วีดีโอ

Understand the NT mysteries and you will be a Dispensationalist. Col.1:25-27 etc.

The problem with pretribulation rapture theology is that its sets believers up for the antichrist, how? Because they are looking for the return of Christ before the antichrist is revealed,

Pastor Joe shimmel does an excellent video on the pretribulation rapture deception Q&A,

Three words! You are wrong!!

How do we know Anglicanism has valid orders? I am struggling with this question

Modern society is intentionally dehumanizing. Most jobs are intentionally meaningless.

You should read The Liturgy of the Land.

That church and its location are amazing! Where was that taken?

As a 23 year old, nothing made me feel more full of purpose than when I worked doing plumbing construction. It is so very fulfilling to get home at the end of the day and take a shower and take a well deserved rest. Many in My generation will never know how fulfilling it is to work hard. Physical labor releases endorphins so it’s no wonder it feels good to

I love to build and paint Icons... God bless you guys

What if - One day you kind of realized that you were wrong?

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

As a Lutheran I would say “Amen” to your reasonable perspective. Thank you for sharing!

I'm making parts for your cars and air planes while listing to TH-cam, as I type this comment. Thanks from Michigan

This is exactly what I've been wrestling through for a while. I am still Protestant ATM, but after listening to Dr. Sidjuwadi's A Priori arguement on Cameron Bertucci's channel, and currently working through the new Sola Scriptura series on the Coming Home Network,( with Ken Hensley, Matt Swaim, and Kenny Burchard) I wonder how we can have any true infallibility without the Papacy? And if so, what is the unifying alternative? I've been on this journey for the last 6 years, and the papacy is the final issue to work through. At first, my reasoning was, "Well, if the Marian dogmas are true, then maybe the papacy is true." Now I've flipped that perspective and am now thinking: "If the papacy is true, then those dogmas are true whether I like them or not." It's a challenging place to be. I resonate with the anguish.

I appreciate the struggle. It’s a very painful one. It’s so painful a struggle in my practice that no theoretical approach to resolving it gives me peace. I am asked to decide. Abraham had to decide regarding the killing of his son. As a matter of ethics, he nevertheless decides to do it. This is not possible. I cannot choose to do such a thing. There’s is no doubt in my mind that in every version of Christianity, synergism emerges as the way, including in the practice of Calvinism. All rationalisations that appear to settle issues like this one only satisfy the mind within the frame that gives rise to the question. This makes ultimate nonsense of the question, of solutions and of theology as a whole. It doesn’t work in theory, and it doesn’t work in practice. In theology too, God makes foolish the wisdom of the wise. I am forced to trust the love of God despite theology and often in spite of theology. wise. I am forced to trust the love of God despite theology and often in spite of theology. Total grace is an absolute necessity to me such that He must deal with and set aside His right to demand better of me at any stage of His dealings with me. If God does not see all righteousness for every theologically imagined station of my walk (“salvation, sanctification, glorification …”) there is no gospel for me. One might do better and feel more secure practicing as a serious Orthodox Jew where simple observation of well designed religious life is prescribed and can be followed.

One of your best videos yet, thank you.

Hey Jonah is this bible “phenomenal”? 😅

Excellent

What about a case of a body with a broken arm? The head is perfectly fine, but the arm is lame…there is a defect in the body but not the head.

Speaking to the metaphor you are relying so heavily upon, the body acts without the head all the time - you have reflexes, muscle memory, and innumerable physiological processes taking place that are not directly responding to orders from the head. Also of note is that we don’t have a pure, reliable neurological connection from the brain throughout the body. If you’ve ever missed a step, or dropped your keys - sometimes the head issues an order and the body doesn’t quite get it right. Important things to consider, since the image of the head/body is central to your reasoning. Anyway, I really don’t know how you can assume A) the Church includes various institutions that have made competing, contradictory theological claims, and B) that the Church cannot err. It seems to me that if you are going to take the stance that the Church is infallible, you must necessarily come down on the side of one of the ecclesially exclusivist visible institutions. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you.

The early Church Fathers believed in imputation.

Heresy? “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means” -Inego Montoya

I very much lean toward your view here. The epistemological alternatives are unsatisfying for many reasons. However, it does raise a question I've no doubt you have also grappled with. If the body can't act without the head, and this is one of the ways to ground ecclesial infallibility through seven ecumenical councils, then as an anglo-catholic is it not also true that you would have to admit that the church has not been able to act infallibly since the great schism. And, if you concede this, that the only way to have a genuine ecumenical council would be from the reuniting of the 3 Apostolic Chalcedonian churches - Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican?

Fully appreciate your judicious energy, but,,, essentially we are concerned with spiritual warfare, nothing remains but the Traditional Latin Mass. Free thyself from the convolution of anything more. Free thyself. Return,, to unity.☘️

Sorry - a point of clarification. The Orthodox view of infallibility is grounded in the great commission. " And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19 [b]Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to [c]follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you [d]always, to the end of the age." The Church is infallible as Christ is infallible in making disciples of all nations. As a teacher of the way, the Church can never fail because Christ promises to be with the Church in its great commission to the end of the ages.

I believe the Assyrian church of the East is now chalecedian. They made a common Christological statement with the Catholic Church

I appreciate your commentary on deep and important topics. As a Cumberland Presbyterian (but a follower of Christ, foremost), I’m sure we disagree on lots of things. But I love to see someone ponder and agonize over vastly important and heavy topics. I appreciate your thoughts, and enjoy your take.

I'm so glad I am not a theologian..... I am a simple Christian who attends my church (Canadian Anglican) where I worship God as part of a community of love. The sacraments, the music, the ritual are important to me.... but I have no issues with my best friends who are Baptists.

I was about to comment until you said: which council, which head.... indeed

I aborted after 9 minutes when your 25th assertion was made without a single argument. Don't tell listeners what to think and assume your views don't require a defense. It's a dead giveaway that you are reading a script when literally nothing you say is based on actual scripture. Talking _about_ the Bible is not exegesis. In Romans 11, Paul makes a clear distinction between ethnic Israel and the Church. Israel was blinded by God, says Paul, but according to you, that means the Church must also be blind. When Paul then warns those who become grafted into the olive tree not to boast against the branches lest they be cut off, your script requires me to believe he was warning the Church not to boast against itself. Pathetic.

God never became man. Jesus is the through whom God manifest Himself.

This stirred my spirit. The same argument was made by a member at my church and it made me think but it didn’t go anywhere

I like that the cross references are at the bottom. They're still available, and if any of them are particularly significant to you then you can write them in the margin next to the actual verse. 🙂

Have you seen the new documentary on Icons? It’s called “The Hidden History of Christian art”. It’s on the Harmony TH-cam channel.

God bless 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿✝️☦️

It is clear that the author misunderstands dispensationalism and does not engage with its core principles accurately. Dispensational interpretation is clearly root in the early church but was not systematized until recently and is not merely a modern construct but is rooted in a careful, historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture, recognizing God's distinct administrative dealings with man as a steward of a specific "house rule". To those to whom the message was sent has specific actions to do. The recipients are then judged at the of a period of time on how well the action was carried out followed by rewards or punishments. If one does understand the above as a definition of a dispensations, then one does not understand dispensationslism. A thorough study of biblical covenants, Israel, the Church, and eschatology would clarify many of the misconceptions presented. I'd encourage a deeper examination of the concept of "house rule" throughout the old and new testament."

Praise God! This warms my heart.

None of your arguments against dispensationalism are solid. Your primary argument from Church history is, for me personally, irrelevant. To establish your position, you need to prove your ideas from the Bible, not from Church tradition. Your second argument, based on Ezekiel and the Temple, is also unconvincing. Ezekiel is a prophetic book filled with symbolic language rather than a literal description of a future temple. I fail to see how this point effectively refutes dispensationalism. As for your third argument, I see the millennium described in Revelation 19-20 as occurring before the final judgment, rather than being found in the Creed. My commitment is to follow the Bible-what you choose to do is up to you.

Where do we find the definitive voice on what Anglicanism is?

FUTURE 70th WEEK OF Daniel? it's not for Preterist eyes to see. Joshua 3:4 is a 2000 year GAP acted out when the ARK (Testimony of CHRIST, Heb. 9:11) passes the congregation, symbolic of HIS 1st visitation and the Atonement. With a Gap formed of about 2000 cubits symbolic for years. By the way, Ezekiel acted out Prophecy for Jews with stiff necks and hard hearts. With this being the truth, men of GOD with open hearts can interpret a physical GAP between the Ark passing by stiff necked Jews, symbolic for them missing the atonement in 31 AD. I didn't eisegesis the GAP nor what the Ark of the Covenant represented 1400 years later Heb. 9:11. Did not the Early Church fathers preach the Doctrine-of Imminence? Do you even know what the Doctrine is? Hint, it is that CHRIST can return at any moment well after 70 AD. What authority do Preterist have to eisegesis millennium (1000 years) to 2000 years? When did Zech. 12:910 fulfill in a Preterist delusionary interpretation? History say wrath and judgments were poured upon the House of David not grace and supplications? When did the ones that pierced JESU mourn over him like a first morn SON? Hint, NEVER but they will. ✝💟

@kylec8950 LOL, it's not for Preterist eyes to see. By the way, Ezekiel acted out Prophecy for Jews with stiff necks and hard hearts like yours. With this being the truth, men of GOD with open hearts can interpret a physical GAP between the Ark passing by stiff necked Jews, symbolic for them missing the atonement in 31 AD. I didn't eisegesis the GAP nor what the Ark of the Covenant represented 1400 years later Heb. 9:11. Did not the Early Church fathers preach the Doctrine-of Imminence? Do you even know what the Doctrine is? Hint, it is that CHRIST can return at any moment well after 70 AD. What authority do Preterist have to eisegesis millennium (1000 years) to 2000 years? When did Zech. 12:910 fulfill in a Preterist delusionary interpretation? History say wrath and judgments were poured upon the House of David not grace and supplications? When did the ones that pierced JESU mourn over him like a first morn SON? Hint, NEVER but they will.

What was given to Paul

I think Isaiah says that I guess he's teaching heresy

God's not into sevens

Daniel said knowledge would increase that diffently includes the bible

Rightly dividing the word of truth

Great thoughts. Would love to know your thoughts on the Dr. Tom Wadsworth videos (following his doctoral thesis re: early church worship) in light of this video about your Anglican Journey. If you haven’t seen the videos, just search on his name. I’m new to Anglicanism but so grateful for many of the points you’ve shared.

The problem with the Reformed view is the Christology you mention-the view that Christ’s body is strictly local. Yes, scripture talks about “the right hand of God.” But is that a place in the earthly sense? Does God exist in a particular place? Is God‘s right hand meant literally here? In order for Christ’s body to be limited in this context, the throne of God, the right hand of God, must also be limited in locality. Reformed theology in general tries to explain and specify everything far too closely about things that we cannot know for certain. It almost becomes rationalistic in that way.