14 күн бұрын
21 күн бұрын
21 күн бұрын
5 ай бұрын
Пікірлер
@CaseyCovenant 7 күн бұрын
Thank you for this teaching series. The playlist needs to be cleaned up on your KZfaq Channel also, there are unrelated videos in the list. Should be only teaching videos from this series in the proper order. God Bless!
@ericmatthaei9711 9 күн бұрын
This video says (19:45) that paedobaptists have to infer that there were infants present and participating in the household baptisms in the Book of Acts. Is that so? Would that inference be more speculative than his inference that such people were absent or excluded from participating? For those practicing biblical Baptism, the presence or absence, exclusion or inclusion of infants at any particular Baptism recorded in Acts is largely irrelevant, because the practice of infant baptism is based on an understanding of what Baptism is according to the Scriptures, and on the absence of any specific exclusion of infants when Jesus sends the church to make disciples of “all nations” by baptizing and teaching in Matthew 28. That Luke wasn’t terribly specific when he recorded household baptisms simply has no bearing on the practice of infant baptism.
@ericmatthaei9711 9 күн бұрын
That having been said, infants and small children are commonly, perhaps even normally, a part of large households. As were slaves. If a “credible profession of faith” is a necessary condition to qualify as a candidate for baptism, why doesn’t Acts say more about the church probing the allegedly professed conversions of the household slaves? Wouldn’t they want to at least ask if they were motivated by a desire to please their masters? The inference that babies and small children were absent or excluded, and the inference that the church was super careful not to baptize other adult household members unless they were confident that a real conversion had taken place, seems to require a higher degree of speculation than simply assuming that these were normal households and everyone was baptized.
@ericmatthaei9711 9 күн бұрын
That having been said, infants and small children are commonly, perhaps even normally, a part of large households. As were slaves. If a “credible profession of faith” is a necessary condition to qualify as a candidate for baptism, why doesn’t Acts say more about the church probing the allegedly professed conversions of the household slaves? Wouldn’t they want to at least ask if they were motivated by a desire to please their masters? The inference that babies and small children were absent or excluded, and the inference that the church was super careful not to baptize other adult household members unless they were confident that a real conversion had taken place, seems to require a higher degree of speculation than simply assuming that these were normal households and everyone was baptized. That seems to be the clear and simple implication of the text.
@ericmatthaei9711 9 күн бұрын
The fact that Jesus commands Baptism (~19:15) does not make it inappropriate to baptize infants. Read Matthew 28:16-20. Jesus does not command the world to get baptized. He commands the disciples (and, more specifically the twelve) to baptize the world. Again, it goes to the question of whose action is Baptism? Is it yours? Is Baptism your act, your symbol, communicating to God and to the world the glorious thing that has happened to you? No. It is Jesus washing away your sins through the hands of those He has sent. So, what if babies can’t follow orders? The orders have been given to the church; not to the objects of Baptism.
@ericmatthaei9711 9 күн бұрын
What a treasure-trove of misinformation! Three minutes and twenty-one seconds in and your teacher doesn’t know that Lutherans teach baptismal regeneration. He doesn’t credit Lutherans with regarding Baptism as a sacrament. And he has indicated that the people receiving baptism are the primary actors in this symbol, which is why matters that they know what is going on; even though the Bible is sufficiently clear that Baptism is God’s work. He is the subject. You are the object. The verbs are His work; not yours. But this guy is going to ignore all that and teach his made up dogmas instead of the Bible.
@ericmatthaei9711 9 күн бұрын
You already know that these people don’t care what the Bible says about Baptism when they put the topic all the way back in chapter 49.
@johnnynesbit8289 5 күн бұрын
Yep. That's what I was thinking. The bible teaches getting baptized as soon as belief and in pauls case he needed to be baptized for the appeal to God for the washing of sins evek though he already believed
@momochakhwoirakpam4266 11 күн бұрын
Notes please 🙏
@DavidCraig-hw7ic 9 күн бұрын
Hello - glad you are watching these ST class videos - only the first few videos in this series have notes - the rest simply follow Grudem’s Chapters and workbook by Thoenes - you will greatly benefit if you get both these books and work through the course with us - Grace to you 😊
@PaxMundi118 12 күн бұрын
"In AD 107, St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, wrote a letter to the Church at Ephesus, while being escorted by Roman soldiers to Rome to be martyred. In that letter he writes: For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water. (Epistle to the Ephesians, 18) This notion that Christ purified the waters is found in other Church Fathers as well, but this is the earliest record we have of the statement. Christ was not purified by being baptized, since Christ was already pure. Rather, in His baptism, the waters were purified for our sake, that when we are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we are purified, not by the removal of dirt from the body, but by the forgiveness of sin and the reception of the Life of God within us. Here is a selection from the eleventh chapter of the Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130) describing baptism: “This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.” Baptism is here described as immediately removing sins and producing immediate fruit in the heart. The notion that baptism bears immediate fruit in the heart implies that baptism regenerates the baptized person. Here is a selection from chapter 16 of the ninth Similitude of the Shepherd of Hermas (early second century): They were obliged,” he answered, “to ascend through water in order that they might be made alive; for, unless they laid aside the deadness of their life, they could not in any other way enter into the kingdom of God. … For,” he continued, “before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God.” (Shepherd of Hermas) Just as in the Epistle of Barnabas, the candidate is described as going into the water dead, and coming out alive. Not only that, but through baptism we are said to enter into the kingdom of God." (CtC)
@PaxMundi118 12 күн бұрын
"Next, is the well known figure of St. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165). Here are some selections from his First Apology: "I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. They then are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. . . . The reason for this we have received from the Apostles.” (Chapter 61) And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. (Chapter 66) Notice that Justin Martyr, writing about fifty years after the death of the Apostle John, claims that they received from the Apostles the doctrine that through baptism they receive “remission of sins that are past” [i.e. prior to baptism], and through baptism they are “regenerated” in the same manner that all Christians were regenerated (i.e. by baptism)." (CtC)
@PaxMundi118 12 күн бұрын
"In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, St. Justin contrasts Christian baptism with the Jewish baptism, writing: By reason, therefore, of this laver of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God’s people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life. But the cisterns which you have dug for yourselves are broken and profitless to you. For what is the use of that baptism which cleanses the flesh and body alone? (ch. 14) This [Jewish] circumcision is not, however, necessary for all men, but for you [Jews] alone, in order that, as I have already said, you may suffer these things which you now justly suffer. Nor do we receive that useless baptism of cisterns, for it has nothing to do with this baptism of life. Wherefore also God has announced that you have forsaken Him, the living fountain, and dug for yourselves broken cisterns which can hold no water. Even you, who are the circumcised according to the flesh, have need of our circumcision; but we, having the latter, do not require the former. ( ch. 19) As, then, circumcision began with Abraham, and the Sabbath and sacrifices and offerings and feasts with Moses, and it has been proved they were enjoined on account of the hardness of your people’s heart, so it was necessary, in accordance with the Father’s will, that they should have an end in Him who was born of a virgin, of the family of Abraham and tribe of Judah, and of David; in Christ the Son of God, who was proclaimed as about to come to all the world, to be the everlasting law and the everlasting covenant, even as the forementioned prophecies show. And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God’s mercy; and all men may equally obtain it. (ch. 43) When the Fathers speak of the “laver” or the “laver of “repentance” or the “laver of regeneration,” they are speaking of baptism. Here, St. Justin is contrasting Christian baptism with Jewish baptisms. According to St. Justin, Christians receive spiritual circumcision through baptism." (CtC)
@PaxMundi118 12 күн бұрын
Without quoting any more from the vast wealth of Church Fathers who described and taught baptism as regenerative (I could add more later), let me cite St. Paul, 'I died and rose again in Baptism.' If this is not regeneration, I do not know what is.
@PaxMundi118 13 күн бұрын
Baptism now saves us! -- 1 Peter
@darewan8233 12 күн бұрын
...not the removal of dirt from the body but as a pledge....
@PaxMundi118 12 күн бұрын
@@darewan8233 Amen!
@4everseekingwisdom690 Күн бұрын
Since the Bible itself says Peter was "agrammatoi" or illiterate there's no way he could write anything and no he didn't have someone write it for him lol so unless you can explain who actually wrote this number one and more importantly why is this individual lying about being someone they're not? Give me a scenario where lying about who you are is a good thing.. I'll wait
@PaxMundi118 Күн бұрын
@@4everseekingwisdom690 Sorry, can you rephrase your question slightly? Are you saying everyone is a liar and all we think we know is false, unless we have explicit documentary evidence to the contrary? In a sense, how can we function on an appropriate hermeneutic, which is, most appropriately, the hermeneutic of suspicion?
@PaxMundi118 Күн бұрын
I will offer two perspectives: The early 4th century Church historian Eusebius thought that, based on centuries-long tradition, Peter was the author of the Epistles: Eusebius also states that several works had been attributed to Peter: the First Epistle of Peter, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Acts of Peter, the Gospel of Peter, the Preaching of Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter. He accepts the First and Seconds Epistles of Peter as genuine, while he rejects all the others as spurious. Apostolic attribution is not dishonesty. It is common, accepted practice in the ancient world. I think what Eusebius taught is of value, but it is by no means infallible. My own perspective is that we can make educated guesses about the Petrine letters, but we can't know with any great confidence who wrote them, at least not yet, archaeology or new manuscripts could hypothetically clarify this. The fact that these letters were Apostolic in name has some significance, but as Eusebius' list shows, there is a significant gap between Apostolic attribution and Canonicity, or even Apostolic attribution and Apostolic authorship. I think that, at this point, a true Sola Scriptura Protestant is in deep trouble -- Why isn't the Apocalypse of Peter, a popular 2nd century text, perhaps even prayed in Christian liturgies, not in the Canons of Hippo and Carthage? A proper ecclesiology (as I see it) is that the Church (singular) is the Body of Christ. The Church has been endowed with the charism of the Holy Spirit (which includes knowledge) and the ability to determine what the Word of God is. This is not a superstitious process, by any means, but involves scholarship, history, the use of texts in liturgy, doctrinal consistency, true Apostolic integrity, the abandoning of texts capitalizing on false Apostolic heritage, Sacred Tradition (what has legitimately been handed-down), the approval of the early Church Fathers and, of course, as Christians, much prayer, fasting and discernment. Even after all of this, it is process...It took two Councils to determine the Canon over the span of decades... My personal belief is that I don't know who wrote Peter's Epistles and I probably never will. But I trust the decision of the Church to include them, and I have profited much, intellectually and spiritually, from reading these texts, which says something (at least for me). Actually, I believe 1 Peter has the most elevated version of the Gospel in Scripture: 'that we will be Partakers of the Divine Nature.' Not only are our sins forgiven, not only are we friends with Christ, not only are we part of the Mystical Body of Church, we will in fact become like God in our eternal happiness with him. On one level: I don't really care that much who wrote 1 Peter. But I still believe it's of great value. Many ancient texts are anonymous. The content, not the attribution, is what matters. I hope I addressed your welcome provocation. Cheers. 🙂 Keep in mind I'm not a scholar, and I have only studied this on a fairly peripheral level -- although you have encouraged to look into it more...Feel free to respond.
@Maxandshe 14 күн бұрын
Oh no. Not Wayne Grudem!!!
@revplaysgolf 22 күн бұрын
FYI: Only "oneness" Pentecostals equate tongues with salvation. Other pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God, Church of God, etc. do not equate it with salvation. It is instead a separate experience after salvation, but not tied to salvation.
@conservativecatholic9030 23 күн бұрын
I’m about 30 minutes in. Look, I get that it’s a lot of work to get into the citations. You said it but they are very important. There are a number of times you say we didn’t get something from the Bible immediately after you read something that is citing the Bible. For example, you were just on CCC 501 and said that we didn’t use the Bible when it literally cites 3 passages. (John 19:26-27, Romans 8:29 and Revelation 12:17) Also, I have been around the Catholic world in my 40 years. Not once in my life have I ever seen a cross with Mary on it. I even out of an effort to take him at his word googled it and couldn’t find anything of that sort. I also have strong suspicions that there is more to that story from Spain. (Which is a nominally Catholic country anyway)
@cali7150 Ай бұрын
I love scriptures. Life changing ❤
@gloriamacias2180 Ай бұрын
Like he said he is CRITIQUING! Critiquing is not the TRUTH! It’s an OPINION! I can at least thank you for telling everyone to go do your own research. To Roman Catholics it doesn’t mean that the Pope is infallible as a human. ONLY when he is speaking from the seat of Peter. The last time a Pope spoke infallibly is 1950. It doesn’t mean he speaks infallibly ALL the time. As matter of Since the last time a Pope spoke infallibly was 1950, you can now say that he is fallible unless he is speaking from the seat of Peter and that is a FACT!!
@DavidCraig-hw7ic Ай бұрын
Thanks for watching and for your reply. 😊
@gabepettinicchio7454 Ай бұрын
Question regarding "Sola Scriptura." Hi. since you are Bible only Christians. You also, believe it is the only authority & only source regarding God. If that were true, wouldn't the Bible itself have to say that is? It doesn't! Regarding it being the final & only authority. --- It doesn't say that. It says (2 Timothy) that the "Church" is the pillar and foundation of the truth. How do you square the above, up against your understanding on the subject? And how did you come to your conclusions about "Sola Scriptura?" Thank you.
@bibleman8010 Ай бұрын
You seem to have a wrong idea about what Catholics mean by "Papal Infallibility." It doesn't mean everything a Pope says or writes concerning matters of faith and practice are guaranteed to be true. Only the things a Pope says under the conditions known as "ex cathedra" qualify as infallible. These conditions are defined by the first Vatican Council in 1870, but basically they are: the Pope must be addressing the whole of the Church, on a matter of faith or morals, speaking in his capacity as the successor of St. Peter, and he must assert that his statement is a binding belief on all Catholics. It does not say that a Pope can't be wrong on matters of faith or morals, nor even that a Pope can't be a heretic. I don't think any were, but it's not excluded by the definition. You say, "How can a man guided by the Holy Spirit so as to be infallible when teaching faith and practice also be a heretic?" But the Pope is not automatically guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit doesn't give the Pope some special revelation -- the Holy Spirit simply prevents the Pope from issuing an incorrect ex cathedra statement. The Holy Spirit doesn't give him stuff to say, He just stops him from saying wrong stuff. Used only twice. The Popes word is Over scripture The Magisterium of the Church 85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. 86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48 87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms. KJV to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. People are to Be saved thru us Romans 10:13-15 King James Version 13 For “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” 14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!”......
@TomPlantagenet Ай бұрын
People are saved through Christ (John 14:6). Not through “us” as you put it. Here’s the thing, what are you trusting in for your salvation? Is it your baptism, Good works, church membership? Or Jesus Christ ? The Bible teaches that we are saved by “grace through faith and not by works”(Ephesians 2:8-9).If you believe that you need to do something in order to get salvation then you are trusting in what you do. You can say it’s grace, but if you’re doing something to get saved then it is works.(Romans 11:6). God sent Jesus to die in our place to pay for our sins (1 John 2:2). Jesus then rose from the dead to give us new life (John 11:25-26). That is what saves us. It is the Person and the Work of Jesus Christ which makes us right with God. Our sins separate us from God (Isaiah 59:1-2); therefore, they must be paid for (Hebrews 2:17)and we must be born again(John 3:3). That is what Jesus’ death and resurrection accomplishes. The work of Christ is Imputed to us by God’s grace through repentance and faith (Roman’s 3:21-26; John 3:16; Acts 20:21). Nothing we can do can contribute in any way to our salvation. It is a free gift that is being given to us and all we can do is humbly receive it by trusting in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ.(1 Corinthians 15:1-5; Acts 16:31). Finally, we are either trusting in Christ or we are not(John 14:6). There is no faith in Christ plus our works equals salvation. Partially trusting in works (baptism, charitable giving, other sacraments) means not trusting in Christ. If you are adding works to the gospel, then you are lost (Galatians5:4) and on your way to hell. You are believing another gospel (Galatians 1:8-9). I emplore you to repent of this false gospel and your sins and receive the free gift of salvation that is only found in Jesus and His death for our sins and His resurrection. (Romans 4:25). Remember the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14). I’m not writing this to win an argument. I’m writing this in love. I’m a beggar who was given food and I’m showing you where it is given.
@bibleman8010 Ай бұрын
@@TomPlantagenet Is it your baptism, Good works, church membership? Or Jesus Christ ? Jesus instituted baptism, Good works, church membership are you stupid...
@sonusancti Ай бұрын
John MacArthur rebels with palpable hatred for the Church of Rome. Is he any different from the first rebel Satan? Spewing accusations and lies to his audience, what is this spirit that consumes him? Of all the doctrines of the Catholic Church, probably the most defining is our veneration for the Holy Mother of God. The new Eve was likewise conceived without sin but unlike Eve, she did not sin but remained perfectly obedient to God, humble and pure. She was finally raised up to heaven body and soul, in triumph over sin. How can one claim to love Jesus yet demean and deride his beloved Holy Mother? As we love her Divine Son so too the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of our Savior, Mother of our Creator and her immaculate heart.
@jamesgeorge6239 Ай бұрын
Prophecy and covenants makes everything clear. Read the dialogue of Catherine of Seina. It’s the Ancient Paths the prophet Jeremiah refers to in Jeremiah 6-16. This Way that is Truth. It’s a time of warriors. Zechariah 11-10,14. Ezekiel 18-5.
@jperez7893 Ай бұрын
the teaching authority and sovereignty given by jesus christ to st. peter and his successors over the church precedes any holy tradition, and precedes the new testament itself. the bishops of rome have always intervened or censured other churches, even eminent and ancient churches such as ephesus and alexandria, without hesitation, and in an ordinary way. and other churches always appealed to the popes instead of other bishops. no council took effect as an ecumenical without the confirmation of the pope. 1st constantinople was essentially an eastern synod or council until it was recognized much later by the pope, and he did not ratify all of its canons
@MichaelPetek Ай бұрын
If Peter possessed no office of supreme episcopal authority in which he has successors, then you have yet to make a case against Eastern Orthodoxy.
@gloriamacias2180 Ай бұрын
There is a case against Orthodoxy. When the Apostles went to spread the word, they ALWAYS went back to Peter whenever there was a dispute. That’s the problem with Protestants. There was no written word right after Jesus’ death. There was only tradition which the Bible DOES say to follow. Nowhere does it say to follow the Bible alone. If it does, I would love a Protestant to tell me where.
@gloriamacias2180 Ай бұрын
This lecture is so full of false teachings. I hope the students have the common sense to go directly to the Catholic Church to get the Catholic’s church teaching.
@TomPlantagenet Ай бұрын
Can you cite one
@gloriamacias2180 Ай бұрын
@@TomPlantagenet Yes….the Bible!!! The Bible is a Catholic book. If Protestants want to disprove ANYTHING from Catholicism, they need to use a different source other than the Bible. There was NO Protestants for 1500 years. That’s proof enough.
@randycarson9812 Ай бұрын
*YES, PETER WAS THE FIRST STEWARD OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD (cf. MT **16:19**)* _And his successors, the bishops of Rome, are called the "pope" which comes from the Greek word, "pappas"._ In the books of Genesis and Isaiah, we see that kings had royal stewards who were given authority to act in the king's name (cf. Gen 41:41, Is 22:20-22). Jesus inherited the throne of David (cf. Lk 1:31-33), and He promised to build one church upon Peter, the rock to whom He gave the keys of the office of the Royal Steward (cf. Mt. 16:16-18) citing the passage from Isaiah. Note that both Eliakim and Peter were given keys by God as symbols of the office of Steward. Jesus deliberately chose to echo the passage from Isaiah by giving Peter alone the keys symbolizing His Divine authority. [Note: In Mt. 18, Jesus conveys similar authority on all the Apostles, but not the keys, which were given to Peter alone.] While this symbolism may be lost on modern ears, it would have been recognized immediately by His Jewish hearers. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of His Royal Steward continues without ceasing. And while the man who holds the office of Royal Steward may change due to disobedience (as was Shebna) or death (in the case of Peter), the office itself, established by God, will remain till He comes again. The Church Jesus promised to build, overseen by the Royal Steward, still exists, and it has been known as the Catholic Church since the first century.
@sonusancti Ай бұрын
Excellently put.
@MaryBattye Ай бұрын
Некода.
@truthseeker5698 Ай бұрын
Adam Harwood ST book is the go to. W G ST is calvinist reformed deceptive leech theology drivel.
@3ggshe11s Ай бұрын
Matthew 16 is a pun. Peter means "rock." Jesus changed his name from Simon at that moment to make the point that Peter was the rock. Otherwise, Jesus would have changed his own name to Peter.
@gloriamacias2180 Ай бұрын
A pun! 😂🤣😂. Jesus didn’t talk in puns. He talked in parables and truth. Yes is yes and no is no.
@harrisonjones1087 Ай бұрын
@@gloriamacias2180 It does mean Rock. He changed Simon's name from Simon to Rock, and said "on this Rock I build my church."
@gloriamacias2180 Ай бұрын
@@harrisonjones1087 exactly like I said that I hope you go research more
@jimmu2008 Ай бұрын
I don't think "pun" is the best way of putting it, but your last statement is spot on.
@bibleman8010 Ай бұрын
why yes Peter was the First Pope
@Justas399 Ай бұрын
Peter never made that claim nor did the apostles.
@randycarson9812 Ай бұрын
@@Justas399 Why would he have to make a claim that was understood by all concerned?
@Justas399 Ай бұрын
@@randycarson9812 Thats the problem. No one ever claims Peter is the chief shepherd-pope of the church in the NT. He doesn't nor do the apostles.
@randycarson9812 Ай бұрын
@@Justas399 I'm not asking this to insult you, but simply out of curiosity: Are you unfamiliar with Jn 21:15-17? _When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. (Jn 21:15-17)_ The uniqueness of Peter's shepherding role is affirmed by specific details: *Direct Commission:* Jesus directly singles out Peter in the presence of others, commissioning him to shepherd His flock (John 21:15-17). This explicit charge is not extended to the other apostles or the Beloved Disciple. *Unique Responsibility:* While other apostles have roles in administering sacraments and teaching, Peter alone receives the explicit role of shepherding, which sets him apart in the Church's leadership structure. *Symbolic Representation:* The use of the Greek verb "poimainō" (to shepherd) emphasizes Peter's governance and leadership responsibilities, distinct from mere feeding or tending. This verb is associated with Christ's messianic kingship in Revelation (Rev. 2:27, 12:5, 19:15), reinforcing Peter's authority. *Universal Scope:* Peter's commission encompasses all of Jesus' flock, symbolizing his universal shepherding role over the entire Church, unlike the more localized roles of presbyters and bishops. While Catholicism acknowledges that bishops also shepherd their flocks symbolized by crosiers, Peter's role as the universal shepherd remains unique due to the explicit commissioning by Jesus Himself.
@randycarson9812 Ай бұрын
@Justas399 Jesus did in John 21:15-19.
@jonahdav9589 Ай бұрын
Does your church obey God? When one "make space for Sam Storms' or any other person who claims God is speaking to them, they are abandoning the authority of the scriptures and taking steps of apostasy. It is not careful allegiance God's word when it is not a grey issue. It is much closer to post modernism, fear of man, or even man pleasing. Is the word of God unclear on people who claim God is speaking to them and what you are suppose to do? "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’- when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him." Deuteronomy 18:20-22 1. You can know with 100 percent certainty that God has not spoken to them and you are to not be afraid of them. Is the word unclear on what the cost will be if you disobey God in this regard and continue to listen to or allow those that say God speaks to them to persist? "Thus says the Lord of hosts: "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you. They make you worthless; they speak a vision of their own heart, Not from the mouth of the Lord." Jeremiah 23:16-17 We must be precise with the word of God and be loyal to the Lord we claim. Why be made worthless? Why not obey God instead? Sam Storms not only claims God is speaking to him, but can train others to receive this gift. What does the word of God say to this lying sin? Listen to how Peter addressed it. "Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and bound by iniquity. Acts 8:22-23 Now you can determine if you truly hold to the word of God as the authority of your life and not merely leave room for Sam Storms to ravage the church. But perhaps you will say, "we are protected from Sam Storms because of our confession." Or he is not in our church? "Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people's sins; keep yourself pure." 1 Timothy 5:22 The hunches and secret words he has heard are lies. Why be made worthless? Instead look to Jesus Christ through faith alone. He is the one mediator to God not any private revelation. Come to your senses if you are Christians.
@ayubpaulofficial Ай бұрын
Thank you for this! God bless you.
@Stupidityindex Ай бұрын
If prayer did anything outside of fiction, we would use as a first response at a children's hospital. Is there a greater arrogance than expressing you have some sort of relationship with a deity? Question: How can you possibly take faith seriously? How can anyone in their right mind ask others to believe in the existence of a Deity who makes Mormons so Christians will know how Jews feel, having had their literature hijacked. Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital & indoctrinating children is criminal. The faith vocabulary causes the user to be avoided like the old woman with too many cats. Faith "comes not with peace, but sword." Faith comes with wolves dressed as sheep & preaching to the choir. Faith trades the last cow for a pocketful of magic beans & then expects everyone's appreciation. Jesus said, it is a wicked generations which seeks signs such as resurrection. Faith is as worthless as fantasyland magic, since you can't tell mountains to move. The "only sign given" in reality "is Jonah": A believer murdered by other believers because he is outnumbered. The context is Jesus seeing a gathering crowd.
@paulvoit5610 Ай бұрын
@@StupidityindexCongrats! You're definitely off the chart on your index with that one.
@louiseseeley5503 Ай бұрын
If you are Irish you are still British!
@marilynjo 2 ай бұрын
At minute 44:42 compares satan to a flaming liberal!! 😆 Overall great video and discussion! 👏💜
@craighollinshead1475 2 ай бұрын
What does he mean "they're not going to be like Ravi Zachurias"?
@annibellecamey9325 2 ай бұрын
Ravi Zacharias was a well known apologist and respected by the christian community. After his death it came out that he did a lot of bad stuff to woman sexually up until the point of his death.
@thearborbarber 2 ай бұрын
Also @45:00 you continue into people who are not actually saved doing damage to Christianity and running amuck, if the Calvinist view is true then these people are doing this not by their own will, but that this was ultimately God's plan and will for their life. Can you please explain?
@dr.davidcraig269 2 ай бұрын
Again, thanks for your question. Those who are reprobate are responsible for their choices. And those who are of the elect are also responsible for their choices. The main difference between the elect and non-elect is those who are elect have the Holy Spirit and those who are reprobate do not have the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately all churches have tares among the wheat who profess faith in Christ, but do not possess faith in Christ. This is why when people "abandon" the faith or "apostasy" John says they never had the faith to begin with, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." God saves some (the elect) but not all (the reprobate). He gives the reprobate over to what they want - not against their will - He gives them over to what they want. This is why the apostle Paul says (quoting the Psams), "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Romans 3:11). He makes it even more clear about God's mercy and justice in Romans 9:8-18: "This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls- she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." Very clearly Paul is saying that God works actively to have mercy on some, and passively to give some what they want. Left to our own wills we would never choose God. But when God saves us He intervenes to change our will so that we want Him. John 1:12-13, "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."
@thearborbarber 2 ай бұрын
I am trying to understand how the Calvinist biblical view can be possible without genuine human intervention. @44:00 you begin to explain how your Mom commissioned you towards the gospel by being obedient to God. How can we be obedient when all of our actions we produce have been predestined by God? How can we make the gospel attractive to unbelievers to get them to come to faith, when in reality (according to Calvin) we actually have no bearing on their choice and neither do they?
@dr.davidcraig269 2 ай бұрын
Hello, thanks for your questions. The doctrine of predestination is about election unto salvation - not everything we do. We are responsible and God holds us responsible for the decisions we make. God works providentially through both being passive (allowing things to happen) and actively when He chooses to intervene. A perfect example of this is with Joseph and his brothers Genesis 50:20 where Joseph says to his brothers, "Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring about that many people should be kept alive, as then are today." God did not make Joseph's brothers sin. They sinned of their own volition. But God did work sovereignly to bring about good despite the sin of the brothers. However, He will hold the brothers accountable to the sin - God didn't sin; the brothers sinned against God and their brother Joseph. Likewise, Joseph chose to trust and obey God. God didn't "make" him obey - he chose of how own volition to be obedient to God. ... In your second question it is important to understand that regeneration precedes faith (Read Ephesians 2:1-10 carefully). The only way dead men and women can exercise faith in Christ is they must be regenerated or "made alive" by the Holy Spirit. We are commanded to share the gospel (Great commission in Matthew 28:16-20 and Romans 10:14, "How will they hear without a preacher?") to those who are unbelievers. I know that when someone repents and believes on Christ unto salvation that they don't have the ability to do that when they are dead spiritually. It is God the Holy Sprit who makes one alive to the truth that they are a sinner who needs to repent and trust Christ for salvation. God uses the preaching or sharing of the gospel - but those who are saved and only be saved by the monergistic work of God in saving us, as Jesus says in John 6:44, "No one can come (has the ability) unless the Father who sent me draws him (makes him alive spiritually). And I will raise him up on the last day. I would really encourage you to read Romans, John, and Ephesians carefully. I'm not concerned about whether one identifies as a Calvinist or Arminian. The goal of Systematic Theology is to take a doctrine like "Salvation" (Soteriology) and reconcile what the whole Bible has to say about salvation. We have a responsibility to believe the gospel and share it with lost people - our understanding of the volition of humanity and God's sovereignty may not totally align, but ultimately we have a responsibility to share the good news and pray that the seeds we plant would come to fruition. All that God has elected unto salvation will come to salvation - but the primary means He uses to save us means people have been responsible to pray for us and share with us the good news.
@pastortonypeaks5464 2 ай бұрын
Assembly of God does not believe you have to speak in tongues to be saved, they believe it is a separate experience called the baptism of the Holy Spirit
@bibleman8010 2 ай бұрын
THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS INSTITUTED BY JESUS CHRIST Sacraments are essential elements of the New Covenant Law, revealed in visible signs that were instituted by Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry, by which invisible grace and inward sanctification are communicated to the soul. Sacrament Scripture Reference Catechism Reference 1. Baptism: the sacrament by which a person, whether a baby, child, or adult, receives an indelible spiritual mark, is cleansed of all sin and is reborn into the family of God, being sanctified by Christ to everlasting life by means of the sign of water and the action of the Holy Spirit. Of Jesus: Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-33 Necessity of Christian baptism: Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:4-8; Luke 3:16; John 3:1-21; Acts 2:38; 11:15-17; 19:1-7; Ephesians 4:5; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:25-28; Colossians 2:12-13 Significance of Baptism: CCC 628, 950, 1213-14, 1220, 1227-28, 1234-45, 1262, 1272-74, 1617 Baptism of infants: CCC 403, 1231, 1233, 1250-52, 1282, 1290 Baptism of adults: CCC 1247-49 Baptismal promises: CCC 1185, 1254, 2101, 2340 2. Confirmation: through the laying on of hands, anointing with chrism (oil), and prayer a person's baptism is confirmed (completion of baptismal grace) and is strengthened by the Holy Spirit to publically profess the faith and live up to the role of Christ's apostle. Matthew 3:13-17 John 1:33-34 Acts 8:14-17; 10:38 CCC 1285-1321 Effects of Confirmation: CCC 1302-05 Who can receive: CCC 1306-11 Minister of Confirmation: CCC 1312-14 3. Reconciliation/Penance: the sacrament of spiritual healing in which, through certain acts of the penitent and by the absolution of a qualified priest, sins committed after baptism are remitted and fellowship with God is restored. Matthew 16:19; 18:18 John 20:22-23 CCC 1422-1498 Names of the sacrament: CCC 1423-24 Necessity of interior penance: CCC 1430-39 Why Jesus gave the power to forgive sins to the Church: CCC 1441-49 Effects: CCC 1468-71 4. Holy Orders: the sacrament of Apostolic Ministry by which the mission entrusted to the Apostles by Jesus Christ continues to be exercised in His Church. This sacrament confers on a man the power of consecrating the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ and of remitting and retaining sins. Matthew 16:19; 18:18 John 13:3-15 John 19:22-23 Acts 1:15-26 CCC 1113, 1120, 1142, 1210, 1536-1600 Holy Orders in the Economy of Salvation: CCC 1539-71 Effects of Holy Orders: CCC 1581-1600 5. Matrimony: the sacramental binding covenant between a baptized man and woman in which they agree to eternal fidelity to each other and commit to being God's partners in the creation of new life. John 2:1-12 CCC 1601-1666 In the order of Creation: CCC 1601-05 Marriage in the Lord: CCC 1612-17 Unity and indissolubility of marriage: CCC 1644-51 Partners in God's plan for humanity: CCC 1652-54 6. Anointing of the sick: the sacrament in which the sick are anointed with holy oil and given the spiritual aid and strength to return to spiritual and bodily health, including, if needed, the remission of sins. Matthew 4:23; 9:35; Mark 6:13; Luke 9:11; Acts 10:38; James 5:14-15 CCC 1499-1532 Foundation in the economy of salvation: CCC 1500-13 Who administers and receives: CCC 1514-16 How celebrated and administered: CCC 1517-19 Effects: CCC 1520-23 7. Eucharist: the sacrament in which the faithful, in a state of grace, receive the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ who is really and substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine. It is called the Eucharist, meaning "the thanksgiving," because at its institution at the Last Supper Jesus "gave thanks;" and it is by this fact that the sacrament is the supreme act of the baptized Christian's gratitude to God. Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 CCC 1322-1419 Institution of the Eucharist: CCC 1337-44 The source and summit of ecclesial life: CCC 1324-27 The sacrificial memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection and of His Body, the Church: CCC 1330-32; 1362-81
@marilynjo 2 ай бұрын
Thank you! Such important and valuable information 🙏✝️💜
@DavidCraig-hw7ic 2 ай бұрын
Perilous Pursuits by Joseph M. Stowell
@marymcallister9473 2 ай бұрын
What was the book Pastor Craig gave to Connor?
@user-rs3ck8hr7f 2 ай бұрын
CATHOLICS ARE CHRISTIAN! So are protestants. Just two different traditions Christianity. I personally lean toward protestant, but it irks me the way you use the labels.
@albusai 2 ай бұрын
If you trust more in the creation that in the creator then you are not Christian..
@johnnybest3421 2 ай бұрын
This church surely loves commercials. Sheesh
@DavidCraig-hw7ic Ай бұрын
Commercials are automatically automated by KZfaq whenever a video has over 100 views - this has nothing to do with our church - we don’t make money in this - KZfaq does
@walterunderhill-tq6qc 3 ай бұрын
Awesome message, thank you pastor David and thank you Jesus.
@louiseseeley5503 3 ай бұрын
I really enjoyed this, thank you from the UK! I have been enjoying your teaching, could I just ask that the people asking questions have a microphone as I couldn’t hear what they were asking. A big thank you again. Jesus is Saviour & Lord, sadly that doesn’t seem to being taught or obeyed currently.
@paulvoit5610 3 ай бұрын
I don't think they teach rhat Mary was born of a virgin.
@davekpghpa 3 ай бұрын
As a former agnostic who came to faith and was born again 5 years ago, I dug into scripture - old and new testament - for the basics, then I moved into eschatology. Having had no preconceived notions on end times theology, I started watching debates after my studies on the Books of Zechariah, Daniel, Matthew, 1 & 2 Thessalonians and Revelation. Here's what my initial impression was (and still is)... the dispensationalists and pre-trib proponents seem to base almost all of their positions on chunks of scripture (one or two verses) from here and there. That's always intuitively been a red flag for me. And after my studies, I just don't understand how one could read, for instance, the ENTIRE book of Galatians, and come away from that thinking that Israel and the Church are dealt with by God in two entirely different ways. It seems simple to me that there is ONE Olive Tree. The often referred to verse, Romans 11:26 "all Israel will be saved", would have to be one of the greatest contradictions in the bible if we're to take a dispensationalist stance. If we're to believe that If God says that, in the very last days, that 1/3 of those remaining alive will pass through the refining fires, while the other 2/3 will parish (Zech 13:8-9 and Romans 9:27), then obviously "ALL" of the descendants of the tribes of Israel are not saved. So it certainly seems to me that the only sensible explanation is that in Romans 11:26, "Israel" is the Church... all those who are grafted in and re-grafted in. In other words, "God's Chosen People" are those who confess with their mouths that Jesus is Lord. There's only ONE olive tree. And, BTW, I take umbrage with the use of the term "replacement" as a broad brushed and deceptive pejorative to describe those of us who are of the new covenant position. Nothing has been replaced. Rather, the new covenant under Jesus is the glorious culmination of all God's covenants.
@user-gq8yt2jj1w 3 ай бұрын
Thank you very much for uploading. It helps me so much, a greatful heart from Madagascar
@d.c.samp.007 3 ай бұрын
Is this class based on reformed theology?
@paulvoit5610 3 ай бұрын
No, Grudem is not Reformed
@keithsecrist 3 ай бұрын
I’ve enjoyed these to this point but this one was a train wreck. These q&A sessions show a total lack of understanding of Galatians,Hebrews and all of Paul’s other writings. These poor attendees are completely lost to the joy of the Holy Spirit and His amazing work to freedom to walk out the identity Christ died for. I will continue to listen grab the meat but this one was full of bones. 😢
@keithsecrist 3 ай бұрын
Enjoying this study. Thanks for doing it.
@nithyarajan3610 Ай бұрын
Is it the same question in the book, systematic theology by Wayne Grudem?
@xrphodler9692 4 ай бұрын
Session 8 is missing
@LightLivingWater 4 ай бұрын
Excellent
@LightLivingWater 4 ай бұрын
Excellent
@Stupidityindex Ай бұрын
If prayer did anything outside of fiction, we would use as a first response at a children's hospital. Is there a greater arrogance than expressing you have some sort of relationship with a deity? Question: How can you possibly take faith seriously? How can anyone in their right mind ask others to believe in the existence of a Deity who makes Mormons so Christians will know how Jews feel, having had their literature hijacked. Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital & indoctrinating children is criminal. The faith vocabulary causes the user to be avoided like the old woman with too many cats. Faith "comes not with peace, but sword." Faith comes with wolves dressed as sheep & preaching to the choir. Faith trades the last cow for a pocketful of magic beans & then expects everyone's appreciation. Jesus said, it is a wicked generations which seeks signs such as resurrection. Faith is as worthless as fantasyland magic, since you can't tell mountains to move. The "only sign given" in reality "is Jonah": A believer murdered by other believers because he is outnumbered. The context is Jesus seeing a gathering crowd.
@paulvoit5610 Ай бұрын
@@Stupidityindexlol. One of the worst Atheist apologetics I have ever seen. Laughable nonsense. Lol. Maybe get some education first and try again in a few years