is why I ask WHERE anything says they are of the same "will". I would also say that Roundtree gives a hint into some of that confusion when he assumes that a difference of the "wills" is "battling". He then makes a leap to attribute the difference to being Jesus' human will and not His divine will and yet we see that Jesus' human will was always in direct alignment with the Father's. Jesus said He ONLY said and did that which the Father showed Him. (Jn. 5:19, 14:31) There was NEVER a "battle" between Jesus' human will and the Father's. Roundtree's argument is a failure to understand the Hypostatic Union. Which is another true doctrine that probably is inexplicable except to say that while two & separate they were in perfect union. Logically speaking it only stands to reason and it follows that if the three Persons of the Trinity are distinct Persons then each Person has its own will although they are all of the same essence.
Arius (or er um his ghost?) said he's sorry and wants to be freed from heretic prison. Said he was mistaken about Jesus being a strong #2 in the cosmos and that Tertullian and Origen will vouch for him. Oh wait, I guess they wanna be let out of heretic town also... "I got friends in low places" - Garth Brooks
@@TheRemnantRadio weird because you seem to say so at 6:41 - you acknowledge that Gnosticism is a heresy and a doctrine of demons then say Robert Henderson “rebirthed this very theology” and taught the same exact thing under a different name and then say he’s not a heretic. You acknowledged that he teaches heresy but won’t call him a heretic, did you not?
@@TheRemnantRadio after acknowledging that Gnosticism is a heresy and a doctrine of demons at 6:41 you say that Robert Henderson “rebirthed the exact same theology” under the name Courts of Heaven. But refuse to call him a heretic. So yes I’d say you did say Robert Henderson teaches heresy but isn’t a heretic, did you not?
@@TheRemnantRadio UA-cam keeps deleting my comments but ya you did say Gnosticism was a heresy and then refuse to call Robert Henderson a heretic after admitting he taught this heresy.
Michael Rountree mentioned Michael the archangel is the opposite of satan. However, in deliverance prayer, we cast out demons in the name of Jesus. The Council of Nicea was to preserve the definition of the Trinity. Every Council was called by the Catholic Church to clearly define the Trinity, the identity of Jesus Christ. Every Protestant denomination began as an attack or a diminishment of Catholic assertion of the full divinity of Jesus Christ. This is taught in Catholic apologetics courses. For example, Luther did away with the sacraments of matrimony and reconciliation. With the Anglican faith, they did away with the full Eucharistic Presence of transubstantiation. They came up with thrir own doctrine. Perhaps because they lacked the direct apostolic succession of ordination once they made Henry VIII their head of the Church instead of the Pope. Apostolic succesion was lost. Luther pushed "sola scriptura." For Catholics, there is no such thing. By the time of Luther, hereticism was full-blown. TULIP is not a Catholic belief. Catholics believe in the sanctity of human life and are activists to teach morality to young people. They want to help young people understand themselves, prepare for marriage and honor becoming parents and nurturing children in the sanctity of marriage. The Catholic faith is rooted in Scripture and has supplemental practical teaching to form community and apply to daily life and sacramental life. This includes being active in stopping abortion by restoring innate moral integrity expressed by the Ten Commandments. Yes, Bill Johnson's theology of Jesus is a bit glib, blurry, and "wobbly." He has elements from the WOF fuzziness, as Joyce Meyers does. They may have come out of the Baptist faith, which was possibly compromised by freemasonry. An interesting topic would be to trace the influence of freemasonry, which infiltrated the Baptist faith. The Baptist faith is the foundation of the Pentecostal movement. Freemasonry teaches lucifer and Jesus are equals. That is an oversimplification. But you get the idea.
The Pope is an Ecumenist heretic. The Mayan Rite? Soon Patriarch Bartholomew may follow Francis into error, but Orthodoxy ☦️ will survive since our ecclesiology doesn't depend on one man sitting on a throne making "infallible" decrees.
@@paulral Virtually no Protestants follow after Luther or Calvin fully or indiscriminately. Contrary to how RCs characterize things, they’re not the “Protestant Popes”. We simply follow their intentions to get back to a biblical context over that of tradition. Something neither they, nor those who came after, have always done very well. Some throw out tradition all together. Some do with new traditions what Rome did with the old. Those are both harmful extremes. We have access to much more information and knowledge of the ancient languages and contexts in which scripture was written than even the earliest of church fathers. They had their issues to hash out and wrestle with. We have ours. We’re growing as a body. So we can learn from our predecessors and do better… respecting traditions in so far as they contribute to the maturation and edification of the Church while also being able to put them down as needed when they become detrimental. That’s the spirit of the reformation… one that lives on.
@TheRemnantRadio yes, I watched it. I don't understand why someone is considered a heretic, i.e., going to hell, if they don't understand such a loaded, confusing concept. Like when you mentioned Jesus praying or crying to His Father, it does not compute that He's crying to Himself circularly. The reasoning that He is "humbling" Himself sounds great, but He seemed to have genuine human emotions toward a separate being. The more I read the Bible, the more confused I get. It would be easier to understand if they were two separate beings, and Jesus is God in that He is a part of God, like genetically descended from Him.
@@katel1316I agree with you , Phillipians 3: 10, John 17: 3, Hosea 6: 3, if you know Him in your heart you will know Him well, hell will be shunned, heaven will be gained
@katel1316 The Trinity is a simple (3 Persons, 1 God) and complicated (The Father is unoriginate, The Son is eternally begotten from the Father, The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father all sharing the same essence.) doctrine. However, serious heresies arose very early on and the Church had to address these things because if you're wrong about God and teach others heresies, you might be condemned to hell on the day of judgement. That's why the Church had to define who God is in more detail to avoid heresy and damnation. I do recommend you look into the First and Second Ecumenical Councils to get an idea as to why the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ are necessary beliefs for Christians.
It's important because it is the truth of the nature of God, the most foundational truth of all reality. We understand everything else based upon God's nature, as that is what determines good and evil.
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below? Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary? What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9. If the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant is "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, why would any Christian believe God is going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period? The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Watch the UA-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
@paulral Since the real Mount Sinai has been discovered in Arabia (Galatians 4:25), you have a mountain to erase. Jethro, the father in law of Moses was a priest of Midian. On older maps Midian is found in Northwest Arabia.
You don't wanna go there bro. Jesus himself said the first sign given by which to recognize another believer in him was that they would drive out demons in his name.. It's a command. Go out and do it!
My son is an EO catachumen. He gets a free funeral if he dies before his Baptism or whatchamacallit (he's in good health). I'd like to take credit for influencing him in the right direction but all I could muster was "doesn't look like Remnant will be having Frederica Mathewes-Green back any time soon"... Man if only I could type...
@paulral they're never having any Orthodox on RR ever again. I only check in on this program from time to time anymore. Well...off I go to "kiss my idols and pray to dead people". Hope you have a blessed Nativity fast brother. Blessings. 🙏☦️
When I saw my logical inconsistency of wanting to accept the Creed and Nicaea as "God inspired" but rejected the Canons and Bishops... I realized I was being spiritually and theologically prideful. I can't just pick and choose what I want. Either God led and inspired the Church with those first councils and the New Testament canons, or He didn't!! And if He led the Church up to that point, then I have to live with that Church which He guided. The only problem was that my protestant church DID NOT reflect the Church of the first few centuries.... and to my surprise the Orthodox Church seemed to preserve the "faith once delivered". The Eastern Orthodox also have the MOST amazing, miraculous, and humble saints from every century even up to our modern day! Grateful to have found my way home! ☦
there is a vast difference from Revelation and rationality as Paul says the world by wisdom knew not God it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching Christ crucified saves sinners, all creeds and catechisms are created by man, and as soon as we reject the revelation of Him who said three times, Heaven and Earth will pass away but My Words will never pass away , we are in the realm of the darkness of the Devil, because the incarnate creator said, I am the Light of the world
How does this video help other than with understanding the distinctions? (Talking only about the nature of God.) People who have other understanding are simply that. People who have other understanding. They feel they can "prove" their position from scripture. We ARE talking about GOD as humans. May we seek Him and may He reveal Himself as He is able which we know He is through the scriptures.
These distinctions are made with the scriptures and from the scriptures. So God is revealing himself in these distinctions... thats the reason for the video...
There is no such thing as the one true church. There is only the regenerate and non regenerate, those who do the will of God and those who don't. That's how its going to be on the last day.
There is a such thing as 1 true church. Jesus said He'd build 1 church, and that this church would never die before His return. Paul's epistles and Revelation even teaches that Christ will take this church as His Bride upon His return. So yes, there is a true church doing God's Work. All other "Christian" churches are satanic counterfeits.
The council of Nicaea was the beginning of the fall of the church. The church was thriving under persecution on and off but with the emperor now leading the charge, the church went down under
You realize ALL the 318 Bishops at Nicaea were leaders of the persecuted Church that had just went under the horrible Diocletian persecution just years earlier. Many of those Bishops at Nicaea were crippled and missing limbs because of the period of persecution. In other words, the faith that is expounded upon at Nicaea IS THE FAITH of the early Church because those leaders WERE the survivors and leaders of the previously persecuted Church. The idea that Nicaea and Constantine corrupted the Church is just as logical that Christian leaders who endured the persecution of Communism of Stalin would join his team 12 years after he was freed from a gulag!
@ you can look for example at the Just War doctrine that Augustine wrote in the beginning of the 4th century going against everything that early church fathers like Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Lactantius and many others saw clearly in the teachings of Jesus. That is just one example but you can look at many other doctrines like eternal security, salvation, atonement, divorce and remarriage etc where it was changed throughout the years from what the pre nicaean fathers taught.
@@mosesvibe That's a fairly poor example. Are you saying that the pre-nicene fathers taught that no individual Christian should participate in war? That's inconsistent with the Scriptures, Apostolic Fathers (like St. Ignatius), and the historical fact that MANY pre-nicene saints and martyrs were soldiers. Side note: Tertullian is an early Christian Writer, not a Saint. He become part of a heretical sect known as the Montanist and became very extreme towards the end of his life. Second, all the other examples do have a continuity with the Church Fathers of the 4th & 5th centuries as with the 1st-3rd. Lastly, the Church isn't led by one person's/bishops belief. The Church is led by the Holy Spirit leading the Church as a whole community (refer to the first synod in Acts 15)
@@mosesvibe You also didn't address the fact that you said Nicaea was the "beginning of the fall". How could that be when those who led Nicaea PRE-DATE Nicaea... in other words there were baptized, ordained, and persecuted before Christianity is ever legal. If you really do believe everything went down hill AFTER Nicaea, then logically the Bishops and canons of Nicaea is our last witness & connection with the early Church. So, was the Church preserved because of Nicaea? Or, did it fall long before then?
@@georgecrosthwaite yes i am saying that pre-nicene majority if not all taught no war participation. I would like to see what scripture in the new testament backs war participation in your view also. And i have not read Ignatius of Antioch supporting that in any of his letters but if you could share them i would gladly read them. For example from Justin Martyr "we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may no lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ." and i could provide more quotes from the early church fathers. By the way, all of us are saints, and not just a few select as Paul mentions in various letters including to the Romans and Philippians. But I do agree with you that the church has always been led by the Holy Spirit and not by men.
My doctrine of faith is chapter and verse not made by a Roman emperor that turned into the Roman Catholic Church your Creed is the Nicene Creed because you're ignorant of the scriptures of who Jesus Christ is the last Adam not the second Adam the last Adam without Jesus Christ being the last Adam he is no one God had to make Jesus Christ the last Adam before anything else you won't be able to understand that in your Antichrist doctrine of the trinity
Now THIS is gonna be a great episode!
it was a lot of fun to film!
Former Charismatic here who fell in LOVE studying the lives and theology of all the Eastern Orthodox Saints from the 1st - 21st century! These same train of thoughts brought me brought me into the Orthodox Church and I'm so grateful to experience an "Ancient Settleness" with being in spiritual & theological continuity with the Church of Nicaea.
You guys should host a discussion with Fr. Stephen De Young about 2nd Temple Jewish literature and it's reflection in the Apostles and early church.
Yet EO teaches salvation through faith PLUS works, obviously an unscriptural teaching
Don’t forget the lie of assumption
@@timothyhaugan2903 False.
@@mavsfanforlife3488 what do you mean? What's a "lie"? Are you saying the "Dormition & Assumption" is a lie?
@@georgecrosthwaite it isn’t? I’d like to be proven wrong. Thanks.
As a lifelong charismatic, I'm becoming more aware that churches like the Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, etc., all claim to be "the one true church." What if one of them is correct? What if there's something to the traditions they hold? Wouldn't it be safer for me to convert to Orthodoxy than to just stay on the bandwagon of evangelical protestantism, which in a way also thinks their churches are the one true church?
Also a lifelong Evangelical Charismatic and was thinking the same thing lol
I was a Charismatic / Pentecostal for most of my life. I became Orthodox in 2020.
Look at the Orthodox saints. They look like the early church. I was raised in SBC. I was told repeatedly that we needed to get back to living like the early Christians... But then you take a look and realize no one is doing anything like that... Except the Orthodox. Saints in Orthodoxy are continuing the ministry of Christ and the Apostles right now.
@@dustinneely not trying to debate but understand. How do you justify praying to saints and Mary like he mentioned in the video?
@alypiusloft my hesitancy is that the church seems extremely legalistic... it seems like Jesus spoke out most strongly against the staunchly religious of His day. What are your thoughts on that?
Josh shouldn't worry about Can. 9 or the icing on the cake Can 12 only, but also James 2:
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." - James 2:24
Thank you Rowntree for clarifying the subordination thing with carnation being a unique event where a human will came into play
Interesting perspective. You appealed several times during the video to St John Chrysostom, St Gregory of Nazianzus and other church fathers. How do you, as charismatic Protestants, reconcile your appeals with the doctrines they adhered to that you reject? The Church they were a part of, believes in the real presence in the Eucharist, venerates icons, believes that St Mary was a perpetual virgin, etc. They were Orthodox.
You also appealed to the Councils of Nicea & Constantinople - do you endorse & adhere to the canons of these councils?
As an Orthodox Christian, I am sincerely confused how you can lay claim to anything from either these fathers or these councils?
They weren't EO because EO only exists since the schism. The early ecumenical councils are accepted by almost everyone. Unless they declared things that are in direct contradiction to holy scripture.
They are unable to reconcile any of their appeals. They are not Protestants by definition; anyone who identifies as a charismatic Christian strays far from the traditional Protestantism. As evangelicals, they may discuss the creeds, but they have no intention of truly living by them or adhering to traditional Christian doctrines and practices. If they were sincere, they would embrace Protestantism, such as Anglican, Presbyterian, or Lutheran traditions. Evangelicals often cherry-pick aspects of the creeds, claiming to believe in them, but rarely confront the contradictions between their Christian walk and the teachings of the creeds.
@@MrSeedi76 Wildly biased & inaccurate.
It was ROME that schismed away from the Orthodox church in 1094 with its formalisation of the filioque - the ADDITION to the Nicene Creed.
The issues with Rome were brewing for centuries before this, most particularly around the Papacy, indulgences & other doctrines, but the filioque is the straw that broke the camel's back.
You obviously don't understand Church history to make such a statement. The fact that ONE of the Patriarchates (Rome) made such a drastic change to dogma & Church governance that resulted in the OTHER Patriarchates all removing them from communion at the exact same time somehow equates to those OTHER churches going into schism is ludicrous.
It was Rome that was condemned and removed herself from Orthodoxy. Or are you arguing you agree with the Papacy and all of Rome's other heresies?
Eastern Orthodox is a modern term, again originating in Rome as part of their propaganda war on trying to make themselves out as the one true church.
Please educate yourself.
God bless.
@@thelimatheouexactly, it's Roman Pope who exited the church and started schism because of new doctrines that was rejected in the East. Eastern Orthodox remain the same and it's the true Church of the first millennium
I claim to believe the Bible. And I am happy to quote church fathers when they affirm the teachings of the bible. Not as a source of Authority, but as a corroborating interpretation of the authoritative scripture. I am not quoting them because I believe they are infallible. You and I would likely agree that "Church fathers" can believe falsehoods and accretions, none of them are perfect.
I also believe in a real mystical presence of the eucharist, because that is what the Bible teaches. Mary's perpetual virginity however is a tradition that nullifies what the scriptures teach Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 6:3: names Jesus’ Brothers
James, Joses, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.
If I were to quote a politician who holds orthodox Christian beliefs about abortion. it does not mean I agree with that same politician's beliefs about the border. Its irrational to say I cant quote church fathers if I don't agree with everything they say.
"That's modalism Patrick!"
That's a great video in a lot of ways, the internet isn't all bad lol
I feel that as Christians, we are to persue the truth. For God is the ultimate truth. Not in a gnostic way of mental ascent, as our salvation is not a product of mental performance. But we do have to be intellectually honest with ourselves and be humble to follow the truth were it goes. I have been on my own journey and i would have to say that the Orthodox Church is objectively correct. Both from a theological and historic perspective. Ultimatly God is the one who passes judgement and meets people where they are at. But, I dont think God is favourable to the rejection of truth when he is the foundation of truth.
I agree that God is the foundation of Truth. Not Tradition. God has made himself known through his infallible word.
@@TheRemnantRadiothe Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) because she has Christ as her chief Cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). Where is that Church? The Church of Nicaea? The Church of the councils? The Church that Ignatius, Polycarp, etc. belonged to? It is the Orthodox Church. I strongly suggest you invite a learned Orthodox believer/priest/scholar to engage with you on these topics.
@@TheRemnantRadio Well, you can say tradition, though I personally did not chose that word. The Catholic Church has tradition, and a proper claim of apostolic sucessusion, but it isn't theologically sound. As well as Church Fathers putting importance on Antioch over Rome in some cases. We have to look back at the structure of the Church and the theology of the Church Fathers to parse out the truth.
So odd to have to cover such a topic, but you MUST!
Hope you enjoyed it
When I was in college, I became aware of the Southern Baptist fights and the only two things the two sides could agree on was "doctrine divides!" and "we are not a 'creedal' people!" And when I would hear this, I would say something obnoxious like, "so, we don't stand for anything, but we are supposed to fall for every wind of doctrine that comes along." and another pastor, college pastor, BSU leader or whoever would ask me to either get with the program or leave.
So to me, forty years later, it's not surprising that the Southern Baptist Convention would reject the Nicean Creed.
Antinomianism should be the recognition that we, before we were saved, were condemned by the Law but after salvation, we are not under the Law, but under Christ. There's still no place for immortality.
I think you mean Immorality? You are correct the Law can not condemn a christian, however holiness unto God, ie (obedience To God's Commands) is our spiritual act of worship. So Immorality, is unholy worship.
@TheRemnantRadio stupid autocorrect. But in Christ, we obey, not by the power of our flesh or in fear but because we are new creations in Christ. Semantics?
@@geographicaloddity2 No, I think your right. no argument here.
I have a Lutheran "law gospel distinction" that all seems right to me.
Hey! I was apart of a oneness Pentecostal church for a while, would you guys make a video refuting the UPCI doctrine?
Thank you Remnant. Good discussion of the Holy Ghost whom is God as well.
Like Michael I am silent to my opinion on Catholicism..." Slow to speak and quick to listen"...
Amen Maranatha Hallelujah
This was a great episode!
thanks Doug!
Wrt the segment on the RCC, Roundtree makes a VERY important point that folks need to know. His muddy water analogy is a good one and he asks the essential question that MUST be answered. He then goes on to do so but seemingly is unaware of it. So let me see if I can help Michael and others using his own words. The RCC has pronounced anathema upon others over the true Gospel. 151 anathemas to be exact. All done ex cathedra. Meaning it is the official doctrine of the RCC and can NOT be revoked.
By Michael's own words they have a different gospel. See Gal. 1:8-9 for more on that. By their official pronouncement of the anathemas they have condemned themselves. See Matt. 7:2 for more on that.
So what do we make of the individual RCC member? We talk to them. We ask them what the Gospel is and we ensure they understand what it is. (Most true Christians can't even do that!) We show them the EVIDENCE for the above. Some I will list below. And we let them know that if they have truly been Born Again they need to disavow themselves from the RCC and it's teachings or they too are condemned and doomed.
Here are just a few of those anathemas:
At the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the declarations of which are still in force, the Roman Catholic Church formally condemned the biblical doctrine of faith alone and grace alone. Consider the following declarations of Trent:
“If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).
“If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).
In its most formal and authoritative statements since Trent, Rome has continued to deny that salvation is by grace alone through Christ's atonement alone through faith alone without works or sacraments. Consider the following statements of the authoritative Vatican II Council of the mid-1960s, called by Pope John Paul XXIII and attended by more than 2,400 Catholic bishops--
“For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, 'the work of our redemption is accomplished,' and it is through the liturgy, especially, that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church” (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Introduction, para. 2).
“As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which 'Christ our Pasch is sacrificed' (1 Cor. 5:7) is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 1, 3, p. 324).
“... [Christ] also willed that the work of salvation which they preached should be set in train through the sacrifice and sacraments, around which the entire liturgical [ritualistic] life revolves. Thus by Baptism men are grafted into the paschal mystery of Christ. ... They receive the spirit of adoption as sons” (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Chap. 1, I, 5,6, pp. 23-24).
“From the most ancient times in the Church good works were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners, particularly the works which human weakness finds hard. Because the sufferings of the martyrs for the faith and for God's law were thought to be very valuable, penitents used to turn to the martyrs to be helped by their merits to obtain a more speedy reconciliation from the bishops. Indeed, the prayers and good works of holy people were regarded as of such great value that it could be asserted that the penitent was washed, cleansed and redeemed with the help of the entire Christian people” (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 3, 6, pp. 78,79).
ETA: Just watched a bit more and saw Josh's additional comments and that he cited a couple of the above. I'd agree with Josh except for one thing. He says one can hold to the doctrines of the RCC and be saved. I say NO! I say some Catholics may be saved because they have trusted in Jesus alone and are ignorant of the RCC doctrines just as most evangelical Christians today are Biblically ignorant and have no clue what the Five Solas are. But if they pledge/vow to the RCC doctrines and are in agreement with them to be true they are anathema and can NOT be saved. God's grace is NEVER "sufficient" enough to contradict His promises.
Y'all should have Dr Gavin Ortlund on when covering historic Christianity - He's well studied on church history and has a great YT channel!
we love Gavin, he has probably been on Remnant 5 or 6 times.
@@thelimatheousecond that. It really is just strawmanning our position from catholic centric refutations which dont correspond to we Orthodox.
Praise God, just on time. Thank you, Jesus!🙏🙏🙏🕊
Very important Video👍🏼
Re: the question of God’s will, the 6th Ecumenical Council, not Nicea I, is where you find that issue addressed.
Great talk show! It would be fantastic if you could also provide a transcription or a text document of your discussions. This would be especially helpful for deeper understanding and reference, particularly on important topics like the Nicene Creed. Thanks!
You can find a transcript of the show on UA-cam. Go to the show description and select more in the right-hand corner. Then scroll down, and you will see the transcript. You can copy and paste the transcript into a doc, if you like. In addition, we offer the show notes with Scripture references as extra content to our Patreon supporters on Patreon: www.patreon.com/TheRemnantRadio - Thanks for watching!
I have a question for you. I left catholicism because of how much it divluges from scripture. I have always wondered about the apparitions of Mary. Would you consider them demonic apparitions? I always thought they were. I would like to known what you think about it.
Here is a previous episode on the topic: ua-cam.com/video/JQs-uLhB47M/v-deo.html Thanks!
@TheRemnantRadio thank you. I'm regularly watch you guys from Cameroon.
These guys. Same ol' same ol'.
"Mormonism isn't Christian!"
Why?
"Because we're clueless on what Joseph Smith said during a sermon he gave!"
Have you looked more in to what LDS theologians and scholars have said about the sermon?
"No! That would require intellectual honesty! It's easier to present something we know nothing about in a false light and leave it at that!"
Right...well ok then, carry on you honest seekers of "truth"
They do have a monopoly on the Nicene Creed because they wrote it and preserved it and continue to uphold it fully.
who is "they"?
@@TheRemnantRadiothe Orthodox Church 😊
@TheRemnantRadio☝🏼this.
I absolutely love this channel and that you are all so open to having discussions with different opinions! I was a Protestant pastor for 3 years in the Assembly of God denomination and through your channel I was introduced to Holy Orthodoxy and I am forever grateful to you for this. It has been truly life-changing for me and my wife. God bless you all.
Excellent
There’s a “sparkler” at the church I just left. Just have to love them and give the Holy Spirit space is what I was told. Never addressed anything which is why I no longer go there.
Can you get the guys from FFOZ or the apocalyptic gospel podcast on at some point? It's time to talk about how the 4th century church pulled away from the Jewish practice that Jesus and the apostles continued on with.. The 7 festivals and keeping a sabbath for example but more importantly the Jewish idea of the Kingdom of God which the apostles stilled believed in the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel in the messianic age.
and i do not mean this in a dispensational way but the classic premillennial position held by those who were directly discipled by the apostles.
The main problem the early church had to solve was how to integrate Gentiles into the church without the need for them to become Jewish first. We see that through all the letters of Paul and in Acts. So it's a bit misleading to say that the church only pulled away from Judaism (modern Judaism developed parallel and in contrast to Christianity) in the 4th century. It was a slow process that started basically right away when the apostles started preaching to Gentiles.
@MrSeedi76 it is not misleading, yes there was some figuring out in the difference of how gentile beleivers and jewish background beleivers should practice their faith BUT there was no indication from the apostles that they should remove the festivals and sabbath. In fact, Paul even encouraged the corinthians (gentile congregation) to participate in the festivals - Paul encouraged the brethren in Corinth to observe the Days of Unleavened Bread in the proper spirit and mindset. He wrote, “Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Corinthians 5:8).
Whereas in the 4th century, because of replacement theology pushed forward by church fathers at that time the church became a major persecutor of Jewish people and those Christians who still kept the sabbath and the festivals. Ever since then, the church in its arrogance, that Paul warned against, has disassociated itself from the tree that Jesus adopted us into. The Catholic Church under John Paul 2 led the way in admitting and apologising for the arrogance and terrible crimes of the church and said their is a distiction between jew and gentile. It is time the rest of the church caught up and recognised and celebrating this distinction because if you don't like it frankly you are not going to like the Kingdom that is coming.
I woke up one day, probably my 30th birthday and thought "22 years as a Christian and I know absolutely nothing about human Jesus", how he really lived and practiced Judaism, what he really believed was happening and was going to happen
Talk about your dark night of the soul... {shudders}
There comes a reckoning...
@@mrseph007 How did you get that interpretation from 1 Cor. 5:8? Read it carefully in context. Christ our Passover is slain for us (v.7). That sacrifice is one and done. The remembrance of the communion feast (which is addressed a bit later, ch.11) looks back to the sacrifice, but first -- just like the feast of unleavened bread required putting away leaven -- the approach to the Lord's table requires putting away sin which the believers in Corinth had flagrantly failed to do. Hence the surrounding context there in the first few verses of ch.5.
I think William Lane Craig believes that the son and father have two distinct wills. What would you consider him? A brother, a cousin, or a heretic?
WLC is teaching heresy.
Check for the WWJD bracelet, real Christian always wear them
Amen!
One correction 13:12 "You will not find the [Nicean] creed itself, as written today, in the Sciptures. However, you will find every statement in the creed in the Scriptures." Could someone please give me the chapter and verse that use the word homoousios, of one or the same substance, to describe God the Father and God the Son (Jesus)? It would seem to me that the Bible does not specify that the Father and Son are of the same substance. That is probably the case, but should a creed defining a Christian or not be more specific than the New Testament? Why not use the Apostles creed instead that is not more specific than the New Testament?
You know that the Bible does not use the Greek word homoousios-that's why you asked the question, LOL. But as you admitted, the Bible does teach that the Father and the Son are of the same substance. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Spirit is uncreated; yet there are not three uncreated beings but one uncreated being, thus one homoousios. This creed does not go beyond Scripture; it articulates what Scripture teaches.
It's like saying, 'I believe in eschatology.' Some might ask, 'Why do you believe in eschatology? That word is not in the Bible.' Well, the word simply means 'the study of the end times,' and the end times are clearly taught in the Bible. Using new words to quickly describe biblical truths is biblical theology. It does not go beyond what is written; it merely condenses what is written into sound theological categories.
Good job brothers
Thank you!
I wonder what creed JESUS would stand on or proclaim/ profess
Delayed fulfillment of 2TJ hopes and dreams being made real. Can be found in Paul's Epistles. Just one long Biblical Creed.
Jesus would sign off on Nicaea, since every line of the Nicene Creed comes directly from scripture.
I think you three are getting into some dicey territory with Subordination. While there is evidently some areas that Subordinates get into that are troublesome there as things said in that segment that are too. Jesus did say that the Father is "greater" than He. (Jn. 14:28) Josh claims that in the historic formulation of the Trinity "we" have always said that the three Persons of the Trinity have shared the same divine will. Who is this "we" and where is that said? Jesus also said "not my will but your will be done". (Lk. 14:22) And Jesus said "I and the Father are one.” (Jn. 10:30) So it follows that Jesus has a separate will from the Father's and yet they are still one God.
I doubt there is a way to adequately express how that works but I'll try with a military analogy. MANY people have a problem with subordination and submitting and consider the subordinate to be "lesser" in essence. An Enlisted Sailor is required to submit to an Officer and is subordinate to them BUT that does NOT make them any lesser of a Person. Now picture an Office & an Enlisted having the PERFECT relationship. Perfect trust and love and respect and of the same mind, so to speak. So maybe there is something to be done and the two have a different way they'd do it. Both may be good and right. Contrary to what Josh says it doesn't follow that Jesus would not be God because He submits to the Father. We see the same thing with the wife in a marriage. Even Josh's "well spring" and "fountain" analogy lends to the same. Frankly, I think it's territory that we just can't be sure of and don't know. It's like trying to define the very essence of God.
Roundtree's argument breaks down because of just what he said. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God and yet the three are One God. And I don't know that there is a logical way to explain that. But it is true. As far as the "boss" argument, I'd simply ask Roundtree and Josh if the husband is the boss of the wife? I'd say no. I'd say he's the Head. And sometimes the Head submits to the wife. Who's to say the Father doesn't to the Son or Holy Spirit?
This whole video is regarding the Nicene Creed and yet the word "will" isn't even found in the creed. Nor is "essence" for that matter. And I think another problem stems from a conflating "essence" with "will". My understanding is that all three Persons of the Trinity are of the same "essence". This is why I ask WHERE anything says they are of the same "will".
I would also say that Roundtree gives a hint into some of that confusion when he assumes that a difference of the "wills" is "battling". He then makes a leap to attribute the difference to being Jesus' human will and not His divine will and yet we see that Jesus' human will was always in direct alignment with the Father's. Jesus said He ONLY said and did that which the Father showed Him. (Jn. 5:19, 14:31) There was NEVER a "battle" between Jesus' human will and the Father's. Roundtree's argument is a failure to understand the Hypostatic Union. Which is another true doctrine that probably is inexplicable except to say that while two & separate they were in perfect union. Logically speaking it only stands to reason and it follows that if the three Persons of the Trinity are distinct Persons then each Person has its own will although they are all of the same essence.
Arius (or er um his ghost?) said he's sorry and wants to be freed from heretic prison. Said he was mistaken about Jesus being a strong #2 in the cosmos and that Tertullian and Origen will vouch for him. Oh wait, I guess they wanna be let out of heretic town also...
"I got friends in low places" - Garth Brooks
Thoughts on Orientalism?
How can someone believe and teach a Heresy and NOT be a Heretic?
I do not know of anyone who teaches heresy and is not a heretic.
@@TheRemnantRadio weird because you seem to say so at 6:41 - you acknowledge that Gnosticism is a heresy and a doctrine of demons then say Robert Henderson “rebirthed this very theology” and taught the same exact thing under a different name and then say he’s not a heretic.
You acknowledged that he teaches heresy but won’t call him a heretic, did you not?
@@TheRemnantRadio after acknowledging that Gnosticism is a heresy and a doctrine of demons at 6:41 you say that Robert Henderson “rebirthed the exact same theology” under the name Courts of Heaven. But refuse to call him a heretic. So yes I’d say you did say Robert Henderson teaches heresy but isn’t a heretic, did you not?
@@TheRemnantRadio UA-cam keeps deleting my comments but ya you did say Gnosticism was a heresy and then refuse to call Robert Henderson a heretic after admitting he taught this heresy.
@@TheRemnantRadio didn’t you? 6:41
Michael Rountree mentioned Michael the archangel is the opposite of satan. However, in deliverance prayer, we cast out demons in the name of Jesus. The Council of Nicea was to preserve the definition of the Trinity. Every Council was called by the Catholic Church to clearly define the Trinity, the identity of Jesus Christ. Every Protestant denomination began as an attack or a diminishment of Catholic assertion of the full divinity of Jesus Christ. This is taught in Catholic apologetics courses. For example, Luther did away with the sacraments of matrimony and reconciliation. With the Anglican faith, they did away with the full Eucharistic Presence of transubstantiation. They came up with thrir own doctrine. Perhaps because they lacked the direct apostolic succession of ordination once they made Henry VIII their head of the Church instead of the Pope. Apostolic succesion was lost. Luther pushed "sola scriptura." For Catholics, there is no such thing. By the time of Luther, hereticism was full-blown. TULIP is not a Catholic belief.
Catholics believe in the sanctity of human life and are activists to teach morality to young people. They want to help young people understand themselves, prepare for marriage and honor becoming parents and nurturing children in the sanctity of marriage. The Catholic faith is rooted in Scripture and has supplemental practical teaching to form community and apply to daily life and sacramental life. This includes being active in stopping abortion by restoring innate moral integrity expressed by the Ten Commandments.
Yes, Bill Johnson's theology of Jesus is a bit glib, blurry, and "wobbly." He has elements from the WOF fuzziness, as Joyce Meyers does. They may have come out of the Baptist faith, which was possibly compromised by freemasonry.
An interesting topic would be to trace the influence of freemasonry, which infiltrated the Baptist faith. The Baptist faith is the foundation of the Pentecostal movement. Freemasonry teaches lucifer and Jesus are equals. That is an oversimplification. But you get the idea.
May I ask what your point about Michael and using the Name of Jesus in deliverance is?
I dunno how you can follow after Luther and Calvin if you believe in Miracles by Saints 🤷 those dudes were the OG Cessationists par excellance
@@paulralglad another Catholic is watching. (I am glad they explained Robert Henderson theory of Courts of Heaven.)
The Pope is an Ecumenist heretic. The Mayan Rite? Soon Patriarch Bartholomew may follow Francis into error, but Orthodoxy ☦️ will survive since our ecclesiology doesn't depend on one man sitting on a throne making "infallible" decrees.
@@paulral Virtually no Protestants follow after Luther or Calvin fully or indiscriminately. Contrary to how RCs characterize things, they’re not the “Protestant Popes”. We simply follow their intentions to get back to a biblical context over that of tradition. Something neither they, nor those who came after, have always done very well. Some throw out tradition all together. Some do with new traditions what Rome did with the old. Those are both harmful extremes.
We have access to much more information and knowledge of the ancient languages and contexts in which scripture was written than even the earliest of church fathers.
They had their issues to hash out and wrestle with. We have ours. We’re growing as a body.
So we can learn from our predecessors and do better… respecting traditions in so far as they contribute to the maturation and edification of the Church while also being able to put them down as needed when they become detrimental.
That’s the spirit of the reformation… one that lives on.
Why is the Trinity a prerequisite to Christianity, when the word isn't even used in the Bible?
we explain that in the video. Did you watch it?
@TheRemnantRadio yes, I watched it. I don't understand why someone is considered a heretic, i.e., going to hell, if they don't understand such a loaded, confusing concept. Like when you mentioned Jesus praying or crying to His Father, it does not compute that He's crying to Himself circularly. The reasoning that He is "humbling" Himself sounds great, but He seemed to have genuine human emotions toward a separate being. The more I read the Bible, the more confused I get. It would be easier to understand if they were two separate beings, and Jesus is God in that He is a part of God, like genetically descended from Him.
@@katel1316I agree with you , Phillipians 3: 10, John 17: 3, Hosea 6: 3, if you know Him in your heart you will know Him well, hell will be shunned, heaven will be gained
@katel1316 The Trinity is a simple (3 Persons, 1 God) and complicated (The Father is unoriginate, The Son is eternally begotten from the Father, The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father all sharing the same essence.) doctrine. However, serious heresies arose very early on and the Church had to address these things because if you're wrong about God and teach others heresies, you might be condemned to hell on the day of judgement. That's why the Church had to define who God is in more detail to avoid heresy and damnation. I do recommend you look into the First and Second Ecumenical Councils to get an idea as to why the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ are necessary beliefs for Christians.
It's important because it is the truth of the nature of God, the most foundational truth of all reality. We understand everything else based upon God's nature, as that is what determines good and evil.
Which one of the speakers is reformed? I firgit
Roundtree is the calvie.
At 44:30 . .🔥🔥🔥
This is what Catholics believe.
“Saved by Grace through faith. Faith without works is dead.”
It's common to all pre protestant churches, because "faith alone" is new doctrine and it's false
Haha!
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below?
Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary.
God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9.
If the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant is "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, why would any Christian believe God is going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period?
The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Watch the UA-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
@paulral Since the real Mount Sinai has been discovered in Arabia (Galatians 4:25), you have a mountain to erase. Jethro, the father in law of Moses was a priest of Midian. On older maps Midian is found in Northwest Arabia.
@@SpotterVideothanks, I'll check out the research
You don't wanna go there bro. Jesus himself said the first sign given by which to recognize another believer in him was that they would drive out demons in his name..
It's a command. Go out and do it!
What about Constantinople.
39:10 divine Spark is like Transformers…hahaha
a little different LOL
"We believe in the Creed". Go read the canons of Nicea, Constantinople & Ephesus.
My son is an EO catachumen. He gets a free funeral if he dies before his Baptism or whatchamacallit (he's in good health). I'd like to take credit for influencing him in the right direction but all I could muster was "doesn't look like Remnant will be having Frederica Mathewes-Green back any time soon"... Man if only I could type...
@paulral they're never having any Orthodox on RR ever again. I only check in on this program from time to time anymore. Well...off I go to "kiss my idols and pray to dead people". Hope you have a blessed Nativity fast brother. Blessings. 🙏☦️
@@dustinneely Blessings to you in Christ and very good to see you
When I saw my logical inconsistency of wanting to accept the Creed and Nicaea as "God inspired" but rejected the Canons and Bishops... I realized I was being spiritually and theologically prideful. I can't just pick and choose what I want. Either God led and inspired the Church with those first councils and the New Testament canons, or He didn't!!
And if He led the Church up to that point, then I have to live with that Church which He guided. The only problem was that my protestant church DID NOT reflect the Church of the first few centuries.... and to my surprise the Orthodox Church seemed to preserve the "faith once delivered".
The Eastern Orthodox also have the MOST amazing, miraculous, and humble saints from every century even up to our modern day!
Grateful to have found my way home! ☦
there is a vast difference from Revelation and rationality as Paul says the world by wisdom knew not God it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching Christ crucified saves sinners, all creeds and catechisms are created by man, and as soon as we reject the revelation of Him who said three times, Heaven and Earth will pass away but My Words will never pass away , we are in the realm of the darkness of the Devil, because the incarnate creator said, I am the Light of the world
no one is rejecting the revelation of God. Every line of the creed is a direct quotation of scripture... SoOo, no disagreement here.
I’m charismatic and I have been called a heretic. Mostly for asking questions.
I’m sorry to hear that.
Docetism sounds like what Islam teaches about Jesus death🤔
So is that an Easter Egg leading to a future @pintswithaquinas @TheRemnantRadio crossover episode?!? That would be amazing
WOOOOOOOO
How does this video help other than with understanding the distinctions? (Talking only about the nature of God.) People who have other understanding are simply that. People who have other understanding. They feel they can "prove" their position from scripture. We ARE talking about GOD as humans. May we seek Him and may He reveal Himself as He is able which we know He is through the scriptures.
These distinctions are made with the scriptures and from the scriptures. So God is revealing himself in these distinctions... thats the reason for the video...
👋🏾
There is no such thing as the one true church. There is only the regenerate and non regenerate, those who do the will of God and those who don't. That's how its going to be on the last day.
local (geographically) bodies is the NT model. They have to be organized somehow
There is a such thing as 1 true church. Jesus said He'd build 1 church, and that this church would never die before His return. Paul's epistles and Revelation even teaches that Christ will take this church as His Bride upon His return. So yes, there is a true church doing God's Work. All other "Christian" churches are satanic counterfeits.
The council of Nicaea was the beginning of the fall of the church. The church was thriving under persecution on and off but with the emperor now leading the charge, the church went down under
You realize ALL the 318 Bishops at Nicaea were leaders of the persecuted Church that had just went under the horrible Diocletian persecution just years earlier. Many of those Bishops at Nicaea were crippled and missing limbs because of the period of persecution. In other words, the faith that is expounded upon at Nicaea IS THE FAITH of the early Church because those leaders WERE the survivors and leaders of the previously persecuted Church.
The idea that Nicaea and Constantine corrupted the Church is just as logical that Christian leaders who endured the persecution of Communism of Stalin would join his team 12 years after he was freed from a gulag!
@ you can look for example at the Just War doctrine that Augustine wrote in the beginning of the 4th century going against everything that early church fathers like Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Lactantius and many others saw clearly in the teachings of Jesus. That is just one example but you can look at many other doctrines like eternal security, salvation, atonement, divorce and remarriage etc where it was changed throughout the years from what the pre nicaean fathers taught.
@@mosesvibe That's a fairly poor example. Are you saying that the pre-nicene fathers taught that no individual Christian should participate in war?
That's inconsistent with the Scriptures, Apostolic Fathers (like St. Ignatius), and the historical fact that MANY pre-nicene saints and martyrs were soldiers.
Side note: Tertullian is an early Christian Writer, not a Saint. He become part of a heretical sect known as the Montanist and became very extreme towards the end of his life.
Second, all the other examples do have a continuity with the Church Fathers of the 4th & 5th centuries as with the 1st-3rd.
Lastly, the Church isn't led by one person's/bishops belief. The Church is led by the Holy Spirit leading the Church as a whole community (refer to the first synod in Acts 15)
@@mosesvibe You also didn't address the fact that you said Nicaea was the "beginning of the fall". How could that be when those who led Nicaea PRE-DATE Nicaea... in other words there were baptized, ordained, and persecuted before Christianity is ever legal.
If you really do believe everything went down hill AFTER Nicaea, then logically the Bishops and canons of Nicaea is our last witness & connection with the early Church.
So, was the Church preserved because of Nicaea? Or, did it fall long before then?
@@georgecrosthwaite yes i am saying that pre-nicene majority if not all taught no war participation. I would like to see what scripture in the new testament backs war participation in your view also. And i have not read Ignatius of Antioch supporting that in any of his letters but if you could share them i would gladly read them. For example from Justin Martyr "we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may no lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ." and i could provide more quotes from the early church fathers. By the way, all of us are saints, and not just a few select as Paul mentions in various letters including to the Romans and Philippians. But I do agree with you that the church has always been led by the Holy Spirit and not by men.
🌹🌟🔥🌟🌹
No creed but Christ
Christianity would have never lasted to our present age without The Creed. That's just the reality of history
My doctrine of faith is chapter and verse not made by a Roman emperor that turned into the Roman Catholic Church your Creed is the Nicene Creed because you're ignorant of the scriptures of who Jesus Christ is the last Adam not the second Adam the last Adam without Jesus Christ being the last Adam he is no one God had to make Jesus Christ the last Adam before anything else you won't be able to understand that in your Antichrist doctrine of the trinity