- Видео 326
- Просмотров 13 786
Redeeming Grace Church
США
Добавлен 22 июн 2020
Видео
"How Do I Worship the Lord in My Day to Day Life?"
Просмотров 2316 часов назад
"How Do I Worship the Lord in My Day to Day Life?"
"Out of Bondage, Into Hope: The Exodus and Christ's First Advent"
Просмотров 23День назад
"Out of Bondage, Into Hope: The Exodus and Christ's First Advent"
"God's Providence in Joseph's Obedience"
Просмотров 2514 дней назад
"God's Providence in Joseph's Obedience"
"God Will Be Honored" Leviticus 10:1-3
Просмотров 2614 дней назад
"God Will Be Honored" Leviticus 10:1-3
Singing the Psalms in Corporate Worship
Просмотров 814 дней назад
Singing the Psalms in Corporate Worship
The Weak and Strong Must Get Along Pt2 Romans 14:1-4
Просмотров 20Месяц назад
The Weak and Strong Must Get Along Pt2 Romans 14:1-4
The Life and Lessons of William Tyndale
Просмотров 27Месяц назад
The Life and Lessons of William Tyndale
The Weak and Strong Must Get Along Romans 14:1-4
Просмотров 41Месяц назад
The Weak and Strong Must Get Along Romans 14:1-4
Put On The Lord Jesus Christ Romans 13: 11-14
Просмотров 14Месяц назад
Put On The Lord Jesus Christ Romans 13: 11-14
"Rest For My Weary Soul" 1Kings 19:1-19
Просмотров 392 месяца назад
"Rest For My Weary Soul" 1Kings 19:1-19
The Forge Mens Breakfast with Nick Martin
Просмотров 342 месяца назад
The Forge Mens Breakfast with Nick Martin
Overcome Evil With Good Romans 12:17-21
Просмотров 423 месяца назад
Overcome Evil With Good Romans 12:17-21
Amen!!💯❤️
Amen❤❤❤❤
St.Mary Cathedral aka Urakami Cathedral was the largest christian church in the east. Located in Nagasaki, Japan was destroyed in the second blast. There is debate weather Japan surrendered before or after the blast. USA #1 ay? Lord bless
What nonsense. Please people. Think for yourselves.
Good sermon
All I can say is...LOL.
Bible says all drunkard go to hell keeps me up at night im scared want to stop so bad but keep having impulses to drink that i can't control
Am i saved?if so why why do i keep drinking??? keep thinking I've beat it but never do 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
God have mercy on my soul 🙏
I'm scared help me Please 😭😭
Want to serve God why ami failing 😭
What if God did not choose me???im terrified can't stop drinking 😭
What if God did not choose me I'm alcoholic I'm scared
What if God did not choose me lm scared
I'm Scared
What if God did not choose me
What if God did not choose me
What If God did not choose me???
What if God did not choose me????
What if God did not choose me?
Pray for me 🙏
Didn't realize lvf was wrong
Garcia Cynthia Garcia Margaret Clark David
If you have already been baptized 5 times but really wasn't sure you were saved until now do you have to be baptized again
Praise God 🙏 my sins are forgiven 🙏
God help me 🙏I'm a alcoholic God help me 😭🙏
God have mercy on my soul
Trying to insist on inerrancy is not only intellectually dishonest, it does any congregation and church a great disservice. When you step away from confirmation bias and from beginning with a preconceived conclusion and then trying to make the facts fit how you want, when you look at the simple history and text, it's quite clear to see how the text has changed over time, how it was assembled, and where it even contradicts itself across both the Old and New Testaments. Of course many churches these days don't want their members to think of themselves, or to actually look at history. They just want them to believe whatever their pastor says without question or thought, and to go on thinking the Earth is flat. In this modern day of churches that are really just trying to be rock concerts, if any church claims the Bible is inerrant, it's being dishonest for its own purposes and that's a church to avoid.
Anyone who thinks the bible is innerrant is either lying to themselves or uas never read it all the way through. It is full of errors and contradictions.
Inerrant?! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣
Now THAT is an argument from silence folks...
@@michaelmagee4318 Don’t need an argument when you find something amusing. Even scholars in his own camp would laugh in his face if he’s claiming inerrancy of the writings of ANY version of the bible. However, I’m game if you want to talk about what’s written in a an ancient book.
@@rogerbee697 if it were a game I would play. It's not a game to me. You have my prayers. Thanks for being a gentleman. Laughing is far from attacking, which unfortunately many on both sides of the inerrancy issue resort.
@@michaelmagee4318 The bible is one of the most contradictory, immoral literary pieces since recorded human history And There is ZERO good evidence to back up the extraordinary claims written in the bible. Finally, if you were born the Middle East, you’d be defending the quran. All Abrahamic religions are crap and you know it. You’re just favoring the one you were born in.
In regard to those who assert that we are to "un-hitch" ourselves from the O.T., what those who make such ignorant assertions don't realize is that the N.T. is likewise saturated with the principles that are relative to the laws/principles of sanctification. Thus, the moral law. It is un-avoidable for those who are in Christ. There is much on this in accordance with scripture to expound upon which I will not do so here. However, we find much of this teaching in it's variances among the "free grace teaching." In short, YES, grace is free but however it is not freedom to continue in sin without inevitable consequences for the child of God as many assume. For starters just read Romans 6 & go from there. Anyhow, "He has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time," 2 Tim 1:9 & "Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness." 2 Tim 2:19.
I need some serious discipline thanks just realized what is going so wrong with my Christian life
I'm a mixed-race gay atheist whaddya have to say about that.
Great study
Congratulations chris minor
4:29 no, Paul does not begin by confessing that Jewish unbelief causes him perplexity of mind. This is absolutely wrong. He begins by remembering exactly what happened in all of the synagogues that he has preached at in the past when he just got done telling the Jewish leaders exactly what he said in Romans eight that all of the blessings of God have now also come to the gentiles. They tried to stone him and kill him. That’s what he is bringing to mind. He’s remembering everything that they yelled at him and said to him and the way they treated him.
Because the Bible predates the Church
I do love the hilariously childish claim by Christian that somehow atheists don't exist if their magic book says so. alas, the book isn't actually magic, and was written by some seriously ignorant human beings. The problem with Christians desperately clinging to Romans 1 is that most, if not every, religion makes the exact same claim, and not one theist can show their claim to be true. Your insistence that your version of some god is the creator has as much evidence as the next theist's god: none. The mere existence of atheists terrifies some theists. That we are happy and we don't give them the respect and obedience they crave upsets them, since it shows that no one needs them or their god.
Part 1 of 2 Hi! I'm an atheist. I don't accept that any gods exist. I exist, however. Your title is wrong. And you've just proven to me that your god is a false god, your religion is based on lies. :) "...we have before us a text that a lot of churches wouldn't even touch..." Online ones seem to touch it a _lot._ It's a favorite of various organizations that prefer a book over observable reality. "...they're embarrassed by [God's wrath]..." I think it's more that they've come to recognize that it doesn't win converts. 'Join or my big mob-boss of an invisible bully will torture you, eventually, some day, just trust me, bro' _really_ just _isn't_ a good recruiting tactic. It's the sort of thing that _cults_ do, and cults... well, we have _lots_ of experience with how bad _that_ can go, so religions (which, let's face it, are just very popular cults) try to distance themselves from that as much as possible. "...we desperately need God's saving power..." Here's the problem, though: this method makes God immoral, no matter what you do. Suppose you have Larry and Mitch. Both have committed crimes, caught on video, with dozens of witnesses (and, unlike the bible, we have written accounts from each of them, written down within _days_ of the events), and both have even pled guilty to their crimes. Larry has littered, dropping several cartons of cigarettes on the ground. Mitch has committed murder, killing someone in cold blood. They are placed before a judge for sentencing. Larry is sentenced to 300 years in prison for littering. Mitch is sentenced to a $300 fine for murdering. If you find that there is something _very wrong_ with the above idea, that the sentences are _way_ out of proportion to the crimes involved, then I would suggest you agree that the _punishment_ for a crime should be related to the _severity_ of the crime. I, entirely, agree with this. Continuing, let's suppose the judge isn't a massive dingbat and has sentenced Larry to a $300 fine and Mitch to 300 years in prison. Both Larry and Mitch have a friend, Jim. Jim comes in and offers to pay the $300 fine instead of Larry. Jim _also_ offers to spend the 300 years in prison instead of Mitch. Once again, I think you would find these two situations _quite_ different, that Jim covering such a minimal sentence as a _fine_ is quite okay, but that him spending time in _prison_ instead just _isn't_ okay, even if Jim is _willing and wanting_ to do so. If that's the case (and certainly how not only _I_ view it, but also how _every legal system on Earth_ views it, as far as I can tell), then you agree it's possible for someone else to 'pay for' a _minor_ crime but not a _major_ crime. And now we get to sin and the punishment _for_ sin. The _punishment_ for sin is _the worst thing that could possibly happen._ This means that sin must be the worst thing you could ever do, because if it's _not,_ then (from the first part) God would be immoral. _But_ if it _is_ such a heinous crime, then _no one but you_ could _ever_ pay for your sins, because just like allowing Jim to serve the prison sentence that, too, would be immoral. This means that, under Christianity, God is _either_ immoral for his punishment for sin _or_ he's immoral for giving you a pass on a crime that's so severe, and either way he's immoral. "...this is a revelation from heaven..." So he claims. I can claim a revelation from heaven right now if you like, but I doubt you'd believe me. No idea _why,_ though. It's not like Paul has any more evidence than _I_ do about it. "...STDs... on the sexually immoral..." Fun bit of history, it seems quite likely that the idea of sexual immorality came about _because of_ STDs, not the other way around. That is, as STDs flourished among human populations and were considered a problem, the idea of keeping to a single partner became popular since it would lead to better health outcomes. As we learned to _combat_ and even _cure_ some of these diseases, as well as learning to _prevent_ many of them in various ways, the sexual mores that went with it became less popular. "...glance through past history, both in the bible and outside of it... [God] destroyed the whole world through the flood..." That is _only_ in the bible. It's not in other cultures, generally speaking (unless they are part of places that, y'know, suffer floods frequently), and it _certainly_ isn't evident in the rocks and land. In fact it was Christians _looking for_ evidence of the flood you reference that discovered there... wasn't any. That, in fact, the very rocks under our feet say that no such flood has _ever_ happened, let alone in the past 10,000 years, or even in the roughly _hundred_ thousand years anatomically modern humans have existed on Earth, or the _billions_ of years before _that,_ either. It gets _even worse_ when we consider the _material_ the boat was made of, its size, the number of creatures on it, and the genetics of actually living things _today,_ which _all_ make such a story impossible. It's why places like AIG have papers out stating that you have to consider the flood to be a magical event that left no evidence of its passing rather than looking for such evidence, for not only _is_ there no evidence of it, all the evidence that exists _contradicts_ it. Which, to me, makes it look like God is lying, having rearranged the world to wipe out any evidence of the flood and, instead, make it look like it never happened, but if he's willing to lie, what _else_ was he lying about? Then again, God in the bible is _perfectly_ willing to lie and deceive whenever it suits him, to override free will when he wants to force people to do his bidding so he can slaughter a bunch of others, so I'm not sure why this would surprise us. "...he poured out fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, he punished both Israel and Judah... he put his own son on the cross..." This, and the flood thing above, all follow the statement "glance through past history, both in the bible and outside of it", at which point you reference _only_ stories from the bible instead of outside of it. "...his righteous judgements must be satisfied..." Which he did with a human sacrifice. ... Um. Wow. And, if you believe Jesus _is_ God (not certain of your view there), then he sacrificed... _himself?..._ *to* himself?... to... act as a loophole for rules he made in the first place? ... Seems odd. "...everyone knows that God exists..." You know that God is imaginary. You know the bible stories are not true, they're fake, myths, legendary tales meant to inspire the mind and nothing more, just like the Norse myths or the ancient Greek myths. You know this, but you suppress this truth in fear of dying. Does any of that sound convincing to you? If I said I had a religion that had this as one of the tenets, would you know with abosolute certainty that my religion was wrong and false? Perhaps, realizing this, you might understand how I know _yours_ is false. _I_ know what _I_ believe and what I don't. You claiming that I believe something or, worse, _know_ something that I _do not know_ will invalidate any claim you make. Doesn't make the claim _false,_ but makes it _not true_ (which isn't the same thing). It _also_ makes you sound _insanely arrogant._ You are claiming to know _my mind_ better than _I_ do. Just consider that first paragraph of this section. How arrogant do I sound in that, telling _you_ what _you_ believe or know? That is _exactly_ how you sound to non-believers by saying this. "...anyone should be able to look at the universe... and conclude that God is... powerful..." That assumes that you conclude that God made it. We don't _have to_ conclude that at all. Looking at the universe, I conclude that _gravity_ is immensely powerful, and it is. By some measures, it's _the_ most powerful force that exists in the universe. For instance, ask what the power of _any other_ force is at a distance of one light year. _None_ of them compete with gravity. Every other force tapers off _so_ fast that it becomes negligible almost instantly. The _closest_ to competing is the electromagnetic force, and even _it_ doesn't compare by the time you're getting to light years of distance. _Also_ looking at the universe, I conclude that matter is pretty powerful stuff, but that, perhaps, there are _other_ powers (dark matter, dark energy) that are even more impressive. In _none_ of this do I conclude there is a god, or that said god did anything, ever. Looking at the stars tells me _nothing_ unless I _start with_ the assumption that a god did it. And I don't start with that assumption. "...even looking at your own body, people should be amazed..." I know! Isn't evolution neat? Just think, all those systems, internal organs, processes, even _thinking,_ and it _all started_ with a mass of single-celled creatures that replicated imperfectly in changing situations. Astonishing stuff. ... Oh. Wait. You're assuming _God_ did it. ... Why? Why would you assume that instead of what is made clear by the evidence?
Part 2 of 2 "...the intelligence, the thought, and the wisdom it took to create just an eye..." Nope. No intelligence, no thought, no wisdom. Eyes seem to have evolved _multiple times_ on Earth, entirely separately, because it's such an obvious and useful ability for multicellular life. _Useless,_ more or less, for anything that's monocellular, but once you can have _dedicated_ cells that can perform specific, individual functions that contribute to the whole, eyes are an obvious advantage, and show up pretty early in the development of animal life (about 541 million years ago, with animals really show up about 800 million years ago, and given it took about 3000 million years to _get_ there, that's pretty quick). We even have a pretty good idea of how it happened. We know, for instance, that many chemicals react to light, and that some of those chemicals are found in the process of converting nutrients to energy in a cell, so the idea that a cell might react to the presence or absence of light is hardly an issue. Have a patch of cells that respond _more_ to light, and send out signals when it happens, and you have the first proto-vision system. Have that patch of cells dip, and now you have the ability to tell the _direction_ the light is coming from! What an advantage _that_ would have been early on! Cover it around until you have a pinhole, and you've got the makings of a pinhole camera, which has quite a bit of resolution to it (in fact, there are things alive _today_ that have such eyes). Cover it to keep out debris, and you can fill the inner cavity with a fluid that keeps they eye stable, so less susceptible to local variation. Allow that covering to get thicker and you have a lens which can focus light. Put some muscle around it and you can change the focus to different distances. And there you go, modern eyes. At no point was _intelligence_ or _wisdom_ required for _any_ of that, just natural variation and survival selection pressure. "...therefore we send missionaries to tell them about Jesus..." You realize this makes God immoral for not sending Jesus to them, too? After all, if Jesus is what is required for this and you don't _tell_ people about it, but then _punish them_ for not knowing a thing you never informed them of nor provided any means for them to _find out_ even on their own, you're an immoral jerk. And the worse the punishment is, the more immoral and more of a jerk you are. Imagine you lived in a country where ignorance of the law was not an excuse. ... Oh! Hey! You do! Now... _further_ imagine that you had _no way_ of finding out what the laws _are_ where you lived. You _do_ have a way, it's been available for _centuries_ at this point: libraries. If, on the other hand, the government locked away all the laws and wouldn't let you go read them, didn't send them to a place you could find them, and wouldn't answer questions if you asked them... but _also_ punished you for _breaking_ those laws... I'd call that tyranny, immoral, and, frankly, evil. That is how your god operates. "...how wildly destructive to people's eternal destiny the teaching of evolution..." Evidence doesn't care about your book. If the world is made by God, then everything _in it_ needs to be evidence of what he did or didn't do, otherwise God is _lying_ to us, or allowing us to be lied _to_ by agents beyond our ability to interrogate or comprehend. The reality is that the evidence we have shows, overwhelmingly, that evolution _happens, has happened,_ and will _continue_ to happen in future. Arguing against this is about as bad as arguing the Earth is flat. It's... simply not true. "...[evolution] gives sinners a supposed escape from being accountable to God..." Not really. Let's say evolution were demonstrated to be false. That doesn't tell me how life, or humans, came to exist on this planet. If you want to establish such a claim, you need more than just words on a page. Yet all you are _providing_ is words on a page. And yet _other words_ on _other pages_ flat out _disagree_ with what you're saying about it, leaving us with _no way_ to decide _which_ sets of words on pages are correct, or, indeed, if _any_ of them are. As such, I reject _all_ of them as being no more than words on a page. This isn't the case with the Theory of Evolution. It's not _just_ words on a page, it's _real, physical, tangible, observable evidence_ that you can _learn_ about, _interact with, study,_ and _re-examine_ all on your own to _confirm_ that what is said and written about it is _correct_ or _likely correct._ You don't have to accept 'just trust me, bro' as for why you should believe a single word of it, unlike with your religion which has _only_ 'just trust me, bro' to prop it up. The difference between science and religion is _glaring._ "...[atheists] cling to the absurd idea that everything came from nothing..." False. I know of _no_ atheist who even _proposes_ such silliness. If you do, I'd love to hear about them. Just be sure of one thing, though, before you do this. Be sure that you _define_ what the word 'nothing' means and make sure that _they_ are using _that exact definition_ when _they_ use the word 'nothing', because _otherwise_ you would be committing an equivocation fallacy. Like trying to see your way in a dark cave with a feather, because feathers are 'light', and 'light' lets you see in the darkness. "...I will never argue evidence with an unbeliever..." Yeah, because you don't _have_ any. :) "...if I could prove to you that god exist... would you bow a knee and worship Jesus right here and right now..." Yep. I would. I mean, I don't care if my current opinion is that he's a monster, a bully, a tyrant, I'm just not brave enough to stand up against something like that. Stick me in North Korea and I will sing the praises of Kim Jong Un all day every day because I am _not_ about to go up against _that_ maniac, either. And if I have to, I'll stare at a mirror and proclaim the monster is a good guy over and over again until I trick myself into _believing_ it, because I am _not_ brave enough to stand up to the sick, disgusting, horrible things the big bully will do to me if I don't. ... Not sure at the end there if I was talking about Kim Jong Un or God... same difference, really. "...we have worshiped the creature rather than the creator..." I don't worship. Period. Not anything. The _closest_ I get is the notion that I _want_ human health and happiness. That's as close as I get to worshiping _anything._ "...no people so savage that they not have not a deep-seeded seated conviction that there is a god..." Piraha people. No gods, never had them. It wasn't until missionaries visited them that they even had any _notion_ of such ideas. And they largely didn't, and still don't, care about any tales of Jesus because no one who speaks of him knew the guy. More fun, it seems quite likely that at best _one_ person who _wrote_ about him knew the guy, and we can't even confirm that the person who knew the guy actually wrote about him. "...the universal presence of the conscience..." Until you meet up with psychopaths, which exist, which are defined by their lack of a conscience. Reality tells us a different story. "...speaking of homosexuality... exchanging what is natural for what is contrary to nature..." Save that we find homosexuality in nature, too. Again, evidence stands _against_ your book.
I'm so thankful you watched and listened to a good portion of the message and even took notes! Praying for you Robin.
@@redeeminggracechurch4535 No trouble. :) I enjoy the mental exercise, and do this for fun. I'll keep hoping you'll eventually use logic and evidence! Have a nice day!
@@robindude8187 thank you, and I'll keep praying the Lord opens your eyes, saves your soul and then you can even have a worldview that can provide a justification for logic and evidence. Have a blessed evening!
@@redeeminggracechurch4535 Ah yes, the presuppositional response. Of course, the _problem_ with it is that you assume logic/evidence can be justified when logic/evidence is what is used _to_ justify. Sort of like demanding that one be able to measure the first yardstick to make sure it's 'really' a yard. Doesn't work. You simply have to _agree_ that logic and evidence _are_ justified and move on from there. If you don't, no conversation is possible, and no way to even _think_ *about* a justification is possible. I have _no trouble_ justifying logic and evidence, it simply can't be otherwise, and it not only _doesn't_ require a god for that to be true, it _can't_ require a god for that to be true, it _must be_ true _independently of_ any god, any being, any mind, otherwise it fails. As I said, I'll keep hoping you become open to logic and evidence. :) Have a nice day! :)
Great sermon sir! Thanks C. Minor for the FB share, R. Wallace
I'm thankful for you Pastor Stanley.