วีดีโอ

Glad you enjoyed!

All out of context... nice try but read it all in context.. which most people do not read in context..

@@douglasdueno The verses mean what they say. If you think they don't mean what they say then show how or otherwise you are taking the verses out of context. Come on Doug, show how the context changes the meaning. Your try wasn't even a try.

@@TexasBlues-123 Again, read everything in context, not just verse-to-verse, but the entirely of the Bible. Don’t take one verse from one book like Ephesians and reject another like Romans, read everything from cover-to-cover, front-and-back, inside-and-out. What Paul wrote, compare it with what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote, then compare it to the Old Testament, based eveything in the context of what was written. An example, of what out-of-context looks like is Ephesians 2:14 and Romans 3:31. Both veres say completely different aspects of the relationship between the Law and the Christian faith. For Eph 2:14 - the focus here is on bringing Jews and Gentiles together through Christ. Paul wrote that Christ removed the barriers created by the Law between these two groups. "Abolishing" means the end of the rules that kept Jews from Gentiles apart. This does not mean that moral law or God's standards were removed, but rather that the specific rules creating division were made useless and removed in Christ. For Romans 3:31 - the focus here is that Paul discusses justification. He explains that faith in Christ fulfills the Law, rather than disregarding it. The importance of the moral law, which reflects God's character and will. Faith in Christ does not reject the Law, but affirms it as a guide for Christian living. Again, read everything in context. One is for the ceremonial aspects that separated people, which Christ abolished to create unity. The other is the moral Law is not discarded by faith but upheld as believers live in accordance with God's will.

​@@douglasdueno 🔹 Ephesians - " you just made up your own definition for "abolishing". 🔹 Romans - The moral Law? The Law are God's commandments. 🔹 You still haven't shown how the verses mean any other than what they actually say. 🔹Nice try Doug but you're wrong.

​ @TexasBlues-123 And what words actually say is what the Greek language writes out, going back to the original language of what Paul wrote using *NOT English*, but writing in Greek. So let's go to the Greek and see what that word means in both verses. Ephesians 2:14, you use the word "abolishing." But in Greek, Paul uses the word *"luó,"* which means *properly, loose (unleash), let go; release (unbind) so something no longer holds together; (figuratively) release what has been held back.* Romans 3:31, you use the word "Overthrow." But in Greek, Paul uses the word *"katargéō"* which means */katá, "down to a point," intensifying AND argéō, "inactive, idle") - properly, idle down, rendering something inert ("completely inoperative"); i.e. being of no effect (totally without force, completely brought down); done away with, cause to cease and therefore abolish; make invalid, abrogate (bring to nought); "to make idle or inactive".* The word meanings in each verse are completely different.

Thank you for the encouragement. The NAR is creeping into so many areas of Christianity, and we need to be aware of what it is. This was an important teach for our church.

@@calvarychapelmaidstone Yes I agree

Bless you brother - thank you for sharing. Good to hear of God's work in your life. Greetings from England to California...which Calvary are you at?

@@calvarychapelmaidstone I'm from Calvary Chapel Davis in Northern California area. Our Calvary Chapel is very small, we are about 20-25 members. I believe we are the only church in our town that teaches verse by verse. It's awesome to see that there are Calvary Chapels in the UK. I believe it was Brian Brodersen that planted the first Calvary Chapel in the 90's.

​@@NorCalGospelPreacher Our fellowship is between 50-70, so not big either. The Lord bless you for your faithfulness in standing true to his word in your town. I know Brian planted Calvary Chapel Westminster in London, and many churches have been birthed from that. There have been other CC churches in the UK that have been planted by others coming over from the States too, but who came first I don’t know. We planted CC Maidstone six years ago, so are quite new.

@@calvarychapelmaidstone That's awesome to hear, well the Lord bless you all there in Maidstone and mightily use you all. I've been enjoying the apologetics series a lot, thank you! Have you thought about adding one exposing Seventh Day Adventism, just curious?

@@NorCalGospelPreacher Funny you should mention the SDA - I have a friend from Slovakia who was saved out of Adventism - it's not what it first seems. I've mentioned a couple of times how I'd like him to give a message about what the SDA is like, so I must formalise that invite.

I brought together my voice notes. First of all, you state that you don’t agree with the year 46 AD and provide a source to say otherwise. If you disagree with the year 46, that’s fine, the year is moveable for my argument. There is nothing hanging on this date. If Bernier says 40AD, you can set my argument date for 38. It works for any year after Jesus ascended and before the first book was written. Your full response is an interesting one. Because I’ve been talking about two main points 1) that people back in 46AD can’t have the same exact beliefs and practices as you do today. They can’t because you have two testaments, they only had one. 2) Jesus’s provision for the authoritative transmission of the Christian faith. I appreciate your response and the time you spent on it, but again you ignore those two points that I have been making. One disagreement occurred about the a date of the argument, but there were no substantial counters made or points that said that you agree or disagree with them. Your reply was a broad description of Catholic and non-Catholic authority belief systems instead of a specific retort. You also bring up canon matters even though I never mentioned it. I’ll say a quick word since you brought it up. The early church indeed used a twofold test, and both are based on the Church’s Tradition. They asked, is this in agreement with traditional doctrine and is there a tradition that this had been used in the church since the first century. And if something didn't meet either one of those criteria, it was not included in scripture. I would say here, why do you accept and keep this Tradition that was first made in the Council of Rome (382 AD) and later reaffirmed by the Church Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), Council of Florence in 1442 and again solemnly defined this same canon in 1546? You say the Catholic Church has so many errors but yet you keep the same exact list of NT books the Church declared to be canonical. If you, believe the Catholic Church doesn’t have authority, then why not add or remove books by your own authority? Also, an interesting point to add, is that most modern critical Scholars do not believe that Paul wrote second Timothy. Should you pull that book out? Why don’t you accept the other books written by Paul like the 3rd Corinthians or the Epistle to the Laodiceans? According to you, Paul penned them so that makes them Scripture, right? Even though there is no direct command from Jesus or the Apostles that says the ultimate authority of the New Testament Church are going to be these 27 New Testament books, you provide me with 9 proof verses for sola scriptura. From my experience there are two kinds of advocates for the doctrine of sola scriptura-the careless and the careful. The people who are careless in how they support it, will press even the most tangential of things into service as proof that the idea is true. For example, in your list of passages you provide many examples of verses in the gospels where Jesus is being questioned about some doctrine by his enemies and in answering them, he points their attention to some passage in the Old Testament. This kind of verse can be validly used to prove that the Old Testament has doctrinal authority, but it cannot be used to prove sola scriptura since Jesus does not say that only the Old Testament has doctrinal authority (in which case we would have a sola Old Testament doctrine). Jesus citing the Old Testament to prove a particular doctrine shows only that Jesus considered that doctrine to be provable by that passage of the Old Testament. It does not show that he considered all doctrines to be provable by the Old Testament or by Scripture in general. And so it is no surprise when we see Jesus sometimes answering his enemies by appeals to his own authority or other extra-Scriptural sources, as I commented in my last post. The idea that Jesus (the living Word of God who came to bring us new revelation via his oral preaching and teaching) would have believed and practiced the proposition that all doctrine must be proved only by the written word of God is absurd on its face, yet this does not stop the careless advocate of sola scriptura from appealing to instances where Jesus uses Scripture to prove an individual doctrine as if they were proof Scripture is able to validate all doctrines whatsoever. The careful advocate limits the verses they appeal to in support of the doctrine to only those that have some hope of being relevant. They in fact recognize that there are really only one or two passages which have any hope of being looked to as support for sola scriptura. One is of course the first one you list. First of all, in 2 Timothy 3:16, the writer of the epistle tells Timothy that the scriptures that he has known from childhood are profitable for salvation, for teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness so that the man of God can be equipped for every good work. That’s what Paul says. Nothing in there about testing all doctrines against that standard to begin with. But more interesting to me is these are the scriptures that Timothy knew from childhood. What scriptures did Timothy know from childhood? Clearly not second Timothy 3:16. Timothy did not grow up reading Paul's second letter. Jesus never mentioned 2 Timothy 3:16 or the book of second Timothy. No other apostle that we know of ever mentioned second Timothy. Arguably Paul never mentioned second Timothy if you think the critical Scholars are right. The author of 2 Timothy never suggested that 2 Timothy was somehow a rule of Faith against which all doctrines should be tested. He grew up with the Old Testament, right? so that's clearly what 2 Timothy is referring to. That portion, that canonical Old Testament scripture. This brings me back again to what I have been saying from the beginning, what does the Bible itself, what does Jesus himself actually say about this question, against what standard do we test doctrine, practice, claims to what is true Christianity? Well, when Jesus made provision for handing on the Christian faith, he never mentioned anything about second Timothy. For that matter, he never mentioned anything about the complete canon of the Bible. What he said instead was to 11 guys he said go into all nations and make disciples and teach everything I've commanded you and I'll be with you to the end of the age. Matthew 28. Christ sent authorized individuals with the promise of divine assistance with the charge to teach his oral tradition. Everything I've commanded you. Jesus didn't write anything down it was oral tradition. I'll be with you to the end of the age, whoever hears you hears me whoever rejects you rejects me, whoever sins you forgive are forgiven, whoever sins you retained or retained. When we actually look to the teaching of Christ, the standard that he gave for determining Christian Orthodoxy was sacred tradition and the teaching authority of the church. No mention of the New Testament canon of the Bible, which we can arrive at only after the fact through sacred tradition. So, I think the principle that you suggest, that we have to test all doctrines against scripture is not itself a scriptural doctrine. Let's test that against scripture, does the Bible say test everything against the Bible? There is no direct command to do so, it does not, so it fails the test.

“So if I don’t post again, they are the reasons, nothing else that you may suppose. Okay, wink, wink. I made the claim that I could poke holes in the points in the video. Well, since it unlikely that you will post again, so I will verify my claim and show how easy it is to poke the water out of your arguments that you are repeating from others. You copy the claim from Gendron and say “Roman Catholicism who have departed from the truth who hold the doctrine that you that priests are forbidden to marry which is a doctrine of demons so here these verses clearly identify by the Roman Catholic Church is within that apostate Church bracket.” The word forbid means refuse to allow something. Let’s see if that’s the case. It should be pointed out that the Catholic Church does have married priests. It always has been a tradition to have a mix of married priests and celibate priests in the eastern churches. This tradition is preserved in the eastern Catholic Churches where we have many married priests. Even in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church though priestly celibacy is the normal discipline, there are dispensations granted which allows for some married men to also serve as Latin rite priests. In other words mandatory priestly celibacy is a discipline in the Latin rite only and one which allows for exceptions. So what is first timothy 4 3 about? Even Protestant commentators recognize it is about gnostics who were not suggesting priestly celibacy but were opposed to marriage entirely the interpreters in one volume commentary on the bible says “this is undoubtedly a reaction to gnostic tendencies towards asceticism in the church.” It was the gnostics who believed the material world was evil so they forbade marriage as a matter of principle not as a discipline for a select group of people. So does the Catholic Church absolutely forbid all the priests in the Catholic Church and that its a unchanging doctrine. All incorrect information. It a disciple in only one rite of the Catholic Church. POKE! It was that easy.

Essential understanding for any student of Scripture.

You have your hand on the door handle but you haven't opened the door. God bless. Philip

Thank you, @lindaw7803 - I'm glad the message was helpful.

Hello daveevans3276 Thank you for taking the time to time to listen to message, or at least the opening introduction…did you listen to the whole thing? You pose an interesting question, can I ask the reason behind it and why 46AD? As for what I said, I’m speaking to today’s church and where believers need to be today. As for 46AD, all the apostles believed the Bible, as it consisted then. Certainly where the gospel spread to, churches began and they held to the Scriptures and traditions of the apostles. So yes, there were Bible believing, Bible teaching churches then. There was also error then, and that was challenged and corrected in the New Testament writings. As apologetics was needed then, so it is needed now. God Bless you.

@@calvarychapelmaidstone Thanks for responding! “Christian’s need to be in a true Bible believing, Bible teaching Church.” That is an assertion that even though you say it’s for today, there is a suggestion, that this was the standard from the beginning, as you alluded to in your response. “So yes, there were Bible believing, Bible teaching churches then” and “There was also error then, and that was challenged and corrected in the New Testament writings. As apologetics was needed then, so it is needed now.” Many people try and compare today’s beliefs and practices and make the impression that they had the same exact usage and practices of authority as today. Is that true? Now this is when the reasoning of the year 46AD comes in. Historically, scholars say the first book of the New Testament was written close to 50AD. So that’s the problem with saying yes, back in 46 AD “Christians need to be in a true Bible believing, Bible teaching Church.” The historical fact to counter that statement is that no books of the New Testament existed at that time. From that statement, as a Non-Catholic, you would have to conclude that no final authority existed for the New Testament Church, for the first many, many years of the early Church. No one went to the writing when there was error in the New Testament Church in 46 AD. The usage and practice of the Bible are not identical to today. This also shows that Jesus indeed made a provision for the authoritative transmission of the Christian faith. It wasn’t the NT books of the Bible. You would think that if Jesus wanted New Testament writings to be the final and only authority then Jesus himself would be writing or before Jesus ascended, he would be commanding the Apostles to write but we don't see anything like that in revelation. He didn't say I know the books aren't around currently but here in 15-20 years, books will be written and once we get 27 specific books, (and he lists them) once that happens, you'll have your final authority. He didn't give a teaching like you are the Bible and on this Bible I will build my Church. He left it to living persons, that was the provision Jesus made.

@@daveevans3276 Scripture consists of both the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings. Jesus was Bible-believing, He quoted the Old Testament all the time. The apostles were Bible-believing, they quoted the Old Testament writings, all the time. To suggest that “no final authority existing for the New Testament Church, for the first many, many years of the early Church” is quite simple not true. Scripture was the authoirty. Did you listen to the whole message? Did you consider the other points made - the six differences between Roman Catholicism and the Bible?

@@calvarychapelmaidstone Thanks for the response. You say “Scripture consists of both the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings.” Okay if you do the math here, if the first book of the NT was written around 50AD then back in 46 AD just the OT existed. And you assert, they believed like you do today. Lets apply that sentiment. You believe that the final authority is the Scriptures alone. So that means you want to assert that the early church in 46AD believed in the theory of sola Old Testament. With that theory, you are asserting that for the New Testament Church all they needed was the writing of the OT to pass on the Christian Faith. That no NT writing is needed. If you want to subscribe to that theory that’s fine but that’s not what Jesus believed. Yes, Jesus of course refers to scripture as an authority. So do Catholics. I've never denied that, Scripture is an authority, it's just not a sufficient rule of faith for the Church. Its authority is delimited in a certain sense, it has a job description. Saint Paul says that all scripture is inspired and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God can be equipped for good works and it's evident from the context he's talking about our moral behavior. Scripture is a guide to the life of prayer, scripture is a source on which theologians can reflect for insight into the nature of God or salvation, or the church or the Christian life. Scripture is a witness to the life of Christ and the apostles to the teaching of the prophets, to the history of the people of God. It's a book of poetry and narrative and law. In all these ways it's fruitful for the church to have sacred Scripture and to read it and study it, and meditate and pray with it. To use it in that way, because that's what it's for. But it's not for giving a comprehensive finally authoritative answer to everything about what Christians are meant to hold or to do. It doesn't have that function, it never has represented itself as having that function. Nor did Jesus. In John, Jesus actually criticizes, he says to the Jews, you guys study the Scriptures because you think that in them you will have life but you refuse to come to me and they wrote about me. Moses wrote about me. The Scriptures point to Jesus. Paul says that the law was a pedagogue to lead us to Christ. He also says in 2 Corinthians 3 that it's possible to read the law with the veil covering your heart and to be blind to what it actually teaches. Only when one turns to the Lord is the veil taken away. There's a spiritual wisdom he says in 1 Corinthians 2 which God kept hidden from all ages but now has revealed to those who are reborn in Christ. this is a perspective that's only available to one from within the heart of the Church in relationship to Jesus. The Bible is not a stand-alone self-interpreting authority and not adequate for that purpose. It never was designed for that purpose and Jesus while he does quote the scriptures, he has absolutely no problem, whatsoever at all, giving an authoritative interpretation that departs from the letter. He doesn't treat them like they're a self-sufficient authority. So for example, the law of Moses commanded that adulterers be put to death. Jesus said don't do that. The law of Moses said men could divorce their wives. Jesus says don't do that. If the Bible were a self-sufficient adequate authority to rule on all matters of faith and practice, in a kind of prima fascia, fundamentalist sort of way, then Jesus would been out of line. Actually, abrogating or mitigating the force of the law through the authority of his own divine person but that's exactly the way he behaved. He supersedes the Bible. So as I commented in my past post, that Jesus indeed made a provision for the authoritative transmission of the Christian faith. He makes no mention of passing it on through the Scriptures alone. Nowhere does Jesus reveal to us that if you want to know the content of the Christian Faith, you should look to the Bible alone. He passes this authority to living individuals, not only and exclusively to 27 specific books written from around 50AD to 100AD.

@@daveevans3276 Well, @daveevans3276 It’s very nice that you have given this much time and effort to writing. I don’t agree with you on a number of fronts, and at the same time I’m not confident that this is the best forum to discuss such matters, or that you are open minded to consider alternate points of view. So it makes discussion a bit of hiding to nothing. It is also clear to me you haven’t listened to the entire message, only the opening few minutes and are something of a heresy hunter looking to argue against anyone who the temerity to post anything that suggest that Roman Catholicism has faults and errors. Jesus died for you and me, that we might be reconciled to God. I sincerely hope you have put your faith in Jesus for salvation. God Bless you

Thanks for the encouragement, Ray!

This was a gospel presentation, not a deep doctrinal dive. The nature of Christ is a far greater subject than could not be served by this message.

My personal experience in evangelism is that speaking about Jesus and sin is not the hardest subject, but speaking about hell and judgement. People need to know that face judgement - for that reason the Second Death is an important topic.

You are right that SIN has its origins in Satan's rebellion in heaven. I was speaking int eh context of the origin of SIN on earth in mankind. Nice to hear a critical voice.

Thank you - God bless you!

Note, there are eight resurrections of individuals. However, to be transparent, there are more resurrections if you count groups of people being resurrected, as there were those who rose from the tombs at Jesus death (Matthew 27:52), and the resurrection of Old and New Testament saints at the appearing of Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:16) and the resurrection of the wicked (Acts 24:14-15)

Amen!

Thank you so much for your kind comments. We have a truly great God, and as Christians we will have eternity to find out more about His perfect character!

Thank you so much for your encouraging message. I'm so pleased that you were blessed by this teaching - may God have all the glory! I really enjoyed doing this series on God's character, but i'm sure there is a great deal that I missed out as we have such an infinitely marvellous God! May God bless you in your walk with Him.

Thanks Sarah, yes, the double agent angle does give a different take on the passage compared to first impressions. A man so committed to his nation and people, and having twice refused to kill King Saul would not then suddenly change and willing fight his people and seek to kill the King. There must be another explanation.

Hello Hephzibah4675 Thank you for your encouragement, I’m so glad you enjoyed the teaching. Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5:8, "We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.” Paul was clearly of the impression that when we die, that we enter the presence of the Lord. When he was in prison, Paul debated about which was better, to live and be of service to God and the gospel on earth, or to die and be with the Lord. Again showing us, that when Paul died he expected to enter into the presence of the Lord. Philippians 1:21-23 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labour; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. So in answer to your question, "When we die now, we go straight to Heaven?” For the born again believer in Jesus Christ, the answer is, “Yes." Now you mention somthing else, "some people say we "fall asleep" and wait for resurrection.” This is referring to Paul’s writings in 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4. In both chapters Paul uses the term, “sleep” as a euphemism for a believer dying. While their body is in the ground, their soul and spirit is with the Lord. Not in some form of cryogenic freeze. The hope we have is that when Crist returns to establish His Messianic Kingdom on earth, to rule and reign for 1000 years. Those who are dead in Christ, or who are asleep in Christ, will inherit their resurrected, glorified bodies. Then reign with Him. Jesus has taken away the sting of death, for all who surrender their life to Him. When we pass from life, we enter into His presence and joy everlasting. For those who have not surrendered their life to Him, they stil have the sting of death as they will pass into torment and eventually the second death, which is the Lake of Fire. God Bless Matt

Thank you.

​@@calvarychapelmaidstone thank you very much for your reply! 🎉

You're welcome. @@hephzibah4675

Thank you brother Cyrus. May God bless you in all that you do. Matt

Thank you for the encouragement and so glad you have been blessed by the ministry.

Thanks Ray, always an encouragement!

Thanks Sarah, we need to be informed, so we are not swept up in popular opinion.

Thank you for your kind words Linda. I'm encouraged that the teaching is speaking to you. All glory to God. Matt

Thank you for sharing, I will be praying for you this morning.

god said david would not build his temple but rather ... it was david who said solomon. david was incorrect as solomon did not establish his kingdom forever..... i am that man who will sit on david throne...

Glad you found it helpful. It's a good subject to have grounding in to help with understanding Scripture.

Thank you for you positive feedback ,Stephen. It's Matt Hobbs (not Mr Hamrick) - God bless