Phd. student Richard Allinger reinforces the need for the continuation of the Reformation which started five centuries ago for the following six reasons cited in his book "The Reformation Cannot Be Over !": i. God speaks today. ii. Theologians make mistakes. iii. New issues require new thinking. iv. Scriptures must have priority over confessions. v. The right of private judgment. vi. Above all, it is important that we engage in the process of (semper reformanda) "always reforming" in the proper spirit and manner.
If Luther and Calvin had been Eastern Orthodox, they would not have left the Church. the East did not have certain problems that Rome did. Did Luther and Calvin make mistakes? Eastern Orthodox would argue that they did, just as Rome did when it came up with certain doctrines, including those that Luther, Calvin and the others revolted against. Since Luther's people and Calvin's people could not agree and others did not agree with those two, there resulted an abundance of interpretations of Scripture. They can't all be right, can they? So who identifies what is correct and what is not? Can you imagine a Protestant Ecumenical Council to resolve what the Eucharist (communion) is about or faith and works? How about predestination? That would be a rough go, wouldn't it?
I think our brother in Christ does a great job in the beginning of this discussion talking about Christ in creation. However where he begins to stray away from good solid Biblical interpretation is when he uses the parable of the sower as a point of reference to suggest that God made the world through slow processes and death. A good exegete has to be careful when considering taking scripture out of context and adding a much broader interpretation and that certainly is what he did there. The parable of the sower has nothing to do with original creation in its context or the processes God used to make the world's that is something he is reading into the text and wants his listeners to believe. What we observe in the world today is a result of the fall according to the scripture. The entire creation has been subjected to this corruption because of when sin entered the world through the one act of disobedience death entered the world. Death is a consequence for sin not a purpose in design. The Bible's testimony about creation is that God made it with purpose and all by the word of his power. Jesus is that word of power and he said it was good. Consider these proof text. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31 KJV Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3 KJV In the parable of the sower Jesus is teaching his disciples what it will be like when they preach the gospel of the Kingdom of God to different people and how some people will believe and others will not because of Satan. Satan hinders some believers from maturing through various temptations and others he destroys their faith altogether. Jesus explains this in a parable but explains it more plainly to his own disciples later on. We know the Lord does this often for his 12 but the rest he taught them in parables. Interpreting the parable is easy. Some may not believe right away but then it happens at God's appointed time. God causes the fruit of the Spirit to blossom in the way that he wants to in those who have received grace by God's mercy in election. Some of them God brings to maturity as our Lord explains. It may be interpreted from other passages that God's grace is distributed differently and that Christian growth is also dependent on the will of God. Ultimately all things will work together for the good for them that love God to them that are the called by God according to his good pleasure. Paul tells us in Corinthians, "I planted Apollos watered but it is God who gave the growth."The ones who do not believe do not believe because of Satan. Paul the Apostle also says the same thing but in his own style. He says that the gospel message is like a fragrance some it is a fragrance from life to life others from life to death. Paul tells us in his epistles that the unbelievers are held in captivity and blinded by the god of this world. In conclusion, Jesus is not talking about original creation in this parable and definitely not revealing any mysteries about macro-evolution or any type of suggestion that man has evolved from one simple life-form to another. Furthermore, I think it is important to realize that NT Wright has used this passage out of context to support theistic evolution.
He didn’t… he was making a much larger point. At 23:37 he clearly said that the Bible speaks against this entire construct… evolutionism, he says, was a product of its time and place in human history. He is not in anyway supporting theistic evolution.
His Church of which he was a Bishop, had as its Head an earthly monarch, and this has colored his understanding of the Kingdom of God, if He understood that God is Spirit , and that we must be born of the Spirit to worship God in the Spirit and Truth, and that the New Jerusalem contains the Spirits of just men made perfect, and that Paul teaches that the world by its wisdom was totally ignorant of God, he would use its philosophers to teach the principles of Christianity, this man has reinvented Paul
How so? The Earthly monarch, Elizabeth 1, was in submission to the Supreme Sovereign of the Universe. She was, as ‘head of the church’, simply a figurehead, a tradition, left over from an earlier age. I’m sure that she, as a woman of great faith in the redeeming work of the Lord Jesus Christ, knew that the Anglican Communion is simply an expression of the real church of Christ Jesus, which He Himself is building. King Charles’ position is not so clear.
There is no real conflict between science and faith in the Biblical God. The problem arises when one develops a theology based on false/erroneous science. Darwinian evolution is almost certainly false and thus any theology ( i.e. theistic evolution) founded upon will turn out to be equally bogus. Don't be deceived!
Evolution is a Hindu, Greek, Egyptian and other ancient peoples religious belief. I always knew it preceded Darwin but I never knew that the ideas fish walking onto land and becoming animals and a primordial soup were stolen Greek philosophers.
Strange statement he begins with Genesis is saying God spoke things into creation while John is personifying Christ as the Spoken revelation of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. He then goes on to confuse the kingdom with the New Heaven and Earth Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. Jesus was never enthroned on the cross. He Heavenly Enthronement of Jesus Christ . After the Ascension, some time in the ten days before Pentecost, Jesus was enthroned in Heaven on the throne of David, at the right hand of the Father. Pauls weakness was so that he would not have the glory through his own strength but that Christ who strengthens him might be given the glory. A god of boundless love? He saw millions of years of death and destruction and saw that it was good? The kings divine right to rule is a political view and philosophy just like democracy. If he is stating that evolution was born out of the same philosophy then it is none scientific if not then why does he mix the two? I don't know if he is talking about the modern view of epicureanism or the ancient view were you give up pleasure in the pursuit of happiness but neither make much sense here. I don't know what his view of creation is from this but it was manifestation of power by the almighty God created the heavens and the earth as an expression of His glory. The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. (Psalms 19:1 NASB) and The heavens declare His righteousness, And all the peoples have seen His glory. The end of this seems to imply that it was created for man.
@@10earthlytreasures84 I can see a new creation in Revelations and a Christian being a new creation because he died in Christ but I can find nothing abut which this man speaks. Just some bible verse that he gives that do not back up what he says.
@@faithtruth8036 Genesis 1:3 And God said, “light - be,” and light was. Said = words spoken. Genesis 1:6-7 And God said, “a firmament in the midst of the waters, separating the waters from the waters - be.” …. And it was so. Again, said = words spoken. And so on, right through the creation account. All things came into existence through the Word of God… His spoken words. The Psalmist sums it up Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the Spirit/Breath of his mouth all their host. Job (26:13) refers to the Spirit making the heavens… spirit and breath are one and the same Hebrew word. Breath is released only in speech, not in writing. New Testament writers take this position as a given. Please check out Hebrews 11:3; 2 Peter 3:5; John 1:3
@@joelrodriguez1232 the bible teaches if .."God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days".. Not 14 billion years of evolution ..biolocos basically subscribes to Darwinism and promotes it . Totally false teaching by biolocos
Indeed, like many Wright assumes that Evolution is science and believe it to be fact. Curiously, there is no sacrifice in the what he calls the temple of Creation. Wright is one who wanders into very pleasant heresies.
@@ivorystroker if the Bible says the universe was formed in six days then the bible is beyond ridiculous. If you believe what the Bible says about the age of the universe then you are seriously in need of education
Philosophers need to start by summarizing their conclusions in a short concise way. It's easy to get distracted and take your own conclusions and impose it on their speech.
This ex-bishop of the Church of England expels methane flatuence consistent with those 2 Timothy warns against. His methane has no soteriological significance for a crystal meth addicted sinner. Living after grace or royalties?
This guy is intelligent but gosh his lectures are hard to listen to. He meanders about and makes a lot of points but at the end of the day he never fully elaborate on any of them.
That value this lecture should be bringing to the church….. so sad so few will ever see it or even seek to understand it
WONDERFUL explanation of the scripture to lead us to strengthen our faith.
Thank you NT Wright and Biologos for posting this great video!
This is interesting... I realize I have been mistakingly trying to "squeeze" the logos back into creation... thanks for the great lecture!!!!
me too
So provocative a thought process… start with what Jesus shows us of the Father and work from there. It certainly leads us to truth
I wish I could have made it to the conference. Amazing exposition. Thank you BioLogos.
You're welcome! Hope to see you at a future event.
Phd. student Richard Allinger reinforces the need for the continuation of the Reformation which started five centuries ago for the following six reasons cited in his book "The Reformation Cannot Be Over !":
i. God speaks today.
ii. Theologians make mistakes.
iii. New issues require new thinking.
iv. Scriptures must have priority over confessions.
v. The right of private judgment.
vi. Above all, it is important that we engage in the process of (semper reformanda) "always reforming" in the proper spirit and manner.
If Luther and Calvin had been Eastern Orthodox, they would not have left the Church. the East did not have certain problems that Rome did.
Did Luther and Calvin make mistakes? Eastern Orthodox would argue that they did, just as Rome did when it came up with certain doctrines, including those that Luther, Calvin and the others revolted against.
Since Luther's people and Calvin's people could not agree and others did not agree with those two, there resulted an abundance of interpretations of Scripture. They can't all be right, can they? So who identifies what is correct and what is not?
Can you imagine a Protestant Ecumenical Council to resolve what the Eucharist (communion) is about or faith and works? How about predestination? That would be a rough go, wouldn't it?
What about the guidance we have as individuals through the indwelling Spirit of the Living God?
Thank's very much Biologos. Is a great Good that You make.
You're welcome! Glad you enjoyed it.
Thanks for posting this video!
Brilliant. Thank you for posting
I think our brother in Christ does a great job in the beginning of this discussion talking about Christ in creation. However where he begins to stray away from good solid Biblical interpretation is when he uses the parable of the sower as a point of reference to suggest that God made the world through slow processes and death. A good exegete has to be careful when considering taking scripture out of context and adding a much broader interpretation and that certainly is what he did there. The parable of the sower has nothing to do with original creation in its context or the processes God used to make the world's that is something he is reading into the text and wants his listeners to believe. What we observe in the world today is a result of the fall according to the scripture. The entire creation has been subjected to this corruption because of when sin entered the world through the one act of disobedience death entered the world. Death is a consequence for sin not a purpose in design. The Bible's testimony about creation is that God made it with purpose and all by the word of his power. Jesus is that word of power and he said it was good. Consider these proof text.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Genesis 1:31 KJV
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Hebrews 11:3 KJV
In the parable of the sower Jesus is teaching his disciples what it will be like when they preach the gospel of the Kingdom of God to different people and how some people will believe and others will not because of Satan. Satan hinders some believers from maturing through various temptations and others he destroys their faith altogether. Jesus explains this in a parable but explains it more plainly to his own disciples later on. We know the Lord does this often for his 12 but the rest he taught them in parables. Interpreting the parable is easy. Some may not believe right away but then it happens at God's appointed time. God causes the fruit of the Spirit to blossom in the way that he wants to in those who have received grace by God's mercy in election. Some of them God brings to maturity as our Lord explains. It may be interpreted from other passages that God's grace is distributed differently and that Christian growth is also dependent on the will of God. Ultimately all things will work together for the good for them that love God to them that are the called by God according to his good pleasure. Paul tells us in Corinthians, "I planted Apollos watered but it is God who gave the growth."The ones who do not believe do not believe because of Satan. Paul the Apostle also says the same thing but in his own style. He says that the gospel message is like a fragrance some it is a fragrance from life to life others from life to death. Paul tells us in his epistles that the unbelievers are held in captivity and blinded by the god of this world. In conclusion, Jesus is not talking about original creation in this parable and definitely not revealing any mysteries about macro-evolution or any type of suggestion that man has evolved from one simple life-form to another. Furthermore, I think it is important to realize that NT Wright has used this passage out of context to support theistic evolution.
Brilliant that is exactly what he did. Thank you for that comment.
He didn’t… he was making a much larger point. At 23:37 he clearly said that the Bible speaks against this entire construct… evolutionism, he says, was a product of its time and place in human history. He is not in anyway supporting theistic evolution.
His Church of which he was a Bishop, had as its Head an earthly monarch, and this has colored his understanding of the Kingdom of God, if He understood that God is Spirit , and that we must be born of the Spirit to worship God in the Spirit and Truth, and that the New Jerusalem contains the Spirits of just men made perfect, and that Paul teaches that the world by its wisdom was totally ignorant of God, he would use its philosophers to teach the principles of Christianity, this man has reinvented Paul
How so?
The Earthly monarch, Elizabeth 1, was in submission to the Supreme Sovereign of the Universe. She was, as ‘head of the church’, simply a figurehead, a tradition, left over from an earlier age. I’m sure that she, as a woman of great faith in the redeeming work of the Lord Jesus Christ, knew that the Anglican Communion is simply an expression of the real church of Christ Jesus, which He Himself is building. King Charles’ position is not so clear.
Dr. Wright has not re-invented Paul, he is simply presenting a historical Paul. See Sander's book on Paul which updates our understanding of Paul.
God's Word, God's law is the second person of the trinity.
Thank you for this.
There is no real conflict between science and faith in the Biblical God. The problem arises when one develops a theology based on false/erroneous science. Darwinian evolution is almost certainly false and thus any theology ( i.e. theistic evolution) founded upon will turn out to be equally bogus. Don't be deceived!
Evolution is a Hindu, Greek, Egyptian and other ancient peoples religious belief. I always knew it preceded Darwin but I never knew that the ideas fish walking onto land and becoming animals and a primordial soup were stolen Greek philosophers.
You have made this comment more than once, all times without evidence
@@Campbellteaching Who are you replying to?
Neil, he has posted this same comment on other videos.
ruclips.net/video/5mvx8kW33OU/видео.html
Strange statement he begins with Genesis is saying God spoke things into creation while John is personifying Christ as the Spoken revelation of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. He then goes on to confuse the kingdom with the New Heaven and Earth Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. Jesus was never enthroned on the cross. He Heavenly Enthronement of Jesus Christ . After the Ascension, some time in the ten days before Pentecost, Jesus was enthroned in Heaven on the throne of David, at the right hand of the Father. Pauls weakness was so that he would not have the glory through his own strength but that Christ who strengthens him might be given the glory. A god of boundless love? He saw millions of years of death and destruction and saw that it was good? The kings divine right to rule is a political view and philosophy just like democracy. If he is stating that evolution was born out of the same philosophy then it is none scientific if not then why does he mix the two? I don't know if he is talking about the modern view of epicureanism or the ancient view were you give up pleasure in the pursuit of happiness but neither make much sense here. I don't know what his view of creation is from this but it was manifestation of power by the almighty God created the heavens and the earth as an expression of His glory. The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. (Psalms 19:1 NASB) and The heavens declare His righteousness, And all the peoples have seen His glory. The end of this seems to imply that it was created for man.
Listen again:)
@@10earthlytreasures84 I can see a new creation in Revelations and a Christian being a new creation because he died in Christ but I can find nothing abut which this man speaks. Just some bible verse that he gives that do not back up what he says.
Send me to the part where he says the word spoke things into creation, please I can't find it.
@@faithtruth8036 Genesis 1:3
And God said, “light - be,” and light was.
Said = words spoken.
Genesis 1:6-7
And God said, “a firmament in the midst of the waters, separating the waters from the waters - be.” …. And it was so.
Again, said = words spoken.
And so on, right through the creation account. All things came into existence through the Word of God… His spoken words. The Psalmist sums it up Psalms 33:6
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made,
and by the Spirit/Breath of his mouth all their host.
Job (26:13) refers to the Spirit making the heavens… spirit and breath are one and the same Hebrew word. Breath is released only in speech, not in writing.
New Testament writers take this position as a given. Please check out Hebrews 11:3; 2 Peter 3:5; John 1:3
At the point of acknowledging that the bible isn't really true how do you keep on believing it and supporting it?
But Jesus did not exist until he was born as a human being!
I’d always assumed N.T. Wright was an intelligent man. Looks like I was wrong. He’s clearly gullible and delusional
Would you care to elaborate?
I think you were good but has become delusional.?
@@joelrodriguez1232 the bible teaches if .."God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days".. Not 14 billion years of evolution ..biolocos basically subscribes to Darwinism and promotes it . Totally false teaching by biolocos
Indeed, like many Wright assumes that Evolution is science and believe it to be fact.
Curiously, there is no sacrifice in the what he calls the temple of Creation.
Wright is one who wanders into very pleasant heresies.
@@ivorystroker if the Bible says the universe was formed in six days then the bible is beyond ridiculous. If you believe what the Bible says about the age of the universe then you are seriously in need of education
Six day creationism (accepting the miracle of creation) is the one truth that the BioLogos folks are unwilling to accept.
Philosophers need to start by summarizing their conclusions in a short concise way. It's easy to get distracted and take your own conclusions and impose it on their speech.
The Christian Atheist theory
This ex-bishop of the Church of England expels methane flatuence consistent with those 2 Timothy warns against. His methane has no soteriological significance for a crystal meth addicted sinner. Living after grace or royalties?
This guy is intelligent but gosh his lectures are hard to listen to. He meanders about and makes a lot of points but at the end of the day he never fully elaborate on any of them.
first
shall be last