Видео

I think aquinas wrote that way because he said someone who couldn't close the doubt was a sign of a wolf in sleep clothes. Which is true, it can be manipulative to ask questions to a person with doubt and then not resolve it, either because they dont know or the answer reveals deciet. Many of us are trained from a young age to stop asking deeper questions because the authority doesn't know the answer. Aquanis does seem saint like.

The fact that this was even necessary for some reason is part of why I’m not Baptist.

Dr Trueman is next level 😂😂

I like the clear definition of natural theology. The wonderful doctor defines it as being based on general revelation. The only challenge is that it suggests that general revelation was meant to be separated from special revelation. I have trouble with that mindset, especially from Christian theologians who are aware that our reason has also been affected by the noetic effect of sin. If Adam needed God’s word, in order to make sense of the tree in the middle of the garden, we, after the fall, need it even more. In fact, because Adam thought he’d do natural theology apart from special revelation, humanity fell into sin. I’d suggest that if we’re to truly recover natural theology, we need it done based on general revelation in relation to special revelation, or else, that’s not natural theology (and that’s Van Til’s point). Wonderful Dr.: Van Til didn't reject natural theology; he said natural theology should be done as we seek to relate general revelation to special revelation. Please, read his article “Nature and Scripture.”

Yes, I agree brother. Not enough talk about the beauty of Christ! Looking forward to the read.

What Dr Yarborough said about methodological atheism cleared up so much of how and why critics do what they do. That was so helpful! Thank you!

When I look up Matthew Barrett I find he is a homosexual. Where do people honestly find in the bible that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle? Is it not mocking Jesus Christ? How can you have peace knowing you are living in a life of habitual sin? Wouldn't being a living sacrifice daily consist of you letting go of sin and leaning into a life of freedom?

You forgot to add Van Tillian to the list of hubbub...

He referenced an essay on dogmatics by a guy named Adolf. Can anyone point me to that essay online? Thank you.

I am not sure what you guys were talking about because all y'all did was ramble.

Creator and Redeemer God. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. - Exodus 20:11 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. - Deuteronomy 5:15

👍

Excellent!

Thank you Dr Barrett! I first heard of the Pactum Salutis from a prof at SWBTS! It really peaked my interest…I had never heard of this growing up as a typical SB kid. However, I realized it started to make Scriptural sense once I examined all the supporting exegetical arguments and moved toward a “Covental” approach to Biblical Theolgy. Another help has been Dr John Fesko’s book on the Covenant Redemption!

bro will do anything but become catholic

We should never just be Martha’s in the Laity, but we must first be Mary’s!

I’m trying to chew my way through Carl Henry’s GRA, how would he engage with natural theology and reasons ability to interpret it?

Is this the guy that invented the disease? What the hell dude??

Congratulations Samuel. Praying for you.

I love to see young people getting opportunities. Incredible.

At 2;50 he says Christians who read their bible just aren't going to see it anymore. That seems to be a self condemnation to his own doctrine. Christians who only read their bible are the most likely to find the truth, and if they can't find the trinity etc then the trinity just isn't true.

Typical dismissive attitude. Do your homework and read Thomas Talbott, Andrew Hronich, David Bentley Hart and look at Patristic fathers and the great devotional writer William Law. The list goes on. ECT is not hinted at in the OT, Jesus talked about Gehenna and judgement not hell, Nd Paul does not get beyond judgement. Fortunately the doctrine of Ultimate Reconciliation is catching on.

Baptists reject ALL creeds. but for now I will stick to the Nicene and its issues. If we have to "explain" certian things in the creed, and how "our" interpretation is different than how the Methodists, Catholics, Anglicans etc see it, then its useless 1. We reject baptismal regeneration. We believe the Greek word "eis" in Acts 2 should be interpreted to be "baptism BECAUSE of the remission of sins". Most churches do indeed teach that baptism and other "sacraments" are a means of grace, which we reject. We dont even use the word "sacrament" we say "ordinance" 2. Historically, the Catholic Church has taught that infant baptism washes away original sin, and that infnts who die unbaptized go to hell (read Augustine) 3. There are churches who DO teach that baptism is REQUIRED for salvation (churches of Christ, Oneness Pentecostals etc) 4. The "V" in Virgin is capitalized, which in Catholic teaching affirms the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity of Mary, which Baptists reject 5.The creed is recited at every Episcopal church, Methodist, Presbyterian, yet they are so liberal that they redefine "virgin" to mean "pure hearted" and deny the literal resurrection. So how has the creed prevented any error? If you deny the virgin birth and resurrection yet recite the Nicene creed that just proves our point 6. Confessions on the other hand can be updated, reworded and are meant to convey exactly what a group believes. If there are problems, we can correct them without consulting other "churches" 7. Historically, Baptists have seen themselves as neither Protestant nor Catholic (read Spurgeon). Both groups persecuted Baptists, so we have no affinity for their creeds. 8. Some say the creed only says what "every Christian believes". Thats the problem, When creeds are memorized, people go to creeds instead of scripture. They assume they will be saved if they "beleive" the creeds. 9. The above reasons are true of all Baptists, including SBC, Free Will Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Old Regular Baptists, Seventh Day Baptists, etc. Also other churches like the Assemblies of God, most Pentecostals, the Christian Church, Churches of Christ, Vineyard churches, Calvary Chapel churches etc are all non creedal, so its not just those crazy Baptists 4

I am really praying for this!

This is theological and philosophical speculation in direct contradiction to scripture. Absurd. "In all their affliction He was afflicted". These guys rationalize and anthropomorphize and anthropopathize God right out of the Bible and lift up their intellect insted of the Spirit of God...run from this stuff.

Can't every to a southern baptist church ever again now .... They rejected the basics of the Christian faith....

If you do not accept the Nicene Creed then you are not a Christian - you may be a good person, but not a Christian.

They’ve always believed in the Nicene Creed from the beginning, they’ve always treated it as an unquestionable given that all real Christian uphold - everybody agreed with it that no one bothered to officially codify it into the their Confessions and Statements of Faith. Many Evangelical denominations are including a lot of additional sections in their Confessions and Statements of Faith because and clearing up vague language or language that can be wrongly interpreted to prevent theological liberalism from seeping in like what’s been happening in a lot of theologically liberal Mainline Protestant denominations where multiple whole entire congregations and many top church leaders are abandoning even the most basic doctrines of Christianity.

Aaaaaaand there's the Filioque...🤦

The LCF1689 would be better.

What in the hot mess is this??? I thought the already affirmed the Nicene Creed?

Lord Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on us!

Is the SBC finally going to affirm baptism for the remission of sins??

I’m not Baptist (I’m a confessional Lutheran) but this is so BASED

I love this!

Wasn't this the same convention that didn't know whether a woman could be a pastor a couple years ago? Now they want to add eternal generation to their official documents? You can't make this stuff up.

It’s true this is an urgent need. Search RUclips for the marks of the church and you get 1000 Roman Catholic videos and RC SPROUL.

All churches should confess the creed every Sunday

Thankful for the work of Credo and these faithful Baptist brothers for working to ensure that we Baptists are thoroughiy orthodox!

Thank you for explaining your thoughts.

I consider the synoptic Gospels present our Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of Man, in particular Matthew and Luke who provide a genealogy of Jesus either to Abraham/David or Adam. Whereas John presents our Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God. This is found in the prologue of John. Namely Jesus Christ’s eternal preexistence in John 1:1.

I wonder if one of the problems of evangelicalism is a neglect of the Old Testament, which would make social trinitarianism or EFS easier to accept or come up with. I teach part time at an evangelical seminary, and I have students come to my classes who have never read the Old Testament. Even more worrying, they are already in some kind of ministry.

Small c big C😊

Good discussion. Jump to 18 min for the actual discussion.

I have two thoughts on the idea of the social Trinity. I read somewhere that personalism is the idea that personhood is the highest way of being. Add to that the recent trend of seeing the will as the most determinative aspect of personhood. For social trinitarians, then, the classical view that the divine persons have one will, makes them “less personal.” I do not think it does, but it may be one element in their view. The other is that those who think that classical theism makes God less approachable, need to consider Aquinas’s insistence that creation is not something that only happened in the past, but is here and now. We are constantly held in being by the creator God, and therefore He is always close to us and knows us intimately.

If God suffered he would not let anybody to suffer. Why I wish to save everybody who suffer? I am not God. Life on Earth could be totally fine without suffering. People would have time for creating. There is huge lie somewhere there.

This is interacting with open theism/process theism as a foil but not other traditions. Moreover, it does not address theories of divine love and value. See Jordan Wessling vs. Michael Murphy’s work. Kate Roger’s argues the view similar to the one articulated in this video entails both necessitarianism and occasionalism. Not good implications if true

Who cares

the subtitles are very mistaken they translate Son to sun

Both Kuyperianism and Dispensationalism have hijacked eschatology. This is a step back to a true catholic understanding.