Reformed Apologist - Rational Answers for Real Questions Podcast

A rational defence for classic Christian belief
  • 5.0 (1)
  • CHRISTIANITY
  • UPDATED WEEKLY

There is an ever increasing need to equip followers of Christ with confidence, and the tools to defend classic Christian belief systems. reformedapologist.substack.com

Episodes

  1. Greed, Money, Tithing and

    AUG 1

    Greed, Money, Tithing and

    In this video I review some of the worst things churches teach about tithing, then I walk through the main tithing passages of both the Old and New Testament to ascertain whether the Christian believer is commanded to tithe, the outcome may shock you. Stay with the video until the end to find out all the important information that each Christian needs to know. The “doctrine of tithing” has become so embedded in the mind of the modern Evangelical, primarily because the church at large has been teaching on this subject every Sunday, much more than the actual gospel message, central to the New Testament. Believers have been deceived and indoctrinated, and fear the wrath of God on them should they even question this doctrine. Please do take the time to watch, and then follow up for yourself with all the Bible passages I quote. Take the time and read all the passages in the Bible on the subject and let the scripture teach you and “liberate” you from the ideas the modern church has quite literally “inserted” into the Bible, especially the New Testament. The church at large, today in America, quite literally takes in a trillion dollars annually and most of this goes towards Pastors big salaries, fancy cars, espense accounts, hotel costs, flights, even private jets are on the list. The poor are left to continue to suffer their poverty. Imagine what the true church could be doing with all these wasted funds, imagine just how many people pay the church rather than even paying their bills and looking after their families needs. Paul warns in the New Testament, you are worse than an infidel if you do not look after your family, yet the worst of the prosperity hucksters would have you tithe before you feed your kids. The deception runs deep, very very deep. We must shake this deception off the church, especially now when the Western world is reeling from economic depression. Please share this video with family and friends. Thanks & God bless This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit reformedapologist.substack.com

    42 min

  2. JUL 16

    The Six Days of Creation

    In this episode, I aim to demonstrate that there is no scientific reason why a Christian must surrender the belief in a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. My aim here is not to argue over the scientific details, people far more qualified than me have already done that sufficiently. Interpretation of terms and words in the Bible matters, if we assume that the term “day” in Genesis one does not mean what the plain sense suggests it means, that must therefore also inform the way we interpret many other passages in the Old Testament. Where this all gets really problematic is when it comes to the New Testament. Jesus and the authors of the New Testament clearly believed in the historic validity of the early chapters of Genesis. To this end, I provide several very strong examples of why this is so… Genesis 1-10 are the most quoted chapters of the Old Testament in the New Testament and if we surrender to the cultural pressure of today, accepting the notion of progressive creation (through the means of evolution and death mind you..) then we must also have answers to the many quotations from Genesis 1-10 by the New Testament authors. In my humble opinion, this alone providers an unsurmountable hurdle for the sincere student of scripture and this leaves one with burden of carrying a significant amount of cognitive dissonance when it comes to Christian belief — something I believe to be totally unviable as an option — or to abandon traditional views of Biblical innerancy, again something I believe to be unwarranted and unacceptable. This being one of the prime reasons why Christians abandon their Christian faith altogether, is the reason for my claim that the belief in “Theistic / Progressive Evolution” is corrosive to Christian faith. Stick around until the end of the podcast to get the full picture. You can also watch this as a video on my youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hksAdqArG4 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit reformedapologist.substack.com

    42 min

  3. APR 15

    Is it Always Gods Will to Heal Everyone?

    In this short video I am going to review the theological view of healing that claims it is always God's will to heal everyone. This view is most prevalent amongst preachers who claim that it is also God's will to make you wealthy. The so-called prosperty preachers must claim it is God's will to heal, else their claim it is God's will to make you wealthy -- which they claim is a part of the redemptive work of Christ on the cross -- completely falls apart! Let's watch a short clip by Prosperty Preacher Andrew Wommack Summary of his claims so that we know what we are dealing with: - It is always God's will to heal all people - Jesus healed all, not some - Most people don't doubt that God has the power to heal {very true I certainly don't} - They doubt that it is God's will to heal everybody - because they are not focused on scripture (remember this is just Wommack's view) - People look at the results and they concude it must not be God's will - He quoted John 3:16 + 1 John 2:2 and drew the comparison in the following way: - If you use the same logic when it comes to salvation, as with healing, since not everyone is healed, it also cannot be God's will to save everyone - 17 times in the gospels - Jesus healed all of the sick This is the main argument Wommack makes: "If Jesus truly represented the father, then he showed us that it is God's will every time" Not every single person who is prayed for is healed, but it is not because God does not want us healed. The bottom line is this: "if you ever doubt God wants you well, then you won't receive it" This is Wommack's get out of jail free card! If you don't have faith you won't be healed, so the "healer or his theology" is never at fault! Ok, now that we are done with summarising his views we will soon look at some of the examples of Jesus's healing. First though let's make some contra assertions: But before that let me repeat Wommack so that it sinks in: "If Jesus truly represented the father, then he showed us it is always God's will to heal" I would make the following assertions about Jesus's ministry: - Jesus indeed always healed everyone he set out to heal - Jesus did not heal every sick person in Judea, he never even went to every town in Judea so how could he have - Just because Jesus's personally healed everyone he prayed for does not mean you can, nor does it mean God will, that's faulty logic Basically, Wommack took something that is true Jesus and extrapolated that into the ministry of every Christian today, that is a bad way to do theology, as we will see. Let's turn this into a logical argument - Premise 1: Jesus healed everyone he prayed for when he was walked the earth - Premise 2: Jesus truly represented the father to us through the ministry to his disciples - Conclusion: Therefore, it is always God's will to heal Sometimes logical is faulty because one of the premises is false and therefore the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Sometimes both the premises are true, but the conclusion is false because it does not follow from the premises Let me give you an example: - Premise 1: The moon is smaller than the sun - Premise 2: The moon is not made of cheese - Conclusion: Therefore, Apollo 11 went to the moon Both premises are true, and the conclusion is true too, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises. This one is easy to see. In the argument we put together earlier based on Wommack's theology, both premises are true as well, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Let’s use plain logic to refute the claims by Wommack, and then we will actually look at scripture in some of Jesus's healing ministry. Example one from the New Testament: - Premise 1: People with enough faith get healed (remember I am using Wommack's theology here) - Premise 2: Paul & Timothy are two of the most faithful examples in the New Testament of people with enough faith & they could not heal all, or remained sick themselves - see (2 Tim 4:20 + 2 Cor 12:7-9 + 1 Tim 5:23) - Conclusion: Therefore, it is always God's will to heal - Premise 1 is false - Premise 2 is true - The conclusion does not follow (premise one is false see premise 2) and is therefore false! Example two from the Old Testament: - Premise 1: People with enough faith get healed (remember I am using Wommack's theology here) - Premise 2: God permits the adversary to strike Job with terrible sickness from which he does not receive healing - Conclusion: It is sometimes God's will to use sickness to test the true faith of believers - Premise 2 is true, just read the book of Job yourself - The conclusion follows from premise 2 - Premise 1 is therefore false It is plainly false to extrapolate from Jesus's ministry to the sick that therefore God's wills to heal all/always Example one from Jesus's healing ministry - "And they brought the boy to him. And when the spirit saw him, immediately it convulsed the boy, and he fell on the ground and rolled about, foaming at the mouth. And Jesus asked his father, 'How long has this been happening to him?' And he said, 'From childhood. And it has often cast him into fire and into water, to destroy him. But if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.' And Jesus said to him, 'If you can'! All things are possible for one who believes.' Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, 'I believe; help my unbelief!' And when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, 'You mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him and never enter him again.' And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse, so that most of them said, 'He is dead.'" (Mark 9:20-26) - The child had no belief - he was convulsing and in a fit - The father had unbelief and begged Jesus to him his unbelief and have mercy on him - Jesus healed as per usual, but against the odds of unbelief! We could turn this this into a logical argument: - Premise 1: the boy had no ability to have faith in healing - Premise 2: the father had unbelief in healing and begged for mercy - Conclusion: It is false to conclude that God desires to heal all, providing they have enough faith Another example from Jesus's ministry: - "And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no one could pass that way. And behold, they cried out, “What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?” Now a herd of many pigs was feeding at some distance from them. And the demons begged him, saying, “If you cast us out, send us away into the herd of pigs.” And he said to them, “Go.” So they came out and went into the pigs, and behold, the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and drowned in the waters. The herdsmen fled, and going into the city they told everything, especially what had happened to the demon-possessed men." (Mt 8:28-34) Let's also turn this this into a logical argument: - Premise 1: the men had no ability to have faith in healing - Premise 2: the men were completely disabled by the devil & uncontrollable in human terms - Conclusion: It is false to conclude that God desires to heal all, providing they have enough faith Another example from Jesus's ministry "And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and began to serve him. That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.”" (Mt 8:14-16) The quote here is directly from Isaiah 53, the very passage Faith Healers try to use to argue that Jesus paid for your sickness in the same way he paid for your healing. YET the New Testament author Matthew tells us here plainly that the section in Isaiah 53 relating to healing was fulfilled right here in Jesus's ministry! Let's also turn this into a logical argument: - Premise 1: Jesus healed Peter's mother in law who had a fever - Premise 2: Given it is likely this was a real fever {not just a hot temperature} Peter's mother was in no place to "have or display faith" in order to receive her healing. Jesus simply healed her - Premise 3: Matthew under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit declared why Christ healed the sick - Conclusion: Healing in Christ's ministry at least in some sense were there to fulfil biblical prophecy about him I Am saying this, in this way to assert that this was certainly not the only reason why Christ healed the sick but this is certainly a true conclusion that follows from the premises So far by both logic, reason and by the very narratives about Jesus's healing ministry there is no valid reason to conclude that it is always God's will to heal. The Bible never anywhere says so, which is why faith Healers argue in the way they do, as people with little Bible knowledge will fail to see their false arguments. Using the argument from "you don't have enough faith" is their Get out of Jail free card. They are basically spiritual bullies enriching themselves on the back of unsuspecting Christians who give them lots of money! But lets assume for a moment they are right and take the examples from Christ's ministry to their logical Wommackian conclusion - Premise 1: Jesus never had a problem with healing someone who had no ability to have faith in the healing - Premise 2: Jesus healed people with no faith - Premise 3: It is always God's will to heal - Premise 4: Wommack claims he is just doing what Jesus did - Conclusion: - Wommack should be able to heal all those people without faith just like Jesus - Even the most naive person who thinks Wommackians are the good guys, if he or she is honest would have to admit they are not in any way able

    27 min

  4. MAR 17

    What happened at the fall?

    In other words we are dealing the question: What was the sin & punishment for Adam's sin? If we misunderstand the beginning, then we are much more likely to misinterpret the rest of the Bible. Let's work through the story of the fall of humanity in the Garden of Eden. So, first up we will read the important parts of the story. Firstly there is this single -- all-important -- command God gave to Adam. (we see that in Gen 2:15-17) - "The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.'" (Gen 2:15-17) We read the Bible with all the baggage of our current Christian worldview. We can't help having all this baggage, but the wise reader will aim to set aside his baggage and try to read Bible passages as if he was reading them for the first time without any prior knowledge of the rest of the Bible. It's hard, but not impossible. One thing stands out really plainly. The punishment for sin is death. Our view of death as the punishment for sin might become a little wobbly when we realise that Adam didn't actually die on the day he and Eve at of the forbidden fruit. This has lead many to interpret that the punishment wasn't physical death but spiritual death. I recently made a vide on the topic of eschatology (= future things) called "full preterism". I was surprised at how many comments I received on that video stating that (a) Adam was mortal before the fall and (b) Therefore the death sentence in the fall narrative can only mean "spiritual death". So is the idea that the death-punishment was not physical but really only spiritual But is this really correct? Our view that the punishment for sin being spiritual death may be bolstered by the fact that Paul in the New Testament exclaims: "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked" (Eph 2:1-2) and also, "And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses." (Col 2:13) Does this mean we are done, the matter is settled, the punishment for sin was spiritual death? Not so fast. Maybe the answer lies in a both and and not an either or response. Firstly, the revelation that man in his state of unbelief is dead in his sins, did not come for several thousand years later. The original couple -- Adam and Eve -- did not have this knowledge at least we are not told they did. We should, I believe, read the account in the garden of eden as if we were being told it by Adam and Eve themselves. So far, the plain reading of the account in Genesis 2 is that Adam and Eve will suffer the punishment of death (real physical bodily death) when they eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and this punishment will happen on that very day. Before we go any further let's read the detailed account in chapter three (3:1-7). First the actual account of their sin. "Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, 'Did God actually say, You shall not eat of any tree in the garden?' And the woman said to the serpent, 'We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ But the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.' So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths." (Gen 3:1-7) Setting aside for the moment the deceptive distortion of God's command by the serpent and the wrong understanding by Eve, we can certainly see a change in Adam and in Eve in their knowledge of themselves -- their eyes were opened and now they feel the shame of their sin -- but they didn't die physically on that day. This no doubt is further fuel for those who want to argue that the death they experienced was only of spiritual nature. Again we must then ask, are we done, is the argument settled in favour of spiritual death alone? What happens next should give us pause as this sets the stage for the whole story of the Bible, the story of redemption. What does God do next? Adam and Eve had made the first human attempt at sin covering. They attempted to hide their nakedness by sewing fig leaves to cover themselves. This then becomes the story of all of humanity. We somehow, intuitively know our universal human condition called sin, and what do we do? We create these elaborate schemes to cover up our shame and present ourselves as if nothing had happened. One might say, this is the birth of all of human religion. ALL forms of man-made religion take on the task of presenting man in a state before God that hides his true sinful nature. By doing this our religious forms, hide from us our TRUEST AND MOST ESSENTIAL NEED, namely the forgiveness for our sins, something Christ came to give and ONLY Christ can give. Back to the account in the garden of Eden… God however knows our need, and he provides the first sacrificial lamb to cover the sin of Adam and Eve. - Reading in Gen 3:21 - we see.. "And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them." (Gen 3:21) What is easily missed in this moment is the fact that there was a death on that very day, a real death, but a substitutionary one, namely the death of the animals from whom God took the skin to cover Adam and Eve. As Christians we should notice the precursor to the account of Jesus going to the cross on our behalf. He died the death on the cross to cover our sins, importantly he died instead of, or on behalf of us. Later when Paul exclaims "we have died with Christ", I believe he is not saying the we -- who believe and trust in Jesus -- physically died when Jesus went to the cross, Jesus died a substitutionary death for us. We couldn't have died because we were not even alive yet, but Jesus died the death we should have died, yet hid did so on our behalf, much like the animals from whom God took the skin to cover Adam and Eve. Paul beautifully expresses this very thing in his letter to the Romans in chapter 6 :5-8 "For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him." (Rom 6:5-8) Now, we know from the growing story of redemption through the Old Testament that the animal sacrifice was only a covering, it could not actually take away the sin, in the way Christ's substitutionary death could. We see this most fully expressed in the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament: (Heb 10:10-12) "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God." (Heb 10:10-12) Back to Genesis chapter two. We must then, take a closer look at the following statement in 2:17: "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen 2:17) The last two words of this verse in the Hebrew are simply the same verb in two different forms. The two different forms quite literally mean "die dying". Jonathan Sarfati, writing in his commentary on Genesis 1-11 says the solution lies in the Hebrew form of the term "die". He quotes Hebrew scholar Kulikovsy which sheds light on how an ancient Hebrew would likely have understood this term: "When the infinitive absolute precedes a finite verb of the same stem (as is the case here), it strengthens or intensifies the verbal idea by emphasizing 'either the certainty (especially in the case of threats) or the forcibleness and completeness of an occurrence.'" In simple terms this means that the emphasis here is on certain death, rather than immediate or precise chronology. You might be thinking, here we go, I need to be a Hebrew scholar to understand the Bible. Not so fast, this emphasis is also explained elsewhere in the Old Testament, giving us a strong precedent to affirm our conclusion. As King Solomon was establishing his reign, after his father King David died, he issued a decree to punish Shimei, using almost the identical words as used in Genesis three. - In 1 Kings 2:37-40 we read: "Then the king sent and summoned Shimei and said to him, 'Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and dwell there, and do not go out from there to any place whatever. For on the day you go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die... So Shimei lived in Jerusalem many days. But it happened at the end of three years... Shimei arose and saddled a donkey and went to Gath to Achish to seek his servants." (1 Kings 2:37-40) And, some time later.. (in the same chapter 42-46) "The king sent and summoned Shimei and said to him, 'Did I not make you swear by the Lord and solemnly warn you, saying, ‘Know for certain that on the day you go out and go to any place whatever, you shall die’? ...Then the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and he went out and struck him down,

    26 min

  5. 11/26/2024

    What did the Early Church Believe about Speaking in Tongues?

    - I have made a number of presentations on the subject of "Tongues" and authored a book where I work through every passage in the Bible on this subject and ask all the hard questions. The book is available on Amazon. This presententation like all my other presentations on this subject is not about the Cessation versus Continuation argument. I am not convinced that this argument is well framed. There are those who claim that the modern sign & wonders movement predominantly in the Pentecostal community is a replica of the miracles in Christ's and his apostles ministries, they claim they have the same power to work miracles, heal the sick, prophecy the future and many other signs. An honest onlooker from the outside very quickly realises that these claims are false, people like Benny Hinn who claims to heal the sick, does not, the prophets who claim to foretell the future either make claims that are so vague they cannot be verified, or they make downright false claims and then bork at ministries like this one who challenges their claims. Then there are those who claim God stopped working miracles altogher once the canon of the Bible was completed. Humbly said both of these views are extremes that should be rejected on the evidence. My view is that miracles were never "normative" i.e. every day occurences for all people. An honest student of the Bible will find miracles throughout the Old and New Testament periods, but only when a particular chosen minister was to be authenticated did God work the extraordinary. We see this in the miracles of Christ, and to a lesser degree in the ministry of the apostles, but already in the writings of the epistles of the New Testament we can see a fading of the miraculous, people are sick and pastoral advice is given how to handle this. The general picture given by the early church patristics is one of gradual lessening of the miraculous, over the course of the first 3-5 centuries. Nonetheless we see miracles do continue to occur throughout the history of the church, but to a far lesser degree. Miracles and the supernatural are simply not normative and one has to close ones mind and rational thinking capacity not to recognise this. My view on the topic of tongues is that in the New Testament they are always "natural, real languages" like Latin, Spanish or French. As I said I have a whole series of presentations working through every New Testament passage on this subject. Given that I hold to the protestant axiom called "Sola Scriptura", you might be wondering "why am I concerned with what the Early Church Fathers say on this topic"? 1. Sola Scriptura does not mean the Bible is the ONLY authority, but the FINAL authority. 2. It is therefore really important to see what the Early Church believed, especially those who were literally only one or a few generations away from the actual apostles themselves 3. If they all agree with our own interpretation of scripture then this should give us more confidence that we have not misunderstood or dare I say misinterpreted the texts under review This presentation is basically me giving you readings of quotes by many early church fathers. I will give references for each quote in the presentation description so you can read up and also read all the context, which I would always recommend. I was actually surprised just how many theological giants of the early church period, the men who fought against the many christological heresies the church battled with during that period, actually took the time to comment on Acts and 1 Corinthians and give us a window into what they believed on this important subject. The findings might surprise you. This session is may be a little "dry" because my aim here is just to bring up a line of very early church fathers and simply find out what they believed on the topic of Speaking in Tongues. I have already made a series of presentations on pretty much every single passage of scripture on this topic. I have written a book which is available on Amazon. For those who can't afford the book, or who are unsure whether investing in the price of the book is a good investment, I have actually published most the book chapter by chapter on this substack. You can read it there for free, and I hope that if you are edified by the content that you might support my work by buying a copy. For the sake of brevity I am only giving you the quotes with just enough information to be able to see what their firm beliefs were on this subject. In the presentation notes I will list all the source material where you can do your own due dilligence and read all the context of these quotes, so you know I have not taken them out of context or made them say what they did not intend. First up let's look at the 1st few centuries, AD 100-300 Irenaus. c. 120-200 AD (his writings date to this time) Irenaus was the bishop of the Roman province called Gaul, now Lyons in France. He originally came from a Christian family in Smyrna where at an early age he witnessed the preaching of Polycarp, who himself was a disciple of the apostle John. He is therefore a really important early witness of the teaching of the apostles. It is really clear from his writings that he believed the gift of tongues to be nothing other than the miraculous ability to speak in real natural foreign languages, with it's original purpose of bringing all nations into one accord with the Gospel of Christ. He is most known for his major work "Against Heresies". Here is a quote from: Against Heresies (Book 3, Chapter 17:2) “Who also, as Luke says, descended at the day of Pentecost upon the disciples after the Lord’s ascension, having power to admit all nations to the entrance of life, and to the opening of the new covenant; from whence also, with one accord in all languages, they uttered praise to God, the Spirit bringing distant tribes to unity, and offering to the Father the first-fruits of all nations. Wherefore also the Lord promised to send the Comforter, who should join us to God.” - REF: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103317.htm Here is another quote from: Against Heresies (Book V, Chapter 6:1) “Terming those persons 'perfect' who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used Himself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit.” - REF: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103506.htm It is clear from his writings here that the gift of tongues was the ability to speak in a foreign tongue. The purpose of the gift was to bring all peoples and nations into one accord. Tertullian c. 155-225 AD Tertullian is an early Church father best known for his writings against the Marcionites, who claimed that the God of the Old Testament was a different God that the God of the New Testamant. They totally rejected the Old Testament and indeed several of the most Jewish books of the New Testament! Here is a quote from Tertullian: Against Marcion. Book V. 8:7-12 “Seeing as the Creator especially promised the gift of the Spirit in the latter days; and moreover Christ appeared in these latter days as the dispenser of spiritual gifts to which the apostle says, ”But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent His Son,” and again, ”Because the time is now in short supply”, and it is evident that this gift of the Spirit leads with praises towards Christ. Now compare the types between the apostles and Isaiah: “To one is given”, he says, “by the Spirit the word of wisdom;” and Isaiah steadfastly prefers the spirit of wisdom. “To another, the word of knowledge;” this will be the spirit of understanding and counsel. “To another, faith by the same Spirit;” this will be the spirit of holiness and fear of the Lord. “To another, the gifts of healing, and to another the working of miracles;” this will be the power of might. “To another prophecy, to another another discerning of spirits, to another various kinds of languages, to another the interpretation of languages;” this will be the spirit of knowledge. See how the apostle is bringing together and developing the concept of one spirit and in the prophet’s precise way that applies about interpreting. I can say this very thing that he has harmonized throughout the many and diverse members of our body the unity of the various gifts into a structured form, and on the same theme he shows the Lord in regards to the human body and Holy Spirit, which he did not want the merits of the gifts to be in the context of a spiritual body, nor did he establish such things in the context of a human body in relation to love, which is naturally put ahead too over all the other gifts. This guided the apostle as the lead principle to be established and because Christ esteemed this: 'You shall love your neighbour as your own self.'" I said it was going to be a bit "dry" some of the quotes of these men are tedious. The main take away here is that Tertullian rejected any mystical ideas about the gifts and there is no room here for inserting any "unintelligible babble" style prayer language into his ideas on the subject. https://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-35.htm#P7138_2070665 Origen Origen was an early patristic theologian and one of the most prolific writers in the early church. Much of what we know about Origen comes from early church father Esebius who writes very positively about Origen. He got himself into some controversy over his ideas about "Universalism", and one does not have to agree with him on this subject to recognise the validity of his comments about other issues. At the very least from his comments on the gift of tongues we can get

    47 min

  6. 11/16/2024

    Who is the Fig Tree Generation?

    Who is the Fig Tree Generation? Will a "Fig Tree" Generation as asserted by Amir Tsarfati, see the return of Christ? Or perhaps the question we should really ask is: Is there a fig tree generation? In this episode, I review an often repeated assertion by those who believe in a futurist interpretation of the Olivet discourse (Mt 24, Mk13, Lk 21), that there is a “fig tree” generation that will see the return of Christ. In this instance, well-known preacher Amir Tsarfati speaks on this topic, and I pull back the veneer and demonstrate that he is being being true to the text. Here are the notes & comments from the podcast for those who prefer to read. After watching the whole video/sermon - this clip represents the central point he made. Please feel free to watch the whole sermon on Youtube for yourself. So what are the assertions he has made? He interprets the "fig tree parable" as some special event 2000 years in the future of Jesus disciples, when the nation of Israel will be restored to it's original nationhood He then says "You" (in the video he points at the audience) are the generation of people who according to Jesus's words "see" this special fig tree based restoration of the nation of Israel and therefore: When Jesus says "this generation" - he means the generation of people who are alive to witness the restoration of the nation of Israel and they will basically be the ones who experience the second coming of Christ. The all important question now is: Is this what Jesus actually said? To assist us in answering this question, let's first read the passage in all three renditions of the Olivet Discourse: Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" - Mt 24:32-34 "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" - Mk 13:28-30 "Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. As soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place" - Lk 21:29-32 What are then some of the important questions we must ask to ascertain what is being said? - (1) What is the parable about, i.e. what is it's central message? - (2) What was Jesus trying to say when he referred to the parable by "So also when you see"? - (3) What did Jesus mean by "all these things"? Was he referring to the parable or the events just detailed before launching into this parable? - (4) What was Jesus's audience, i.e. who was in view with the pronoun "You"? - If we can answer these four questions we can I think quite clearly demonstrate who was in view with the term "this generation". (1) What was the parable about ? - Tsarfati asserted that the parable is about the restoration of the nation of Israel. In the full sermon he states that the Fig Tree is used as representation of Israel. I would suggest he is engaging in "eisegesis" here since this parable does not say anything about the restoration of a dead tree in the long distant future, even if Israel was meant with the tree, the rest has to be quite literally imposed onto the parable. Let's break it down and also see what Jesus clearly tells us: - "From the fig tree learn its lesson" - so we are to learn a specific lesson from the tree - "As soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near" - if we read this in plain English it simply means two things: - "When the tree's branch becomes tender, it put's out its leaves" - "When it's leaves are out, we can know that summer is near" - NB: Please note here that the parallel passage in Luke's gospel mentions "and all the trees". - Given that Luke primarily wrote to a Gentile audience who may or may not know about "fig trees"the addition of "all trees" is a pretty sane give away that Jesus's isn't making any specific assertion about a Fig tree per say and therefore something specific to Israel only, but rather a straightforward and simple assertion that is true of all trees! - When trees put out their leaves, you know the summer is near! - This leads us straight into our next question: (2) What was Jesus referring to when he said "So also when you see" - The most straightforward and simple explanation is that the "so" does not refer to some special knowledge Jews may have about the restoration of the nation of Israel, but simply: - In the same way you can conclude that summer is near when you see the leaves on the fig tree - So you can conclude that the coming of Jesus is near when "these things" have happened. - which again leads is squarely into the next question namely: (3) What did Jesus mean by "all these things"? > Was he referring to the parable or the events just detailed before launching into this parable? - Again the most obvious and plain reading is that "all these things" refers to the long list of events Jesus has just detailed from verse 3 all the way to verse 31. - there are several natural reasons why the context demands this is so: - "these things" is plural, whereas the shedding of leaves is one single thing. If Jesus had meant the shedding of the leaves on fig trees as the sign to look for - would he have used "these things" as plural to refer to it? That makes no sense, firstly it is a single event, and secondly wouldn't he have much more naturally referred to the shedding itself? - Secondly and more importantly: - It is much more likely that Jesus was referring to the actual question of the disciples. Remember that they originally asked "when will these things happen" in verse 3? - the term "these things" appears not only in the original question but also at several junctures in the list of detailed events Jesus gives. - "For THOSE THINGS must take place" - verse 6 - "But all THESE [THINGS] are merely the beginning" - verse 8 - Whether "these or those or these things" is used depends on the translation, but the context is very obviously pointing to the fact that when Jesus uses this term in verse 33 - the "these things"refers to the long list of events Jesus predicted. - that now leads us to the final question of audience: (4) Who was Jesus speaking with, was "You" Jesus's disciples or some generation in the very far distant future as Tsarfati intimated? - Imagine for a moment you are at the reading of the testament of your Mother and Father who recently died in a car crash. They have left their will for you, your brother and your sister. - There are no special things that go to individuals, but rather the house has been left to all three of you. The testament reads: "When you read this you will know we have passed and have left the house to you. We don't want you to squable over the house, our wish is that you would share the property and each enjoy the gardens and think of us as you cherish it's wealth. When you enter the garage you will find our old car. If you think it is worth restoring, after you have evaluated it, please do restore it." - Who is the audience of this "testament"? - The three kids - Is the testament directed to their grand children? - no - Will the grand children benefit from the testament - Yes in a secondary nature by the fact that they are grand kids - Audience relevance: Who again is addressed? Just the three kids - Who is to restore the car? The kids - Is the restoration a must? No it's conditional on their evaluation - Does this testament have relevance in terms of actions for a generation two millenia away? - I think you know where I am going with this. If we say that the personal pronoun "You" is not the disciples of Jesus, but some distant generation of people in two millenia away, then words in English have no meaning and you can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say! - So why do people fall into the trap of misinterpreting this passage so badly? - I would suggest it is due to the many "difficult" assertions that Jesus makes that sound so very much like "The End of the World" and therefore they feel compelled to find a way out of the very obvious timing passages. The events Jesus is speaking of in Mt 24 include a "coming of Jesus". If you insist on saying this "coming" is about the second coming of Christ, then you will have the problem like Tsarfati of trying to get around the very obvious and plain timing passage we just reviewed. - If however you come to realise that the "coming" referred to in this passage is not the second coming of Jesus, but a "coming in judgment" - that occurred in AD 70 when the Roman armies invaded Judea and destroyed the temple, then these timing passages all of a sudden come into perfect view! - I have recently authored a book called "Did Jesus Predict the End of the World?" It is being published in a few weeks, and I intend to publish it - piece by piece on my podcast so you can listen to it for free. I sure hope that some of my listeners will support my ministry by buying the book once it is published. - Just one final comment. Many today believe that the word "generation" in this verse should be translated "race" i.e. the Jewish Race will not pass until all these things take place. This is yet another of the many questions I answer in my book. The short version is that the Bible gives us no warrant to translate the word "genea" as race in this passage. In my book an entire chapter is devoted to answering the reasons why. I hope you enjoyed this video This is a

    18 min

  7. 10/12/2024

    Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

    Does John 3:5 Teach that Baptism is Necessary for Salvation? In the last video, we looked at the question, "Is Salvation By Grace through Faith or by Works?" and we established that whilst the New Testament calls all believers to obey and bring forth fruit meet their repentance, works are not the cause of salvation but the effect. True works of obedience accompany every true believer. * Let’s first read the verse on it’s own: * "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) 1 - If we approached this passage on it’s own: It could be pressed upon to say this: * P1 - In John 3 Jesus speaks of the need to be born of water and Spirit * P2 - If we ascertain from the context that to be born of water is in fact baptism then * C - It is necessary to be baptised in order to be saved 2 - Considering the remainder of the New Testament: Affirming salvation is by grace through faith, we should approach this passage with a syllogism: * P1 - The New Testament teaches Salvation is by Grace through Faith * P2 - In John 3 Jesus speaks of the need to be born of water and Spirit * C - The birth in water and Spirit will be synonymous with the other salvific language used in the New Testament The question now arises whether the context of the passage affirms the first or the second argument we posited and whether the passage indeed speaks of baptism at all. I will deal with the latter question first and then the former. Does John 3 speak of baptism? At this point, it will be good to read the whole passage: * "Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, 'Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.' Jesus answered him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.' Nicodemus said to him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?' Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:1-8) Let’s first lay out a summary of the material facts In this passage, to help us get some clarity: * Unless one is born again, one cannot see the kingdom of God * Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of God * You must be born again There is a lot more going on in this passage, but for the purposes of answering our question these are what I can see the material facts we must deal with. * 1. No where in the context or words of this sermon to Nicodemus is baptism mentioned. Christian baptism was instituted after the cross, yet the word was not uncommon, as can be see from the ministry of John the baptist. Jews had a tradition to baptise Gentile converts when they adopted Judaism. * 2. It seems obvious that the reason John the baptist was baptising people in the Jordan was because of their apostate state and God in effect saw them as Gentiles coming to repentance * 3. The conclusion just because the term "water" is used in the passage, that it therefore necessarily means baptism is unwarranted, unless off course there is a parallel passage that infers to be "born of water" means to "be baptised" but such a passage is entirely missing from the bible. Isn’t it more likely that Jesus was chiding Nicodemus, who was a senior pharisee and teacher of the law, of his lack of knowledge of the many prophetic foretelling passages of the coming New Covenant. Let’s look at a few to get some much needed context: * "So shall he sprinkle many nations. Kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand." (Isa 52:15) * "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you." (Eze 36:25) The passage in Isaiah is about Christ, "The Suffering Servant," who is said to "sprinkle many nations"—we m must remember the context of chapter 52 is 53 the famous passage that is all about Christ’s suffering death and redemptive work on the cross. The sprinkling is intimately connected with redemption. The passage in Ezekiel is the most likely passage Christ was referring to as it directly refers to the giving of the New Covenant. The very next verse says: * "And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh." (Eze 36:26) * "And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God." (Eze 11:19,20) * "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people" (Jer 31:31-33) The authors of the New Testament pick up on this New Covenant language in several places: * "And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." (2 Cor 3:3) * This passage affirms that the language of John 3 is of a spiritual nature, that it is speaking of the work of the Spirit. * The author of Hebrews directly quotes from both of the passages we mentioned - in Jeremiah 31:33 and Ezekiel 26:26 * "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds." (Heb 10:16) * "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb 10:22) Hebrews 10 is all about the finished work of Christ on the cross, that effectively brought in the New Covenant. "for by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." (Heb 10:14) Given that the passages of the Old Testament prophets on the New Covenant are quoted and the sprinkling is referred to as having our hearts and bodies washed with pure water. It’s unlikley that baptism is in view, since pure water and sprinkling links the context much more clearly to the work of God in changing the heart by removing the heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh. Swimming pools or baptismal tanks are not "pure water". Baptism cannot "wash the heart". It is much more likely that any connection to baptism is of a signifying nature, much like the "physical circumcision" in the Old Covenant was a sign of the "circumcision of the heart" which was the real work of God in the Old Covenant. There are several other New Testament passages that show that water is often used figuratively of spiritual cleansing or regeneration that is brought forth by the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God, at the moment of salvation: Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5; John 13:10, 15:3; 1 Cor 6:11 An objector: may claim (as some do) that water refers to the natural birth Of humans. The mother’s "waters break" just before the baby is born. Response: If this single verse is all we had in terms of context to go by, this interpretation would be a possibility, but there is zero other precedence or comparison with this idea anywhere in scripture, hence it is unlikely what Jesus had in mind. Another objector: "this is a perfect description of baptism?" Response 1: We are frequently guilty of reading the Bible backwards. We start with all the Christian assumptions we have to day, i.e. we know that all churches have some form of tradition of baptism - whether adult or infant, and it is not the point of this video to argue for one or the other. That is a video for another day. Now that we know and are well acquainted with baptism, and then with that context in mind we read John 3 it is somewhat likely to find baptism in the passage. However, as a person living in Jesus day, in the moment he spoke to Nicodemus, under the Old Covenant before Christian baptism is instituted, this is not the first go to idea that would pop into the reader's or hearers mind, and we should therefore resist such a conclusion, especially since baptism is not mentioned. Resonse 2: * Why then did Jesus not simply say "unless one is baptised and born of the Spirit one cannot enter the kingdom of God". Jesus was baptised by John, he was familiar with the word and it’s practice. Wouldn't it also be true that if Jesus had indeed said the sentence like this, would he not have clearly contradicted the teaching of the remainder of the New Testament to come? * When Jesus was speaking with Nicodemus, the ordinance of Christian baptism had not been instituted. It was not yet in effect. Jesus likewise did not turn around to the thief on the cross and tell him, if you are baptised you will be with me in paradise, given that the thief was still under the old Covenant and not subject to Christian baptism and yet if this passage commands it,

    23 min

  8. 10/05/2024

    Is Salvation by Faith Alone?

    Is Salvation by Faith Alone, or by Faith + Works? Salvation by faith is not an invention by New Testament authors. Salvation was always by faith. Hebrews 11 has a long list of Old Testament patriarchs that testify to this fact unequivocally. * The Old Testament prophets affirm this as seen in the prophet Habakuk * "The righteous shall live by his faith." (Hab 2:4) * And if there was any doubt what Habakuk actually meant, the apostle Paul quotes this when he explains what the gospel is: * "For in it[the gospel - see v 16] the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith.'" (Rom 1:17) * Paul quotes this same verse again to the Galatians * "Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for 'The righteous shall live by faith.'" (Gal 3:11) * And the author of the letter to the Hebrews just before launching into his list of patriarchs who all affirmed the same message * "But my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him." (Heb 10:38) So what have we seen so far? Salvation is and always was by faith, but is this a work of grace or is the faith produced by human effort? Is salvation is by grace through faith? Let’s firstly look at a few very obvious and clear passages in the New Testament that show that true Christian salvation is by grace through faith alone in Christ alone! Time does not permit to work through every one of these verses in their context. I would encourage you to do this for yourself, so that you stand firm in what you believe. * "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Eph 2:8-9) * "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." (Acts 16:31) * "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." (Rom 3:28) * "And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." (Rom 4:5) * "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Rom 5:1) * "Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." (Gal 2:16) * "So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith." (Gal 3:24) * "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit." (Eph 1:13) * "And be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith." (Phil 3:9) * "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." (Rom 11:6) There are many more, but these alone should suffice for the honest student to realise that the reformation doctrine of "salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone" stands as a towering principle and central doctrine of protestantism. Pretty much the whole tree of all the denominations that grew out of the protestant reformation believes in this central tenet of the Christian faith. If Roman Catholics are unified in their belief in the Pope, Protestants are in principle unified in this belief in salvation by grace through faith! Taken at face value we could turn this passage into a syllogism as an argument Let’s start with an argument that is relevant to some of the churches Paul founded: * P1 - Salvation is the gift of God * P2 - Salvation is not a result of works * P3 - Salvation is not your own doing * P4 - Actions like circumcision & keeping the sabbath are clearly works of some sort * C - Circumcision & keeping the sabbath do not contribute to salvation Now let’s turn this into an example that is more relevant to our day * P1 - Salvation is the gift of God * P2 - Salvation is not a result of works * P3 - Salvation is not your own doing * P4 - Actions like baptism are clearly works of some sort * C - Baptism does not contribute to salvation Another example - since there are some groups who claim: One must receive the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues to be saved * P1 - Salvation is the gift of God * P2 - Salvation is not a result of works * P3 - Salvation is not your own doing * P4 - Actions like baptism are clearly works of some sort * C - Speaking in tongues does not contribute to salvation Another example relating to the ongoing life of a Christian: That is relevant to many the big mega churches today * P1 - Salvation is the gift of God * P2 - Salvation is not a result of works * P3 - Salvation is not your own doing * P4 - Actions like tithing are clearly works of some sort * C - Acts of financial generosity do not contribute to salvation Ahh, but I can already hear the objector who is saying: What about all the many passages that say very explicitly we must obey the commandments given in the New Testament in order to enter heaven. Let’s first list a few of them so that people see that I want to take this objection seriously: * "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him." (John 3:36) * "But for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury." (Rom 2:8) * "And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him." (Heb 5:9) * "So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." (James 2:17+18) There are many more. The reason I am not quoting more is not to be found in the idea that I believe in doctrine by counting verses! These three suffice to raise a serious objection to what we have asserted so far! These verses, taken on their own and without consideration of the context of the rest of the New Testament, seem to strongly indicate that only those who obey Christ will be saved. Are we therefore done, and must concede the argument to the objector? Let’s formulate these passages into a similar syllogism to see: * P1 - Whoever does not obey the son, the wrath of God remains on him * P2 - Whoever does not obey the truth will receive God’s wrath * P3 - Christ is the source of salvation to all those who obey him * P4 - Whoever has faith but no works has a faith that is dead * C - Salvation is by obeying Christ or doing works Well, the objector seems right. We have to concede the argument to him, but wait, we not only have to concede the argument to him, we also have to say that the apostles contradicted each-other in their letters. Let’s formulate this into a syllogistic argument as well: * P1 - The New Testament epistles affirm salvation is by grace through faith and not through works of obedience * P2 - The New Testament epistles affirm salvation is by obedience * C - The New Testament authors contradict each other and hence the New Testament cannot be true! Oh, this is not how we wanted this conundrum to end up? The atheist objector is now rubbing his hands together getting ready to cheer. Considering that as Christians we believe in things such as the inspiration of scripture and as protestants we believe in what is called "Sola Scriptura" - which simply stated means the scripture is the final arbiter in all matters of faith and practice in relation to God. IF we hold to these two foundational principles, then we cannot accept the conclusion of the last argument, namely that the New Testament contains contradictions. So how can we overcome this conundrum - I would suggest we can lay these two syllogisms side by side to see which one makes sense of both sides of this coin: Argument ONE: * P1 - Salvation is by obeying Christ’s commandments (and we are not even getting to the issue of whether perfectly or not) * P2 - Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ * C - The New Testament authors contradicted each other. We are at an impossible impasse Argument TWO: * P1 - Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ * P2 - All true Christians must obey Christ * P3 - True Christians will naturally through the means of the grace of Christ and their faith in Christ also obey Christ’s commandments - albeit imperfectly * P4 - Salvation is not by works or obedience, works are not the cause by the effect of true salvation * C - The New Testament authors did not contradict each other when they claimed salvation is by grace through faith and also claimed that true Christians must obey Christ since dead faith indeed does not save, true saving faith produces the right works demonstrating the truthiness of their faith The reality here is that this is the only way to properly resolve the many passages in the New Testament that call and command the believer to obey Christ and even go so far that disobedient Christians will not be saved. The "Christian" who does not obey, isn’t a true Christian after all and is showing by his or her disobedience that he or she in fact is a tare and not wheat, a goat and not a sheep. There is what theologians call "antinomianism" [anti nomos = against law] i.e. those who say all you need to do is believe, no works are necessary for salvation. We would agree that works are not necessary to be saved, but we would deny that a truly saved Christian will not produce true works of obedience. The works of obedience play absolutely no part in the act if justification & salvation, they are not the cause, they are the effect. Christ is the vine; we are the branches. We produce fruit by the very nature of being con

    20 min

  9. 09/23/2024

    Apostolic Succession

    Rome claims that the apostle Peter was the first pope. I looked at all the evidence in support of this claim in a recent podcast. The evidence was found wanting. In this podcast, I look at the Roman Catholic claim that there is such a thing as apostolic succession from Peter being the first pope all the way through to today. By this claim, the Roman Catholic church claims to be the “one true church” and thereby denies the status of a true Christian church to all other branches of Christendom. In this video, I review the evidence from the New Testament about succession in principle, what it means and what it does not. Then I review the context of several of the major statements used by Roman Catholic apologists when they claim the early church fathers also believed in apostolic succession of the supreme authority of the papacy. The early church does speak about succession but never in the way that Rome would need them to. In fact, the early church fathers writings support the protestant view of succession. Some of the writings of the early church fathers are quite convoluted in style, please bear with me as I work through them. I hope this helps you both understand the Roman Catholic view and also why it is un biblical, and hence incorrect. Please let me know what you think in the comments. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit reformedapologist.substack.com

    32 min
  10. Was Peter the First Pope?

    09/14/2024

    Was Peter the First Pope?

    A critical analysis of the Biblical data and the beliefs in the early church. If the Bible nor the early church actually support the idea of the apostle Peter being a pope, let alone the first one, then the very foundation of Roman Catholicism cannot be upheld. In this podcast, I review the main arguments used by the Roman Catholic apologists, the bible passages they cite in favour and the quotes by early Church fathers they refer to, in support. The main Bible passage they quote from does not support their view, nor do early Church fathers agree with the Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage. In the next episode, I will review the issue of “apostolic succession.” These two doctrines form the basis of the notion put forward by Roman Catholics that they are the “One True Church.” If these two arguments fail, the whole tree built on them as a foundation is in danger of collapsing. If you were encouraged by the podcast, please share with your friends. You can find more content like this on my Youtube channel: https://youtube.com/@reformedapologist This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit reformedapologist.substack.com

    18 min
  • 10 Episodes

About

There is an ever increasing need to equip followers of Christ with confidence, and the tools to defend classic Christian belief systems. reformedapologist.substack.com

Information