I 1st started listening to flame in 2005 when I first started walking with the Lord, and listen to him regularly. He taught me so much about the faith, reading my Bible and I was on the same tip he was.... fast fast forward about the time he released his extra nose album I was in a dark place and I felt like that album rescued me or at least Pointed me in the right direction out of the darkness
that's great bro... ive been following Flame since 2010 when I started listening to him in the car while driving back-and-forth to Pittsburgh PA, for my job. I have seen him twice in concert. He has been a great inspiration to me in my life as well ❤
Man.... so good to see Flame and hear his heart. He has released some absolute bangers back in my Christian rap days. Gotta check out these new to me projects. Thx 517!
A brother who was very influential in my salvation. Preaching the gospel to me and showing me the love of Christ. First gave me a flame album in 2004. Being from Philly and in the middle of my State property/ Roc-a-fella era of Rap. I thought it was the corniest rap I ever heard and threw the CD 💿 in the 🗑 trash !! A couple of years later in 2006 when I finally got saved. I went back and started listening to flame again and he became my favorite Christian rapper. And I was listening to a lot of Shai Linne and lamp mode back then too. But flame was the first one who helped me understand limited atonement in his first album. Listening to that it finally clicked and I excepted the doctrine of particular redemption for the first time. Now come on flame 🔥 come on brother !! You mean to tell me that 18 years in the reformed church and you never read or listen to R.C. Sproul’s “What Is Reformed Theology” or back then the book was still called “Grace Unknown”. The very beginning of the book. In the section on sola Fide/ Faith Alone. One of the first things RC Sproul talks about is Luthers reformation breakthrough. An alien righteousness, Extra Nos, and simul iustus et peccator, simultaneously being saint and sinner at the same time. I knew about that stuff my first year being saved as a reformed Calvinist. Because I liked that doctrine so much I went on to read more stuff from Luther “the bondage of the will”, “The Augsburg apology”, “The smackald articles”, The whole book of Concorde. Philipp Melanchthon’s loci communis. Gerhard o forde "The Theology Of the Cross" And my favorite Lutheran book by CFW Walther “the proper distinction between law and Gospel”. Martin Chemnitz “examination of the council of Trent” and “the two natures of Christ”. I just find it hard to believe that you never knew about this stuff in the Reformd circles. It was one of the first things I learned being catholic, evangelical, and reformed !! I read more of Luther back then when I first got saved before I even opened John Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian religion”. It sounds like to me you were in a very very weird reformed Baptist Church from the things you are saying here on this video. And I just feel bad for you that you were in such a weird church and never got none of this foundational stuff, if you really are telling the truth and never even heard of “extra NOS” your whole time being reformed. I really don’t believe you.. I think you are exaggerating if I’m wrong please let me know? As for me and I thought the same for all Reformd people. The first thing I learned was Justification by Faith Alone, a historical objective redemption, “Alien 👽 Righteousness”, that is found “Extra Nos” outside of our selves, and the proper distinction between the law and the gospel. I learned all that stuff in the first book I ever read from RC Sproul called “what is reformed theology”. And the different views of the Real Presence between Luther and Calvin on in the sacraments. My first year of being saved as a Reformed Calvinist. That’s why I find it hard to believe you never heard of none of the stuff it’s foundational the fundamental to Reformd theology. We are “Catholic” because of Athanasius, Anselm, and Augustine, “evangelical” because of Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, and Chemnitz, reformed because of Calvin, John Knox, Theodore Baeza, and of course RC Sproul lol 😂 we are just dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants !! I thought everybody who was reform held to the orthodox historical views of the church.
This was an encouraging breakdown. In a today's climate where the love of many are waxing cold, God is doing a working today's generation. I pray His Holy Spirit guides us that as with stamina striving to give God glory in a Extra Nos way, we endure the mission given that fits into the bigger picture...
I could not of herd this at a better time. Flame we are brothers on Christ and your speech has helped me in many ways. Thank you for what you said and just wanted you to know it blessed me today. Thanks!
Truly resonate so deeply coming from a Reformed Baptist background as well and also been going to a confessional Lutheran church, too, and been grateful for the shift. Still learning so much but it's been so encouraging. Keep doing what you're doing, brother!
Haha I remember feeling a bit called out when I was listening to this as a reformed person. A lot of what Flame says here really resonates with me except the difference is that I found rest and solace in confessional reformed theology that properly distinguishes between law and gospel.
I remember when he first came out as a Lutheran, people felt disappointed because they saw him as a 'poster boy' of some sort, but in as much as I felt some type of way about the news I allowed him to say his side of the story and just listened. I'm glad I did because it helped me check my own theology. Where was my assurance? Was it in my union with Christ or in fruit checking? It's also quite encouraging to see this comment from you, I remembered some of your 'Heidelberg Catechism' short clips in RH, and also you being one of the few people that openly loved Christian Rap music. The last part of your comment sums it up nicely, we need a theology that rightly handles law and gospel issues.
@@joydudley983 Amen to that. Baptism (including to infants) and the Lord's Supper delivers forgiveness of sins and with that eternal life in the kingdom of God. All of my reformed Christian friends believe Baptism and the Lord's Supper as Law, i.e. what we do (e.g. dedication or a mere remembrance) rather than what God does (e.g. forgives sinners and strengthens faith). I rejoice you see them as the pure Gospel itself.
At Bible study a peer said, there is only one Catholic Church…but, many denominations that bring unique understandings of the Trinity and our faith…like Mere Christianity. He said it is just like there was only one garden but, many different flowers made up the garden. I called rose for Lutherans both for Luther’s rose, and roses have thorns, and Lutherans can be persnickety. We also decided, the Reformed had already called dibs on tulips.
The serpent lied and told Eve it was knowledge that would make her like God. Too many people are lost in intellectualism and making the gospel complicated. The gospel is so simple that little children can understand it. They will know we are Christians by our love for one another. If we would learn how to do that one thing, we would see more people coming to church and getting saved. 🙏🏽🙌🏽✝️
I wish I could to talk with him some how. Does he have a e mail or contact. I am at a very big loss in life Now and can't get out of this point in life :(
@@brandonluft8950 thanks for the response 👍 Matt 26:28 sure seems to say that Jesus's blood is given for the remission of sin, not the drinking of the cup. But sure, I guess it could be interpreted as such.
@@KennethSaul yeah it’s connecting the blood of Jesus in the Supper and the forgiveness that it wins for us. There is no salvation without the shedding of blood. As the Lord’s Supper is the true body and blood of Jesus then it is for the forgiveness of sins. God bless you brother!
@@KennethSaul Matt 26 literally says to drink of the cup, i.e. the wine that is also at the same time His blood, for the forgiveness of sins. The word "is" connects the wine/cup to the true and real blood of Christ; it is the natural and literal sense, which is the default interpretation when reading the Word unless the Word itself tells us to read it figuratively, which it doesn't in this case--nothing in the text demands a figurative interpretation on the basis of the text itself. For those who say or interpret it symbolically, they do violence against God's Word by replacing/changing the word "is" to a completely different word "signifies" like Cornelius Hoen, which Zwingli adopted, and which then Calvin adopted. Ultimately, the figurative interpretation of the Words of Institution are based on reason over the Word of God (reason sinfully having a magisterial role rather than its proper role which is ministerial to theology), because they can't grasp how the Lord's true body and blood are present despite the Son of God's clear words in his last will and testament (figurative speech is the poorest choice of language rather than natural literal speech in leaving one's last will--for the sake of the inheritors receiving your resources truthfully, you wouldn't use figurative language, and the Lord didn't either).
@@shogunshogun wow, sounds like you're pretty passionate about this point of theology. It is interesting to me how (depending on what denomination/organization/gang/tribe) people happen to be a part of, there are certain tenets that are held up as a dividing lines. I have had a pretty diverse spiritual upbringing since my conversion from atheism 16 years ago, and sometimes I'm still I little taken back by tribalism within the church.
I can empathise with Flame in the pietism and introspection. Having listened to a lot of John Piper, which clearly Flame has too given that he quotes him, Piper's teaching of Lordship Salvation (you're only really a Christian if Jesus is Lord of your life, thus test to see if your a Christian by looking at your sanctification and how much of your life Jesus is Lord over) leads to this extreme introspection and I think more Calvinist's need to recognise this. However, I should highlight that Lordship Salvation is not Calvinism, though it's often conflated with Calvinism because people like John Piper, John MacArthur and Paul Washer are prominent Calvingelical leaders who are often mislabelled as 'Reformed'. Piper and Washer are not Reformed Baptists, they do not apply the 1644 or 1689 Confession in their teaching. MacArthur is most certainly not Reformed in any sense as he's a Dispensationalist. Whilst one can be a Calvinist and teach Lordship Salvation, one cannot be Reformed and do so because the confessions rule out the emphasis Lordship Salvation places on self and how the law is applied to the believer. The confessions make a clear law/gospel distinction (as Luther did) and notes the uses of the law such as in Chapter 19 of the LBCF. The issue in Lordship Salvation is that it does not, and thus either implicitly or explicitly places the believer in Christ back under the law rather than 'not under the law but under grace' (Romans 6:14). Theocast (who have worked with Chad and Kelsi from 1517) helped myself to understand this, and they're Calvinists & Reformed (LBCF). I can't really fault Flame for leaving what he understood to be Calvinism (Lordship Salvation) to find an expression of Christianity he found to healthier and more sustainable and I agree that there are many good an helpful distinctions emphasised in Lutheran theology. However, ironically for myself, I found understanding 'limited atonement' fully and properly to be hugely helpful because I understand Jesus died to personally practically accomplish redemption for those whom the Father gave Him, those whom He foreknew and predestined (Eph 1 & Rom 8). The issue I see with a universal atonement, a propitiation and ransom covering those who ultimately don't believe and end up in hell is that you have to move where you find confidence that you're saved away from Christ and His work, and on to yourself and how you've appropriated it. The error of Lordship is that it's done with your fruits to prove your life has changed but in other cases it's done with looking to praying a prayer, signing the back of a tract, or in this case, looking to one's participation in the sacraments.
I’m rejoicing to see that Flame has left the Calvinist view regarding election but, I am concerned on his view regarding communion. He really needs to exegete these verses. There’s no way that these verses are saying that by drinking the cup, and partaking of the bread that there is forgiveness of sins. Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. One should not adhere to everything John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Huss, John Wycliffe or anyone else if what their saying is not founded in the holy scriptures, To do such is isogesis, and would be doing an injustice to the scriptures, and is false doctrine.
Also, if you study the early church you will find out that they unanimously understood the Lord's supper as conveying the forgiveness of sins. In fact, they lived much closer to the actual historical context and so they knew what these words meant.
@@tomeckstein2510 what does the scripture say? If we seek to be justified by taking the Lord supper or doing anything else the blood of the covenant becomes of non- affect. It’s not Jesus plus taking communion, it’s not Jesus plus something else. We are justified by faith. In 1 John it says if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us of our sins. That’s anytime. We don’t need to wait until we take communion to confess our sins. That’s exactly what the Judaizers try to do to the church at Galatia once they were born again and receive the righteousness which is of faith, Peter also got persuaded by their hypocrisy and Paul had to rebuke him. Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
@@MsDeesè I haven't watched the whole video, but does he say the Lord's cup brings forgiveness of sins? I think it's meant to strengthen your faith in the Risen Lord who is at the right hand of the Father. If you know that He's willing to give you His body now, you have assurance that He will give you the same body when He returns on the Last Day. "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
@@MsDeesè I think it's the same thing with baptism. Just as you went under the water and rose immediately (to you), so death will only be sleep and you will wake immediately to His return. It gives you assurance that death is destroyed- we only sleep thanks to Jesus.
Honest question. Why is it whenever someone disagrees with Reformed Theology, the response of the one holding to it is that the person doesn't understand it or has misrepresented it? Is everyone that disagrees with it genuinely incapable of getting it? Only the very wise can truly understand Reformed Theology?
@@antonioromano8816 not everyone who disagrees with Reformed Theology misrepresents it. There are MANY learned people who are able to articulate Reformed Theology and their disagreements with it. In THIS case, the misrepresentation is egregious, and slanderous. He created a straw man argument and the attacked it.
@@antonioromano8816 for example… he takes several ideas - out of context, and frames them to bolster his argument. 1) John Owen’s Mortification of Sin is not a call to spend every moment “hunting sin”, and working toward it. 2) No sound minister is going to keep from going to the bathroom to glorify God. 3) Matt Chandler’s statement “don’t you wish you had cancer” was not a statement made wishing that everyone had cancer. Chandler was actually making the opposite point. This Flame takes separate statements, divorces then from their context to then criticize the bogus argument he’s created. So he is grossly misrepresenting what Reformed Theology teaches as a whole. So either he doesn’t understand what he’s talking about, or he’s a liar. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
I saw Flame perform live in 2010 and 2011. And I can honestly say this guy is the real deal. I've been following him for 13 years now
I 1st started listening to flame in 2005 when I first started walking with the Lord, and listen to him regularly. He taught me so much about the faith, reading my Bible and I was on the same tip he was.... fast fast forward about the time he released his extra nose album I was in a dark place and I felt like that album rescued me or at least Pointed me in the right direction out of the darkness
Praise God!
Extra Nose album? 🤔
Spellcheck took over at the wrong time I see🤣🤣🤣
Haha...right...
I was in the same boat, it did rescue me
that's great bro...
ive been following Flame since 2010 when I started listening to him in the car while driving back-and-forth to Pittsburgh PA, for my job. I have seen him twice in concert. He has been a great inspiration to me in my life as well ❤
Man.... so good to see Flame and hear his heart. He has released some absolute bangers back in my Christian rap days. Gotta check out these new to me projects. Thx 517!
Thanks for having our guy. Big hat tip to 1517. God’s peace.
I am SO SO Excited to share this with my students!!!
Boy! That opening rhyme gVe me goose bumps and tears came to my eyes I could relate brother!
Thanks for sharing this with me.
@@mosesidowu you’re welcome my brother 😊
A brother who was very influential in my salvation. Preaching the gospel to me and showing me the love of Christ. First gave me a flame album in 2004. Being from Philly and in the middle of my State property/ Roc-a-fella era of Rap. I thought it was the corniest rap I ever heard and threw the CD 💿 in the 🗑 trash !! A couple of years later in 2006 when I finally got saved. I went back and started listening to flame again and he became my favorite Christian rapper. And I was listening to a lot of Shai Linne and lamp mode back then too. But flame was the first one who helped me understand limited atonement in his first album. Listening to that it finally clicked and I excepted the doctrine of particular redemption for the first time. Now come on flame 🔥 come on brother !! You mean to tell me that 18 years in the reformed church and you never read or listen to R.C. Sproul’s “What Is Reformed Theology” or back then the book was still called “Grace Unknown”. The very beginning of the book. In the section on sola Fide/ Faith Alone. One of the first things RC Sproul talks about is Luthers reformation breakthrough. An alien righteousness, Extra Nos, and simul iustus et peccator, simultaneously being saint and sinner at the same time. I knew about that stuff my first year being saved as a reformed Calvinist. Because I liked that doctrine so much I went on to read more stuff from Luther “the bondage of the will”, “The Augsburg apology”, “The smackald articles”, The whole book of Concorde. Philipp Melanchthon’s loci communis. Gerhard o forde "The Theology Of the Cross" And my favorite Lutheran book by CFW Walther “the proper distinction between law and Gospel”. Martin Chemnitz “examination of the council of Trent” and “the two natures of Christ”. I just find it hard to believe that you never knew about this stuff in the Reformd circles. It was one of the first things I learned being catholic, evangelical, and reformed !! I read more of Luther back then when I first got saved before I even opened John Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian religion”. It sounds like to me you were in a very very weird reformed Baptist Church from the things you are saying here on this video. And I just feel bad for you that you were in such a weird church and never got none of this foundational stuff, if you really are telling the truth and never even heard of “extra NOS” your whole time being reformed. I really don’t believe you.. I think you are exaggerating if I’m wrong please let me know? As for me and I thought the same for all Reformd people. The first thing I learned was Justification by Faith Alone, a historical objective redemption, “Alien 👽 Righteousness”, that is found “Extra Nos” outside of our selves, and the proper distinction between the law and the gospel. I learned all that stuff in the first book I ever read from RC Sproul called “what is reformed theology”. And the different views of the Real Presence between Luther and Calvin on in the sacraments. My first year of being saved as a Reformed Calvinist. That’s why I find it hard to believe you never heard of none of the stuff it’s foundational the fundamental to Reformd theology. We are “Catholic” because of Athanasius, Anselm, and Augustine, “evangelical” because of Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, and Chemnitz, reformed because of Calvin, John Knox, Theodore Baeza, and of course RC Sproul lol 😂 we are just dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants !! I thought everybody who was reform held to the orthodox historical views of the church.
This was an awesome teaching. So relevant and needed. Thank you for sharing.
This was an encouraging breakdown. In a today's climate where the love of many are waxing cold, God is doing a working today's generation. I pray His Holy Spirit guides us that as with stamina striving to give God glory in a Extra Nos way, we endure the mission given that fits into the bigger picture...
I could not of herd this at a better time. Flame we are brothers on Christ and your speech has helped me in many ways. Thank you for what you said and just wanted you to know it blessed me today. Thanks!
Very true
A VERY GOOD LUTHERAN
Truly resonate so deeply coming from a Reformed Baptist background as well and also been going to a confessional Lutheran church, too, and been grateful for the shift. Still learning so much but it's been so encouraging. Keep doing what you're doing, brother!
Scattered TULIP.. Happened to me as well and now we are in the same boat:-)
So sweet message. Thank you.
Haha I remember feeling a bit called out when I was listening to this as a reformed person. A lot of what Flame says here really resonates with me except the difference is that I found rest and solace in confessional reformed theology that properly distinguishes between law and gospel.
I remember when he first came out as a Lutheran, people felt disappointed because they saw him as a 'poster boy' of some sort, but in as much as I felt some type of way about the news I allowed him to say his side of the story and just listened. I'm glad I did because it helped me check my own theology. Where was my assurance? Was it in my union with Christ or in fruit checking?
It's also quite encouraging to see this comment from you, I remembered some of your 'Heidelberg Catechism' short clips in RH, and also you being one of the few people that openly loved Christian Rap music.
The last part of your comment sums it up nicely, we need a theology that rightly handles law and gospel issues.
You and reformed Christians need to ask yourself: Is Baptism Law or Gospel? Is the Lord's Supper Law or Gospel?
@@shogunshogun gospel/gospel
@@joydudley983 Amen to that. Baptism (including to infants) and the Lord's Supper delivers forgiveness of sins and with that eternal life in the kingdom of God. All of my reformed Christian friends believe Baptism and the Lord's Supper as Law, i.e. what we do (e.g. dedication or a mere remembrance) rather than what God does (e.g. forgives sinners and strengthens faith). I rejoice you see them as the pure Gospel itself.
@@shogunshogun
My favorite line every week before communion- “Come believing sinners for the table is ready. Taste and see that the Lord is good”
I love this! I can relate so much!
Powerful talk! Flame is the bro! Salute 1517!
At Bible study a peer said, there is only one Catholic Church…but, many denominations that bring unique understandings of the Trinity and our faith…like Mere Christianity. He said it is just like there was only one garden but, many different flowers made up the garden.
I called rose for Lutherans both for Luther’s rose, and roses have thorns, and Lutherans can be persnickety. We also decided, the Reformed had already called dibs on tulips.
Great message!
Looking to my good actions and desires for assurance, but feeling haunted by the Lord's Word on the Last Day in Matt. 7 - from 17:55
Where can I get that sweatshirt!?
On Flame's website
24:00
The serpent lied and told Eve it was knowledge that would make her like God. Too many people are lost in intellectualism and making the gospel complicated. The gospel is so simple that little children can understand it. They will know we are Christians by our love for one another. If we would learn how to do that one thing, we would see more people coming to church and getting saved. 🙏🏽🙌🏽✝️
Is there a way to get the Steven Paulson video from the conference uploaded again?
It looks like it’s back online
ua-cam.com/video/L_mDX1NGQtk/v-deo.html
does anyone know if Flame is still married to Crystal? I haven't seen a wedding ring on him lately.
Where are all the young people at in that church? Lol
I wish I could to talk with him some how. Does he have a e mail or contact. I am at a very big loss in life Now and can't get out of this point in life :(
No you didn’t stand up on the desk 🤣🤣🤣
Just a simple honest question. What scripture says communion or "the Lord's Supper" is "for the forgiveness of sins"??
Matthew 26
@@brandonluft8950 thanks for the response 👍 Matt 26:28 sure seems to say that Jesus's blood is given for the remission of sin, not the drinking of the cup. But sure, I guess it could be interpreted as such.
@@KennethSaul yeah it’s connecting the blood of Jesus in the Supper and the forgiveness that it wins for us. There is no salvation without the shedding of blood. As the Lord’s Supper is the true body and blood of Jesus then it is for the forgiveness of sins. God bless you brother!
@@KennethSaul Matt 26 literally says to drink of the cup, i.e. the wine that is also at the same time His blood, for the forgiveness of sins. The word "is" connects the wine/cup to the true and real blood of Christ; it is the natural and literal sense, which is the default interpretation when reading the Word unless the Word itself tells us to read it figuratively, which it doesn't in this case--nothing in the text demands a figurative interpretation on the basis of the text itself.
For those who say or interpret it symbolically, they do violence against God's Word by replacing/changing the word "is" to a completely different word "signifies" like Cornelius Hoen, which Zwingli adopted, and which then Calvin adopted.
Ultimately, the figurative interpretation of the Words of Institution are based on reason over the Word of God (reason sinfully having a magisterial role rather than its proper role which is ministerial to theology), because they can't grasp how the Lord's true body and blood are present despite the Son of God's clear words in his last will and testament (figurative speech is the poorest choice of language rather than natural literal speech in leaving one's last will--for the sake of the inheritors receiving your resources truthfully, you wouldn't use figurative language, and the Lord didn't either).
@@shogunshogun wow, sounds like you're pretty passionate about this point of theology. It is interesting to me how (depending on what denomination/organization/gang/tribe) people happen to be a part of, there are certain tenets that are held up as a dividing lines. I have had a pretty diverse spiritual upbringing since my conversion from atheism 16 years ago, and sometimes I'm still I little taken back by tribalism within the church.
I can empathise with Flame in the pietism and introspection. Having listened to a lot of John Piper, which clearly Flame has too given that he quotes him, Piper's teaching of Lordship Salvation (you're only really a Christian if Jesus is Lord of your life, thus test to see if your a Christian by looking at your sanctification and how much of your life Jesus is Lord over) leads to this extreme introspection and I think more Calvinist's need to recognise this.
However, I should highlight that Lordship Salvation is not Calvinism, though it's often conflated with Calvinism because people like John Piper, John MacArthur and Paul Washer are prominent Calvingelical leaders who are often mislabelled as 'Reformed'. Piper and Washer are not Reformed Baptists, they do not apply the 1644 or 1689 Confession in their teaching. MacArthur is most certainly not Reformed in any sense as he's a Dispensationalist. Whilst one can be a Calvinist and teach Lordship Salvation, one cannot be Reformed and do so because the confessions rule out the emphasis Lordship Salvation places on self and how the law is applied to the believer. The confessions make a clear law/gospel distinction (as Luther did) and notes the uses of the law such as in Chapter 19 of the LBCF. The issue in Lordship Salvation is that it does not, and thus either implicitly or explicitly places the believer in Christ back under the law rather than 'not under the law but under grace' (Romans 6:14).
Theocast (who have worked with Chad and Kelsi from 1517) helped myself to understand this, and they're Calvinists & Reformed (LBCF).
I can't really fault Flame for leaving what he understood to be Calvinism (Lordship Salvation) to find an expression of Christianity he found to healthier and more sustainable and I agree that there are many good an helpful distinctions emphasised in Lutheran theology. However, ironically for myself, I found understanding 'limited atonement' fully and properly to be hugely helpful because I understand Jesus died to personally practically accomplish redemption for those whom the Father gave Him, those whom He foreknew and predestined (Eph 1 & Rom 8). The issue I see with a universal atonement, a propitiation and ransom covering those who ultimately don't believe and end up in hell is that you have to move where you find confidence that you're saved away from Christ and His work, and on to yourself and how you've appropriated it. The error of Lordship is that it's done with your fruits to prove your life has changed but in other cases it's done with looking to praying a prayer, signing the back of a tract, or in this case, looking to one's participation in the sacraments.
I’m rejoicing to see that Flame has left the Calvinist view regarding election but, I am concerned on his view regarding communion.
He really needs to exegete these verses. There’s no way that these verses are saying that by drinking the cup, and partaking of the bread that there is forgiveness of sins.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
One should not adhere to everything John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Huss, John Wycliffe or anyone else if what their saying is not founded in the holy scriptures, To do such is isogesis, and would be doing an injustice to the scriptures, and is false doctrine.
Except that these scripture texts clearly say that we receive Jesus' blood in holy communion for the forgiveness of sins!
Also, if you study the early church you will find out that they unanimously understood the Lord's supper as conveying the forgiveness of sins. In fact, they lived much closer to the actual historical context and so they knew what these words meant.
@@tomeckstein2510 what does the scripture say? If we seek to be justified by taking the Lord supper or doing anything else the blood of the covenant becomes of non- affect. It’s not Jesus plus taking communion, it’s not Jesus plus something else. We are justified by faith. In 1 John it says if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us of our sins. That’s anytime. We don’t need to wait until we take communion to confess our sins.
That’s exactly what the Judaizers try to do to the church at Galatia once they were born again and receive the righteousness which is of faith, Peter also got persuaded by their hypocrisy and Paul had to rebuke him.
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
@@MsDeesè I haven't watched the whole video, but does he say the Lord's cup brings forgiveness of sins? I think it's meant to strengthen your faith in the Risen Lord who is at the right hand of the Father. If you know that He's willing to give you His body now, you have assurance that He will give you the same body when He returns on the Last Day. "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
@@MsDeesè I think it's the same thing with baptism. Just as you went under the water and rose immediately (to you), so death will only be sleep and you will wake immediately to His return. It gives you assurance that death is destroyed- we only sleep thanks to Jesus.
From one set of errors to another…
What a terrible distortion and misrepresentation of Reformed Theology.
Honest question. Why is it whenever someone disagrees with Reformed Theology, the response of the one holding to it is that the person doesn't understand it or has misrepresented it? Is everyone that disagrees with it genuinely incapable of getting it? Only the very wise can truly understand Reformed Theology?
@@antonioromano8816 not everyone who disagrees with Reformed Theology misrepresents it. There are MANY learned people who are able to articulate Reformed Theology and their disagreements with it. In THIS case, the misrepresentation is egregious, and slanderous. He created a straw man argument and the attacked it.
@@antonioromano8816 for example… he takes several ideas - out of context, and frames them to bolster his argument. 1) John Owen’s Mortification of Sin is not a call to spend every moment “hunting sin”, and working toward it. 2) No sound minister is going to keep from going to the bathroom to glorify God. 3) Matt Chandler’s statement “don’t you wish you had cancer” was not a statement made wishing that everyone had cancer. Chandler was actually making the opposite point. This Flame takes separate statements, divorces then from their context to then criticize the bogus argument he’s created. So he is grossly misrepresenting what Reformed Theology teaches as a whole. So either he doesn’t understand what he’s talking about, or he’s a liar. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Excellent message!