วีดีโอ

K J the gost

I CANT BELIEVE I MISSED YOUR TEACHING THIS FRIDAY AND SATURDAY 😭😭😭

I'm Christian Reformed CRCNA, so our creeds are very similar to Westminster. This video was a great explanation of often misunderstood concepts.

Hello, I'm from Brazil and I'd like to give you some advice. From what I see here, your channel is very interesting, however, it doesn't reach a reasonable amount of people. First of all, I'd like to advise you to turn on your camera. Putting only images gives the impression of being a weird podcast. Don't ask me why, but people like to see the speaker talking. Also, pay editors, the video needs to be dynamic so that it doesn't get boring. Finally, don't stop recording videos because this is one of the most interesting channels I've ever found.

This is a beautiful analysis of what I've been saying forever

10/10. I like history like this.

Section I.-God from all eternity did by the most and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; Is this not a fallacy of Equivocation? To say God ordains in a causal sense of creation, and in a non-causal sense with Man's sinful choices? We're using two different definitions of the same word. One that is causational, and one that is semi-permissive in that God isn't the cause, but I can't happen any other way.

The Westminster dose not refute all forms of theonomy for Clarification. Only the most extreme version of theonomy is obviously not required. Our laws are falling far away from what they should be. Which could of been avoided if we didn't cast off our Prophetic vision that Restrains evil. Kuyperian theonomy is a go.

Slowly making my way through this series. As a cradle Presbyterian who doesn’t know his confession well enough thank you!

Great man of God

What is your opinion on the American pledge of allegiance? What is your opinion on elementary children doing the pledge at school?

Thank you for this! As a student of Reformation history, and (though a Reformed Baptist) a student of the Westminster Standards, this background information is very helpful! I have also come to use the Book of Common Prayer, so to see its connection between all this Reformed history is intriguing and helps give a context to its text and practice.

It seems for Antiochians the notion person and nature are interchangeable.

Thanks for doing this!! Would you consider doing a lecture on the Cartwright-Whitgift admonition controversy and the Hooker-Travers debate? Looking forward to your reading your book in the future thanks. I have Cramner book on the Sacrament - is there any other writing from the 1500/1600s that defended the Reformed Christology you would recommend? it would be cool if you did a lecture on the different English polemics against Rome like Perkins, Andrew Willet and then the different view of Laud with the Jesuit. ps - did the Westminster divines teach the Christian Sabbath in that children should not use recreation on Sunday and would that include playing with toys or board games?

Thank you Dr. Drake.

Hey, brother. Glad you are aiding the church with these videos. I took out my notes from your class on the Confession at Covenant in 2017, which aided me in teaching Sunday School. Specifically Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 27. Thanks for your work. Blessings upon you.

These videos are great!

Praise the Lord Jesus Christ

Hi, are you available on any podcasts? Thank you for your teaching.

A bit of Greek could help you read that the icon provided under which it is written the name of Nestorius is of St Spyridon, a totally different person.

Very Beautifully Explained, Amaziing,Thanks...

Also, this is probably the wrong WCF Chapter for this question, but why has the Reformed Church in general partitioned itself such that Presbyterianism is almost always paired with paedobaptism and Congregationalism is almost always paired with credobaptism (eg, with the Congregational paedobaptists and the Presbyterian credobaptists now mostly extinct)? Would you say it's a logical consequence of the basic principle of "more sacred rites require more sacred clergy" (eg credobaptism is usually taken as more of an ordinate than a sacrament, so it doesn't really require a special priesthood, and it meshes well with a low church congregational polity, whereas paedoobaptism is usually seen as a covenantal rite or a sacrament, and is more in line with a higher church presbyterian or episcopalian polity) or would you say it's more of an unfortunate American style bundling of issues into a two party system?

Would you say that for the common man in the pews, the differences in doctrine between the WCF and Roman Catholicism are deep and substantial--like, to the extent that these differences would have real implications for the salvation of souls/--or do you think it's mostly semantics? I mean, functionally speaking, it seems that a big chunk of what the Reformed perspective does is to revamp the currency of the Sacraments, so that "assurance" is being meted out (as opposed to "justifying grace" in the case of Catholicism). Both the Catholic and the Protestant strive for piecewise repentance and sanctification, and both pin their ultimate hope on the mercy of God through Christ, yes?

Regarding the Puritan Doctrine of Man and Total Depravity, would you say there are any crystal clear objective lines that determine what the unregenerate natural man can or cannot do? Take, for example, some of our founding fathers. On this list below, is there anything that would make a Puritan say "Aha! This is beyond the capabilities of the unregenerate"? 1. Coming to the conviction that there must be an Unmoved Prime Mover or a Deistic God, as an inference from "Why is there something rather than nothing?" 2. Becoming convinced that Jesus' morality is the most perfect ideal, and striving to live by that example (which, in modern parlance is considered to be "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ"), but still rejecting any commitments to miracles or the supernatural (eg "The Jefferson Bible") 3. Being baptized into the Anglican Communion, and even attending services and receiving communion. Moreover, even persevering, but still never believing Jesus is the incarnate Son of God. Is my intuition that the Puritans would have pretty high hopes for such a fellow correct, or would they be more likely to see him as unregenerate/reprobate? True, he lacks "faith" in the sense of literal belief in the creedal fundamentals (and also the Protestant distinctive of substitutionary forensic justification), but, objectively speaking, he's "faithful" in the sense of loyalty, perseverance, and good fruits. Furthermore, it's objectively true that Providence saw to it that he was born into the Covenant (eg he was baptized). The curious thing, though, is it seems that a reasonable man could be persuaded that the Law of Christ (or at the very least, the 10 Commandments) is the ideal morality, without ever hearing the name of Christ (or would the Puritans say that's beyond the natural man?)

Does the WCF draw a distinction between the Interior Man and the Exterior Man? For example, suppose a man was baptized and lived an outwardly devout and austere life and persevered to the end. Would they say he was automatically saved? Would they say that if there were no "inward faith" (eg no indwelling of the Spirit or regeneration) then that would necessary result in some sort of "outward apostasy"?

Where would you say the Puritans stood on the spectrum of acknowledging a somewhat hazy ability to discern God's blessings or condemnations based on outcomes vsl full blown Prosperity Gospel (which I'm assuming they'd reject in its modern forms)? Eg, Would they associate Salvific Grace with 1. Constantine's Cross in the sky, 2. When Capt. Whatshisname beat the Spanish Armada, or 3. Kenneth Copeland becoming a wealthy man?

Even though Providence is probably the first thing that comes to mind when most people think of Reformed Theology, it seems that most of this would follow automatically from confessing God as the "maker of all things, visible and invisible". What would you say the main distinguishing feature of the Reformed view of Providence is? Also, does the WCF presuppose a particular metaphysics (eg, Aristotelian, with language about instrumental causation, etc)?

Does the PCA (or other modern heirs to the WCF) allow for synthesis between conventional young earth/special creation historical-grammatical interpretations of Genesis and current scientific models of cosmology and evolution? Clearly, there are myriad ways of doing this (eg, modern quantum mechanics evidently leaves open the possibility of the present influencing the past, so that Adam's Fall and subsequent human sin progressively altered the past from one that reflected an Eden-istic recent creation in Divine Grace and closeness to one that reflected a more and more distant and more and more brutishly naturalistic "accident"), but they all have in common the principle of science informing the Bible, a reversal that strikes me as quite contrary to the Bible Belt Indiana Calvinism with which I'm familiar

Thanks for your explanation very interesting and helpful.

Thank you. ✝️👍❤️

Confession is the best tool which relieve the guilty feeling which creates high pressure and burden in the soul,mind ,heart ,in the nervous system and in the whole body. Confession ,forgiving others and blessing others may seems to be very hard in human life. But when we abide to the words of Jesus we get back the heavenly peace and joy in soul and healthy body. That is why Jesus said i am the way life and truth . If we confess forgive and bless others without question we can see the Kingdom of God and feel the presence of God.This is cristianity of cristians by crist.

Your channel is seriously under rated...

Would you say that the following might be a fairly accurate representation of a certain "Erasmusian spirit" working in a sort of tension against Calvin and friends--particularly those who used to be priests--or would say this is completely the confused product of a confused layman who's completely misunderstood the Zeitgeist of the Reformation? Here goes: Erasmian Spirit: "I began with the elevation of man and his will. As the measure of all things, man is a creature who can claw his way closer and closer to truth with greater and greater clarity. But when this elevated will of mine applies its methodology to Scripture, the crystal clear message is that there is nothing good in man's will, there is no mind truly seeking God. Indeed, an entire religion of monergism emerges with utter clarity. But how can this be? What has happened? Also, with such clarity, what need is there of Popes? Does this plain Gospel not speak for itself? But wait...if this Gospel be true, what need is there of mass? And therefore of priests? And therefore of...me?? Something is wrong, but I know not what...The mass is the sacrifice I've vowed to God and the church to carry out...Do I now renounce this? For better or worse, I am what I am, a Catholic priest. Here I stand, I can do no other." And contrary to this Erasmian spirit, might a convinced and convicted reformer answer like this: Reformer:. "Erasmus! Stop clinging to the idolatry of your will and submit to Scripture!" To which the more Catholic voice on the other side of his shoulder might reply:. "Yes, stop clinging to what's in you and DO what's in you! Let your faith work out in sweet tender love a more viscously full throated defense of the church and chop down these totally depraved madmen! Stop straddling the fence!" And so on and so on...

Would you say Calvin would call someone like me--an Episcopalian convert for the general reasons mentioned in the comments--something like a "half Nicodemite"? Also, given Rome's actions such as Trent and rebuke of the Jansenists, would Calvin consider any modern manifestations of Rome to be valid Christianity (eg, orders with high predestination views, such as Augustinians or Thomists)?

Speaking of the Jesuits and Jansenists, Molina and Calvin, and WLC, there are some telltale signs that the notion of time might more fundamentally underlie the debate than the apparently most salient "total depravity vs free will" tug of war. Specifically, what I mean to say is it's perhaps no accident that one of Craig's metaphysical specialties is the nature of time. Approaching theological issues with a background of atheistic upbringing and mathematics gives me a perspective that most folks would consider eccentric, but one thing a math student does fairly well is constructing systems to reconcile bundles of statements which may seem in tension but which nonetheless contain no formal contradictions, and the solution often involves routes which seem counterintuitive. My *impression* of Calvin's views on eternity involves the history of the elect and reprobate from Adam until Jesus returns being somewhat set in stone. Perhaps not every single event in a fatalistic sense, but definitely the question of who is regenerate and who is not. Like, regarding the "Book of Life (and of Death, by "inescapable inference")", it is pretty much signed, sealed, and delivered, as if all flowing from the Father's decree, as a first cause (almost analogous to how the fate of the universe would ultimately flow fatalistically from the cause of a Newtonian deistic God's initial decree). If, however, he consciously held rigorously to such a vision, I would have expected his system to drive him bonkers when faced with the story of Cornelius, or I would have expected him to double down into some kind of extreme hyper-Calvinism. But, no, he carried on with his usual straightforward graceful exegesis, with no indication of strain or alarm. Surely, tho, the same instincts that cause him to revolt against prayers for the dead would forbid any thoughts of Cornelius' regeneration being in any way "caused" by his subsequent baptism. OTOH, Luther seems to be one of the first theologians to make a clear case for the "temporal warping" effects of the sacraments, particularly baptism. So perhaps Calvin, influenced by Luther, allowed for some mystery there? If my understanding of time is correct, then there is absolutely no problem with saying that God wrought Cornelius' regeneration in the baptism he Later received (I'm sure Luther would have said it differently, so much so that I should probably be burned at the stake merely for daring to propose such a comment for discussion purposes on social media...but, alas, being burned for constructing systems that give all the right answers but for all the wrong reason is the cross the mathematically-minded adult convert--raised in the context of the very free thinking atheism made possible by the divorce of church and state Henry's Reformation ultimately led to--must bear in theological discussion

My dilemma: 1. "Calvinism" (or what I would even call Augustinianism or Paulism)--or being convicted of sin via Scripture, with a sense of being an enemy of the Sovereign Master of not only every atom of the universe but even the Author of the logic/mathematics that underlies physics and reality that terrifies the soul to flee empty-handed to Jesus--was the manner in which I was converted to the faith, and that's one of those things where, "once you see it you can't unsee it" 2. Study of the Reformation and church history led me to a belief in the church and apostolic succession (necessary, I felt, because of the VAST differences one can come to in theology with TINY differences in starting assumptions, and I came to consider "little t tradition" as an unspoken rejection of the supreme importance of this), and my belief in the mass and the sacraments seemed to be corollaries of the "big T" 3. Reconciling 1 and 2 seems nearly impossible. At the time, I considered my options to be Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism, and I felt like even though it would be possible to play word games with 1 in order to be within the bounds of Trent, but I figured deep down within, I'd basically be "of another spirit" than Rome 4. Unfortunately, in practice, pretty much nobody in Episcopalianism thinks like me. Like, in practice, my Anglo Catholic church is basically a solution to the problem of "How do we keep this beautiful mass and nifty sacraments without any of the pesky sin and guilt that Rome wants to saddle us with?" 5. So now I'm starting to see my options as A. accept that I'm a natural born heretic and praise God for giving the Anglicans a big enough umbrella to cover even the likes of me, B continue to evaluate if I really am necessarily of a different spirit than Rome, or C some yet undiscovered third option

Would you say historical theology inclines one to take a consistent deeply entrenched ultra-clearly defined position while watching all these controversies play out, or would you say the impulse is to take more of a broader more open perspective with a general attitude of "Meh, what's a few anathemas and burning stakes among friends?"

Also, above all, I must thank you for your patience in dealing with my comments, which are admittedly somewhat outside the bounds of the video. This is a great channel and a useful resource for me as I try to think through some of the cognitive dissonance in my religious convictions

If by some miracle my understanding of eternity is correct, then the "final verdict" (on the theologies, not the men), is then that the Jesuits are fundamentally and substantially correct in both faith and practice (though I would word things slightly differently in the free will department), the Jansenists were correct in practice but their doctrine is garbled somewhat, and the Calvinists are, well, just plain wrong (not saying it can't be a valid expression of Christianity if the practitioners don't fall too deeply into presumption, emphasis on the PRE). Of course, my theory can't possibly be correct, because I'd be trying to say I'm somehow wiser than Calvin, Pascal, and even Molina (in a hair splitting sense)...and I'm a mere Drake...so there's surely no reason to fully work this idea out on paper, bc it basically must be wrong

As a Drake it's only to be expected that I would think myself qualified--with a mere mathematics BA--to surpass the great Blaise Pascal in reconciling the Calvinists and the Jesuits, but I think the "eternal/temporal" distinction is the obvious solution. I mean, for real, check this out:. The way Calvin thought of eternity, being a lawyer rather than a mathematician, would be, eg, in the case of the Incarnation, the Word existed from eternity PAST, then "came DOWN from Heaven" became born of the Blessed Mother, and for some 33 years time, had to settle with being a bit lower than the Angels (because having a human nature is a bit of a divine drag, he had to "forget"all of the wicked cool omniscience he PREVIOUSLY had, and his radical omnipotent infinite bench press may have suffered, if for no other reason than the manger couldn't contain that many plates). See the problem when we look at eternity as an infinitely extending number line? See how this messes up his understanding of Justification? He saw our declaration of righteousness--rightfully based wholly on the merits of Christ--as coming LITERALLY BEFORE the foundation of the world (in the predestining election, then LATER at the cross, and LATER at regeneration, etc). And hence, he saw Sanctification as essentially flowing forward in time from Justification. And, so of course it made the passages that make it seem like you can fall away sound "wonky" (eg, you have to introduce some post hoc hermeneutic like "well, they never really WERE (past tense) saved"). Eternity is rather bewildering for us temporal ol' fools with beginnings, but strictly speaking, it's something we "look forward to" (as ye olde Creed doth say). Calvin saw himself as a pure Augustinian. Thing is, though, sure, St. Augustine spoke rather "loudly" of predestination and grace. But he also believed in the church and the sacraments. And, yes, Grace, Church, and Sacrament can be a rather bewildering trinity to hold in our minds. But that sort of tension is just part of Christian life. That said, the Christian is by no means required to believe straight up contradictions. And I think the key to accepting Augustinian predestination in such a way that allows us to maintain belief in the essential nature of church and sacraments WITHOUT contradiction is to put aside a "rigorously ordered number line" concept of eternity (and hence, a rigorously ordered ordo salutis) and accept, for example, that at the sacraments, where we temporal creatures have an encounter with eternal God, weird things happen to our sense of time

I am pretty convinced that the "Spirit of Trent" was in opposition to reformed doctrine, and absolutely was not meant to be any sort of cryptic nod of approval to it--which is why I finally felt more "honest" becoming Episcopalian instead of Catholic--but had that polemic not been so present at Trent, I'm convinced that a formulation of Justification to which Luther, Calvin, and the Pope could've toasted in agreement could've easily come about. Consider this Canon of Trent (one of many often presented as a cut and dry anathema of the gospel): If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema First, it's clear that the Catholics are not merely using a different definition of Justification, but a different concept, altogether. I mean, in "Protestantese" Justification is pretty much either Yay or Nay, not something that comes in degrees. The underlying theme of Trent is that whether one makes it past St Peter's gatekeeping is dependent on the level of sanctification obtained. Many Protestants would reject that notion outright, but I contend that in an indirect manner, such a concept is implicit in Reformed doctrine. Beyond the "practical syllogism" that legit Justification entails legit Sanctification, there is also the fact that Heaven would be a rather stinky place if it consisted of only snow covered dung hills. Both camps propose Sanctification, "temporal justice", or just plain old Christian living as a pre death mechanism for significant dung removal. Whether the remainder is to be done away with via *some* purging "at the hour of our death (or millions of years thereafter) as if by fire" or is accomplished instantly by swapping our filthy sin-ridden meat suits for super cool ultra sin-resistant resurrection bodies must ultimately be conceded to be somewhat a matter of speculation (and I would challenge those super duperly rooted on the Protestant side to ask themselves in what sense their very identity would persist if their post mortem "change of attire" were extra drastic). I think a solid motif for bridging the two camps is the notion that when God speaks, He creates. Therefore, if God makes an eternal decree such as "John Doe is righteous", then in time, "John Doe IS righteous", a divinely created truth, even if the basis for the decree was the righteousness of Christ rather than John Doe, himself

Sorry. Wasn't trying to be "controversial", I was just wondering if you thought Calvin's theology entailed a pretty rigorous and extensive Christology and "Doctrine of God" that would've required a lengthy catechesis process, especially for folks like unchurched 21st century Americans, and whether he therefore would've opposed "quick" bouts of "gospeling" (by folks who hadn't necessarily been ordained or "vetted" by local church officials) with the goal of quick conversions

Howdy sir...one Drake to another (R1A y-DNA club, amirite or amirite?), do you know any clear cut sources on Calvin's sacramental theology? My understanding is this is an important difference between Calvin and Augustine. I'm probably oversimplifying, but my impression is whereas Augustine would say the sacraments would work "ex opera operato" through God for *whoever* partook, Calvin would say they're only "effectual" for the elect (eg, the elect would become regenerate at baptism, but the unelect would basically only "get wet"). Ofc, this impression is based on a lot of confusing/contradictory accounts I've seen

These are great lectures, the English Reformation is a fascinating time. Thanks for the videos Dr. Drake, it brings me back to your church history courses at RU.

I really appreciate these lectures. I love the whole reformation era. Your pace is good and you break it all down for me. I may have questions. Thanks.

I love that you have power point. Very helpful. Thanks.

you completely misunderstand what happened during Chalcedon. It was Nestor's followers revange, they claimed Cyril was teaching monophysics although he tought miaphysics. In the end of your video you reiterated exact definition of miaphysics as tought by Cyril. Chalcedon in contrary advocates for duophysics which is Nestorianism after renaming a few termins in it...

hello Dr. Drake I'm doing my M.Div studies this really got my attention and nice rich content too thanks a lot 🙏

That was a really great overview & helps understand the lead up to the reformation a bit