Видео

Is this guy just a spokesman for the taliban? I grew up around this sort of crap and have nothing but contempt for any religion or society than advocates this sort of oppression. all of them are worthless and demeaning to humanity.

Thank you for the articles and the podcast. Great resources! Having only been a part of reformed theology for about 3 years and 1 year as a Presbyterian this content greatly strengthens my convictions that the Lord has revealed in his Word. Thank you again and I look forward to the 3rd article!

This was GREAT!

For almost 2,000 years Christians had very little controversy or squabbling over this matter. Only when there is a desire to move away from scriptural teaching do we get the talk about how extraordinarily difficult it is to interpret this passage and how we need the specialized knowledge of a seminary professor in order to be able to understand the commandments of the Lord in the New Testament. And it is worth noting that egalitarian exegesis on sex roles has been the template for the effort to provide a scriptural defense for blessing p3rv3rs10n.

Honestly, you shouldn't call yourselves Reformed. The CREC dishonors the true, historic, confessional Reformed churches (NAPARC). Paedocommunion is not appropriate in real Reformed churches, yet you practice it. Many of you are Baptistic, certainly not a Reformed tenet. You follow Federal Vision, a huge error that NAPARC churches have identified as such in a written statement. Theonomy is not something we would agree with, either. Just the fact that you desire a theocracy when we understand this is a sin-cursed world -- and that it will remain this way until Jesus returns and we inherit the new heaven and new earth -- is an aberration. Honestly, it is an embarrassment to true Reformed churches that you call yourselves reformed. Lastly, your patriarchal views are extreme and abusive. So maybe people call you a cult because of this kind of abuse -- whatever the reason, the CREC is not properly reformed and is a rebellious sect that needs to be exposed for its errors.

This counsel supposes individualism, which stands in contrast to hierarchy and egalitarianism (both of which are group orientations). Such a view seems true to Reformed republicanism. Symbols, if truly iconological, are visible standards or canons. If a practice is not symbolic, it would be either stylistic, or strategic influence.

See Dr Heiser on this. 😂😅😂

Any thoughts on connection 1Cor. 11 to Jude 5-13. “For the sake of the Angels.” In Jude the issue is angels abandoning the authority structures prescribed by God. Michael not willing to Speak out of place to Satan but says the Lord rebuke you. Man and women should reflect the authority structures God prescribes to demonstrate to on watching angelic beings Gods good order. Jude even follows immediately with the abuses of their “love feasts” which may refer to the abuse of the Lords supper, which is a similar structure to 1Cor. 11

I recently became a member of a small CREC church. They left the PCA because of the leftward drift. It's a new experience for me as I'd been attending a seeker sensitive church due to the convenience. I just wasn't for me. No meat in the preaching, and more like a rock concert. Then I tried this small church. They sing from the Psalter and the Westminster Hymnal. They have a piano and sometimes it's even played! LOL. Seriously though, It's a small church of people that love and revere the Lord. For me, it's been a place where I can grow again, and there's accountability with other men.

Getting human culture to assimilate to the kingdom culture is a struggle because of our myopic understanding of the different functions of God's Kindgom. To navigate the govermenting of a Kindgom that is vailed to human concept requires the aid of the Spirit.

Glad so much attention is being given to this, as it seems like more and more people decide to start covering the more this is talked about.

I don't think Paul "levels the playing field" in chapter 11 or in chapter 7 in regards to the question of headship. And I don't think it fairly represents the patriarchal writers to say they just lazily say this is just about headship. The best exegesis I have encountered on the passage has exclusively come from patriarchal sources (and this IS a patriarchal passage). I also think it was a bit lazy to try and denigrate the position regarding the angels linking it to Genesis 6. Nearly all of the lazy exegesis on this passage comes from egalitarians who try everything that they can to dismiss transcendent and creational order language. God's word simply put is not egalitarian in any fashion and there should not be a hint of that in any of our discourse on this or any other passage. Egalitarianism literally undermines the gospel. Saying that she SHOULD wear a covering because of the angels simply does not correlate to "she has authority/agency to decide whether or not she should cover because she will judge the angels too". While understanding cultural issues and norms can be helpful, ultimately we need to look at this passage, and then other passages that talk about similar issues (headship/heirarchy, created order, gender, glory, worship, modesty, etc) and have the Bible alone dictate how we understand the passage. Literally every time I see someone try to appeal to culture they subsequently try to dismiss the command or necessity of coverings. Even though it is spoken of in the text as universal amongst the churches, and again creation and the created order, headship, the angels, etc are all referenced in Paul's argument to command head covering for women. So it is highly conspicuous that one would appeal to culture much at all in this discussion. It is also conspicuous that most other similar arguments regarding doctrine in the New Testament come up when discussing what are pretty clear instructions on gender, authority, etc. and the seeming felt need to muddy the waters before attacking that. While I appreciate that Dr. Garwood didn't go there, thankfully, and generally I value and respect his theological contributions (truly, I've found him very insightful and helpful many times in the past few years), I don't really find this particular argument compelling.

I go back to what RC Sproul had said. (His wife Vesta still wears a head covering)

Paul basis his argument in creation. That man is the glory of God and woman is the glory of man. Her hair is her glory. So the reason for a head covering is for a sign of authority and the angels. So a woman covers her head because in worship all glory is to God alone, and to respect her head. The head covering issue was not based in Corinthians alone.

Good content!

This is really good!! 🔥🔥🔥

Quelle moustache!

What a blessing to find this channel 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

Great episode! Really appreciated Zachs first book and his writings against R2K theology. I am looking forward to reading this book as well.

01:33 Good stuff!

Love Samuel Miller!

Love this interview. Very insightful. Really enjoyed the discussion within this episode on the "small pleasures".

Great interview and explanation of the covenant.

Great episode

I highly appreciate The Office reference.

Channels like this are the equivalent of butchers that claim to be animal activists. Theologist and politician. What a great combination.

*crickets*

Creation science is an Oxymoron. No papers, no hard research - just nonsense.

Creation science is not science. That’s why no one takes the idea seriously. Genesis is a myth, not history. Creationists like Hamm and Hovind have to lie to support their claims.

Rich Lusk!! 🔥

There's a lot of wisdom in this episode. I agree that art is for everyone. Tom' statement that “Beauty requires our affection, Our heart” is important as it is a part of spiritual formation. We can help our children have affection for the right things. The book "You are what you love" by Smith can be a good supplement. A couple of other good quotes from the episode: Tom: “That is ugly. And your affections are misplaced to like it.” Rick: "Asserting the Lordship of Christ in the world of arts" Keep it up!

I enjoyed interview and am grateful for the opportunity to share about this calling.

Picking up this book now!

Would have been neat to see you gents take a "Simultaneous Sip" with your coffees.

As a member of a CREC church, I find this horrifically ironic coming from someone who wears a collar, which has no basis in scripture. A charge against head coverings as not really biblical, but wears a symbol for his office that is tradition and not biblical. And I say this as someone who approves of the collar.

Several years ago Dr. Gary North in one of his newsletters spoke about "Pollyannaism", a false kind of positive attitude base on the movie Pollyanna. Making some of the same points, he was telling us to be prepared for huge government controls, economic collapse, and apostacy. This was, I think, a reaction to Reagan era victories in the U. S. and post mils thinking we were headed for worldwide revival. And he made some of the same points. Very good interview. Thanks

Imagine someone suggesting that Calvinism is so correct a theology that it should actually transcend beyond theology and should inform one’s entire life system. The level of irrationalism it takes to believe in Calvinism being a valid theological system is bad enough, but to then suggest it should become an entire life system? The ignorance is staggering. And yet, there are those who will look at Kuyper’s works and laud them as genius.

I came here from a post on X …. I have really enjoyed this conversation … great question & answer flow ….. I have not been going to church. I love what you are saying about going to church !!! Thank you 🙏🏻

I had no idea you were on the ‘Tube

What a handsome bunch of gentlemen and servants for the kingdom! God bless you!

The family integrated approach is critical to our future.

All of the reasons Paul gave for head covering transcend cultural limitations.

The best teaching in head coverings I've found is from Limerick City Church, Keith Malcomson.

I have so appreciated the three part series. There are a couple of women in our church who pop on a hat just before corporate worship. The husband and I have found that curious and we have discussed the comments about the trend online. My mother did quit wearing a hat in about 1958 - when she moved from Upstate NY to Florida. Seems to me climate instead of fashion. Our Baptist church in St Pete Florida didn't even have Air Conditioning.

Excellent!

I was graduating high school when this came out. Oh how I wished I'd run into this sooner, but praise God I have now a few years ago.

Biblically speaking, do you think that The Triune God Would Have us set up a society that has accreditation, licensing and so on? For example, the ABA and AMA can set standards that would make it impossible for a Christian to be a lawyer or a doctor...without Christian "workers" there will not be good outcomes. Do you understand what i am getting at?

Thank you @Rick Boyer stating the proper way man should assess the authority of the temporal government verses the Supreme law, that of God's as written inerrant word and inclusive of the entire Bible.

I totally agree that the CREC people are happy to be at church and want to hang around and talk and fellowship sometimes for hours afterwards. That's a really good sign.