Romans Series - Part 1 - David Bercot- What The Early Christians Believed About The Book of Romans
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- soundfaith.org/
chambersburgcf...
scrollpublishi...
In this message from David Bercot, we will be answering the questions: What the early Christians believed about the book of Romans. Why do we need to have the doctrines of Luther washed out of our brains? What did Martin Luther teach, and how did so many people fall for his teaching? David will answer these questions and many more in this first of two intro lessons in this series on "What the early Christians believed about the Book of Romans..
Romans Series - Part 1 - David Bercot
This really clarifies the confusion in what people call the church today. It's quite amazing that just a few hundred years of this kind of teaching has had made people forget what the faith was actually like throughout history.
@R T It seems you missed the title of the video ie : What the early Christians believed. Also you missed what he said at the beginning, about it being NOT what he believes. Remember in those days there was NO new testament. Since the new testament was written,compiled however, mankind has developed many different,various doctrines ,opinions,beliefs on what those scriptures say and mean. One of those doctrines is on predestination, which many protestants choose to believe calvins doctrine, however the early Christians never did, they believed in free will. It was not until fourth century that a certain Augustine introduced calvins type of predestination,. That Calvin interpreted the NT scriptures meant.
My point is, Luther ONLY had the written Scriptures to base his teachings on, as he was NOT present in the very early days of Christianity. That scripture he interpreted his teachings on, has been used by many others to base. their teachings too, thats why we have many various denominations today, with many different teachings. Its all been down to ones interpretation. However, the first Christians had actual truth, straight from Jesus mouth, apostles mouth. In future I suggest you read the title of videos before watching them, and listen to what the people in it are saying at the introduction as you think its all about David Bercots beliefs, when it is not.
@@Christian-qs3pi what does it matter what Christians beleive. What you beleive INDIVIDUALLY is what matters to GOD. Free will in word or definition is NO WHERE in the scriptures from Genesis to the book of revelation. NOWHERE. Eve sinned not because she had free will. She sinned because like us all have built in us, the lust of the eye, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. That is why we sin. So free will, where? JESUS showed us why is impossible for us to save ourselves. Cause yes we can restrain from committing adultery but the adultery was already committed in us by the lusts in us. Free will is an oxymoron.
@@MACLOVIO357-SOSA WHATS WITH THE LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS GILBERT ! Can you not debate like paul suggested,without getting ANGRY when people have a different opinion to you… Let me answer you . First ref Free Will.. Today we have thousands of christian denominations, as they cannot agree on many issues incl theology ie: Soteriology,eschatology , Christology etc.. Ref Soteriology , All the branches of soteriology whether calvinist , arminianism, lutheranism eg free will, predestination etc . All those branches can put together Bible Scripture verses using hermeneutics, to defend their belief Gilbert… So you angrily shouting “ Free will is not mentioned in the Bible” is complete dung .
For example, in the greek Septuagint ,and bibles since up to the 1611 KJVB ,had the Deuterocanonical books, including Sirach, which 15: 11-2 mentions mankind has free will: ie: 15:14: “God in the beginning created human beings and made them subject to their own free choice. The notes for those many verses on free will say: * “[15:11-20] Here Ben Sira links freedom of the will with human responsibility. God, who sees everything, is neither the cause nor the occasion of sin. We have the power to choose our behavior and we are responsible for both the good and the evil we do”.
ME: No wonder the Deuterocanonical books were removed by the reformers/calvinists…
NEXT you said again the word “ Free will “ is not in the Bible… Well Mr Angry, the word “ trinity” “ triune God” is not in the bible but billions believe it ,accept it… See how flawed your argument is.. SO being as so many denominations and there beliefs on Christian theology,all with their own hermeneutical proof texts, how can we find truth on a particular theology? After all not all are right,not all are wrong. Well, why don’t we look to what the firs christians believed, the first christians were the apostles, and their very first students Eg the first- second century AD. Those first students of the apostles, are the first Church fathers..
SO from the masses of autographs transcripts of the first church fathers available, we see that all of them believed and taught that GOD gave mankind free will.. Plus It was not until Augustine in his older years ( he believed free will all his life) in 5th century AD ,that he mentioned the theology of predestination as per the calvinistic type we know today… Gilbert, if you was around for the first few hundred years, you too would have believed in Free Will of the individual, given to them by God. Do you now see why its important to look back to the original days Of Jesus and immediately after . Also ,all those older christian denominations around the world believed free too.. Eg Catholic, Orthodox etc.. it was not until the reformation , 1500 years after Christ,that people like Calvin came up with his predestination nonsense , that mankind has no free will to choose God.. Remember, Bible reading is not like reading ur harry potter book, one has study,use bible study, hermeneutics, exegesis etc.. U want to believe Calvin over God, Jesus, the Apostles, the Apostles first students, the Church fathers, and all of Christians up until 1500,s the go ahead.. as its not a salvation issue.. No go and have a cup of tea and calm down Mr angry
@@believer3659 I apologize for the large capital letters but I assure you I am not shouting nor am I angry. I capitalize simply to highlight things I believe are important. This kind of communication can certainly be misleading. Again @Believer365 I apologize.
First of all I do not consider myself a christian. Nor do I belong to any of the branches you mention here including calvinasm I do not belong to any denomination I am simply a man in search for TRUTH. For 16 years I have been serving THE LORD and searching the scriptures. HE has shown me things through HIS holy spirit.
I do not believe the Sira and neither should you. Is not an inspired book it was never canonized either.
You talk not about free will but free choices. Yes we make hundreds of choices a a day. I mean computers make choices. My cat makes choices. are you going to say these have free will? choices and free will as described in the dictionaries are not the same. Please look at the definition for free will and then choices.
You are right GOD does not have to make us sin we sin because our flesh is weak. we in us are equipped with the lust of the eye, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life those are built in in each one of us. Eve did not sin when she took the fruit and ate. she seen the fruit lust for it and then she ate. She sinned way before that, in her heart. JESUS tells us still today, that we are not to commit adultery and that is possible but then this same JESUS tells us that if we so much as look at a woman with lust we therefore commit the adultery act. So free will where? You actually believe Eve had free will? I am not naive to think that had I been put in the same position under the same circumstances with a snake speaking to me would I would not had taken of the fruit and ate.
Look I know in my heart that it Is only by the mercy of GOD [not because of the illusion of free will] that some of us are not child molesters, adulterers, murderers, etc. Psalm 139:16 clearly tells me that “my days were written before there were any” ……...Proverbs 16:4 tells me that “THE LORD [not man] created the wicked for a day of evil” Isaiah 45:7 tells me that it is “THE LORD who makes peace and creates evil” …...these scriptures are never seen in religion and you know why? Because religion hates, despises THE WORD OF GOD.
Imagine telling a room filled with ‘free will’ mentality folks that IT IS THE LORD who made us ALL disobedient so that at the end this same LORD would have MERCY on us? I been called a devil satan, wicked etc… speaking TRUTH. Is in the book though. Romans 11:32 ….and so if Romans is true and it is then where does free will begin? It does not. Free will is an illusion. smoking mirrors
@@MACLOVIO357-SOSA Thank You for apology. Such humility, is rare today as many Christians get proud of what they believe is truth, and defend that belief aggressively. So please lets do keep,it civil,and respectful Gilbert. So with respect, first please can you not tell me what I should and should not believe in ie: You told me “not to believe Sirach, telling me its not inspired nor canonised”…Thats something the Pharisees used to to tell the jews, telling them don’t believe anyone but them..such was their hold on the people. However, Paul, suggest we should not just take a persons belief as truth, stating there are false teachers about, so telling us to search the scriptures, just as he applauded the Bereans for doing so..Telling us that All scripture is GOD breathed ,inspired for teaching etc (.2 Timothy 3:16). However, do you realise that when he said that the only scripture available where Timothy was, was the Greek Septuagint, and guess what, yes it included Sirach.. Sirach was also found in the dead sea scrolls too.. In original apostolic The Way/ Christianity, The book of Sirach was recognised as a relevant book of Wisdom written 200 BC.
I will also add, as i said yesterday, that is not the only scripture to back up mankind’s free will. AS you quote scripture for Calvins predestination , the Free Will advocates can also quote just as much scripture for their case, so with all due respect, you quoting scripture does not prove anything.. Both sides produce scripture for and against.. Whose right? ME the deciding factor was the apostles , first followers of Jesus, apostolic Christianity , Christianity for 1500 years.. Also.. the OT, and Deuterocanonical books , you know, the ones Paul says is GOD breathed, for teaching, contain free will scripture, the jews believed in free will too, and they are GODS people from the beginning… SO The Way of Jesus Christ I follow , is the apostolic one, the one in Jesus time, the one the first followers adhered to, the one the apostles adhered to, the one the apostles first students (Church fathers ) adhered to..IT was good enough for them, good enough for Salvation, good enough to live by,.. NO other scripture, was available to them at all.. There way, Was the way..
So with all due respect to you Gilbert, and respect to what you wrote, apostolic Christianity is the way for me to follow,believe in. Those Early Christianity Books, Videos by David Bercot confirm what i have studied for the last five years already. The truth is Up until 1500,s every Believer in Jesus Christ worldwide , believed that GOD gave mankind free will to choose him or not (except a very old Augustine in the 5th century that is) . Even Calvinist theologians admit free will to choose GOD was the original apostolic way of Christians.. ie ( Loraine Boettner book) . So to suggest they all got it wrong ie: GODS chosen people Jews from OT times, Paul,Peter, James, Apostles of Jesus, followers of Jesus etc all wrong, and Calvin got it right , is just not acceptable.. Just as it was not accepted when the old man Augustine suggested something similar 500 years after Christ.. Lets face it, a reformation suggest just that, the reformers had to be unique and change things.. Which they did en mass with their own interpretation of scripture, including claiming the vast majority Gods creation were born to go to hell, and suffer for eternity with no chance of redeeming themselves whilst alive..Which is unique alright. So unique it nullifies a lot of Jesus Teachings. Nullifies the whole meaning of Jesus’s Good News.. As for the vast majority without a choice, without a chance of redeeming themselves , its bad news.. Anyhow , thanks for your input, you opinions, your beliefs, I will stick with the vast overwhelming evidence from the apostolic people, and era.. not newbie theology 1500years later....GOD BLESS YOU, AND MAY GODS PEACE BE WITH YOU BROTHER IN CHRIST 🙏✝️
Excellent and much needed teaching. What a joy to see faithful brethren opposing the common evil.
I just retired as a Lutheran pastor for 36 years. I’m excited to listen and learn.
Wonderful job explaining how Luther was able to influence all of Christiandom. This series is defiantly one we are looking forward to.
The explanation how Luther was able to influence modern contemporary teaching in 2021 is he and his friends controlled the dispensing of information in the 1500s and the written pages of history. History of Mennonites in Europe book or The Pilgrim Church by broadbent or just Google Waldenses. The true church has always existed but it's small and unpopular
@John Plain those groups haven't always existed lol.
I think Bercot misrepresents Luther pretty badly.
The 👉entirety👈 of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever.
Psalms 119:160
I hope to hear/see all of these messages.
It is still baffling how much our views have been hookwinked by many so called Bible scholars over the centuries with no refute from the pulpits. Thank you!
The flesh wants to believe their lies, so we must fight to hold onto the truth and fight to reveal the truth to others.
I have a friend who's a dispensationalist ( a lot of my Christian friends from before I met the Anabaptists are) and says that Matthew, James, 1&2 Peter, Hebrews and Revelation are for the Jews. She's always shouting from the rooftops that Jesus taught a different gospel to Paul - Jesus gospel was the gospel of the kingdom, for the Jews, and Pauls gospel is the gospel of grace, for the gentiles. I find this teaching a lot here in the UK. While Jesus life and miracles and work on the cross are made much of, His teachings are completely ignored and only Paul's teachings are considered to be for Christians today. This leaves me absolutely alone and without a church. Thank you so much for making this material available because at least coming here reminds me that I'm not alone.... blessings
I certainly know the feeling. I will be praying for you to find some like-minded people to fellowship with. You are not alone. We got your back.
In Acts 15, when the apostles decided that gentiles were not required to obey the law of Moses, what of the Jews? Were they also released? They were not. So there were 2 authorized versions of Christianity - 1) for gentiles, without the law of Moses, and 2) for Jews, who were required to obey the law. Paul himself submitted to this in Acts 21. When challenged by James that he was teaching Jews not to obey the law, he denied it and, being a Jew, proved that Jews must obey by offering a sacrifice. That is the clear record of Acts.
If there were 2 versions of Christianity, then those writings intended for Jewish Christians are not binding on gentile Christians because they describe the Jewish version of Christianity. And both books for Jews and books for gentiles would need to be included in the canon.
Go not into the way of the Gentiles. Jesus . try to believe Him then you wouldnt critics your so called friend
where do you live?
There is an Anabaptist church in UK( in Craven Arms) and one in Ireland ( Waterford). You'll find like minded believers if you really want it.
So grateful for this! This reminds me of the quote "It's easier to fool somebody then to convince somebody they have been fooled." A couple of months ago I was awakened to the fact that I was lukewarm, and a hypocrite. I prayed earnestly that God would show me my sins and help me to understand His Truth and God did! I've listened to almost all of David's Early Christian series and scripture now makes sense, it always seemed to not match up with what I was taught.
This is the result if the gospel is understood through both Christ and Paul. No contradiction!
This is when we prefer to hear the words of the Lord: "it is finished" over to what precedes it: "enter through the narrow gate".
Does some how His words it is finished nullify His words about the narrow gate?
@@SoundFaithChannel By no means! It is rather our poor mindset that requests a resurrection without crucifixion. We are speaking about the crucifixion of the flesh and its desires, that eventually will lead us to enter through the pillars into the Kingdom of Heaven. God bless you.
A great message, I am thankful for these messages, they have helped me untangle some the confusion because misinterpretations by the Luther and other lauded reformers...
If you have any topics you would like us to tackle let us know.
What did Luther misinterpret?
*This is a terribly important message for the body of Christ!!*
6:30 Important doctrines to re-review: osas, no free will, imputation (but this could be redefined to be true)
7:45 Covers the jw doctrine interesting
8:40 "How do we get Luther cleard out of our brains"
Thank you for exposing false teachers with love to the church. It is so sad how many have such a skewed or watered down version of the faith.
I'm sure God's BLESSING is upon this church that gathers there, wonderful message.
Thanks for your encouragement.
Wow! I knew that Luther was bad, but I didn’t know that he was as Catholic as he was. He was a product of his time and thank God that we know better today. My comment is I find it very interesting that Luther was a lot like the heretic Marcian, he as well as Luther wanted to remove about half of the books of the Bible because it didn’t fit is theology. So by analogy you could say that Luther was another Gnostic somewhat. somewhat.
Luther didn't remove any books of the Bible. He translated all of them.
Bercot doesn't understand Luther, and the quotes he uses are grossly out of context.
Where does the Spirit have a role in salvation? Did you receive the spirit by keeping the law or by hearing and believing. The works of the flesh are exposed by the mirror of the law. The fruit of the spirit are manifested as well by someone who has received the spirit of Christ. Are we controlled by lust or are we walking in love. Depends on who’s on the throne- you or Christ.
Luther reacted against what he saw in Catholicism, going way too far the other way.
Catholicism honors the 4 gospels above the other books; the words and teachings of Christ above all.
The problem is that Christ focused A LOT on works. The one accepted by God is not the one praying “Lord,Lord” but the one doing the Father’s will.
John has the same emphasis, insisting that those who truly love Christ keep his commandments.
Luther wanted to pit faith against works, one reason that he hated James.
He ADDED the word ALONE in his translation of Romans, thereby creating a contradiction with the only verse in the Bible that has the words “FAITH ALONE” (James 2:24) in it. The words “NOT BY” are right before faith alone.
We must let the word of God speak and not make it fit to our theology.
Peter warned his readers not to disregard the scriptures of Paul. In the same way, John speaking by direct revelation, issued dire warnings to everyone reading Revelation not to remove or add to what was written in the with the Book:
And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his SHARE in the TREE OF LIFE and the HOLY CITY, which are described in this book (Revelation 22:19)
It looks to me that a person like Luther who was in the position of translating and disseminating Revelation would be guilty of "taking away" from the book by discrediting and degrading it. Would this promised judgment - being barred from sharing in eternal life, being denied entry into the Holy City fall upon Luther. If it did not apply to him then who else would it apply to? I already had my doubts about Luther's eternal soul based upon his hatred and persecution of the Jewish people.
John said this about a believer who is ruled by hate:
14...The one who does not love REMAINS IN DEATH. 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that ETERNAL LIFE does NOT RESIDE in a MURDERER.
(1 John 3:14-15)
An anabaptist saying "That's too Protestant" is rich.
Anabaptists saying anything about church history is rich. There is a reason Bercot isn't taken seriously outside of his small fan club.
THE CHOICE IS
BETWEEN LORD GOD YEHOVAH THE MOST HIGH AND ANY CONTRADICTOR
Between the words of the law of the covenant of Lord God Yehovah the covenant Lawgiver and that of any contradictor
Between the testimony (testament, witness) of Lord God Yehovah the most high and that of any contrafictor
Deuteronomy 4:2 ASV
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you.
Deuteronomy 12:32 ASV
What thing soever I command you, that shall ye observe to do: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Deuteronomy 5:32 ASV
Ye shall observe to do therefore as Jehovah your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
Deuteronomy 26:16-19 ASV
This day Jehovah thy God commandeth thee to do these statutes and ordinances: thou shalt therefore keep and do them with all thy heart, and with all thy soul. [17] Thou hast avouched Jehovah this day to be thy God, and that thou wouldest walk in his ways, and keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his ordinances, and hearken unto his voice: [18] and Jehovah hath avouched thee this day to be a people for his own possession, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments; [19] and to make thee high above all nations that he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honor; and that thou mayest be a holy people unto Jehovah thy God, as he hath spoken.
Acts 4:19 ASV
But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye:
Acts 5:29 ASV
But Peter and the apostles answered and said, We must obey God rather than men.
1 Kings 18:21 ASV
And Elijah came near unto all the people, and said, How long go ye limping between the two sides? if Jehovah be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.
Joshua 24:14-15 ASV
Now therefore fear Jehovah, and serve him in sincerity and in truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River, and in Egypt; and serve ye Jehovah. [15] And if it seem evil unto you to serve Jehovah, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah.
Deuteronomy 10:12-13,17,20-21 ASV
And now, Israel, what doth Jehovah thy God require of thee, but to fear Jehovah thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve Jehovah thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, [13] to keep the commandments of Jehovah, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good? [17] For Jehovah your God, he is God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God, the mighty, and the terrible, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward. [20] Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God; him shalt thou serve; and to him shalt thou cleave, and by his name shalt thou swear. [21] He is thy praise, and he is thy God, that hath done for thee these great and terrible things, which thine eyes have seen.
Indeed it is said (God builds a Church and the Devil builds a Chaple next to the Church..
I'm all for free open discussion when what the original writers meaning are taken as they meant. But we have great difficulty interpreting the Father's writing too. I've found it more helpful to remember that Jesus is actually alive and is present til the end of the age with us. To the heart that turns to him he can teach them. When we have to defer to others we are seeking to by pass the need to be in that interactive life with Christ that calls for life and character. Reading the Father's is an example of how Christ has taught others, but it should not be used wrongly.
@Paul Robinson You're right that the early Christians can sometimes be interpreted variously. I would just point out that they are quite clear on some issues. Anyway, I like your point that God will lead those who turn to him in humility. -Lynn
So Christ has truly set us free. Now make sure that you stay free, and don’t get tied up again in slavery to the law.
Don’t get enslaved again into the slavery of sin and death. Us non-jews were never tied up in the Law of Moses.
What is David’s view of spiritual gifts and miracles!
Thank you brother for pointing out the false teacher that is Martin Luther. What a tragedy that Luther’s gospel has shaped much of the modern church. No doubt why our churches are filled with worldly christians that live in opposition to the commands of Jesus. The Orthodox church was never corrupted by Luther’s doctrine of demons.
You'll be shocked to realize that Lutherans are closer to Orthodoxy than they are to Rome lol.
Thank you for this! It was excellent!
Thank you for this.
This is a great series on Roman's! Could I please get the name of the Martin Luther bible you used to quote from? I want some people to read it with there own eye's.
If you look up "Martin Luther's prefaces" you can find sources that have the prefaces that he wrote. Here's one: wolfmueller.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Prefaces-to-the-Books-of-the-Bible_with-cover.pdf -Lynn
This was a great introduction. I'm looking forward to watch the rest of the series.
I look forward to this series too!
Me too!
This is not great at all. Read a Martin Luther biography or watch one of the many movies about him..... ML wrote the 1st German Bible. Old AND New Testament. This man clearly doesn't know what he is talking about at all......
Thank you for this. I've been wrestling with this for a while.
I like to understand salvation in terms of the Exodus. God redeemed them to serve Him, and the living out of their faith was integral to reaching the promised land. So this leads me to conclude that service to God in the living out of our faith is also integral to the gift of salvation, and necessary for the path to heaven. There is a clear link between salvation and service at the end of Titus 2.
Now if we believe and cherish the gift of salvation, then salvation remains our boast and confidence, and by that gift we can live out service to God as a part of salvation and yet simply believe the gospel so that the promise of eternal life remains a free gift. Faith has the ability to walk this life out vigorously while receiving grace. They had to literally rely on God for everything in the wilderness and in taking the promised land, so God remained their boast.
So yes, I do think we have to have both faith and works, but not in such a way that disrupts our faith and causes us to rely on ourselves for salvation.
William Law "A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life" is a good book describing living such a life.
When did this church decide to stop allowing Lutheran Calvinist teachings from the pulpit? When Mr. Bercot arrived?
23:01 Give Luther's opinion on Revelation, "I can nowhere detect that the Holy Spirit produced thos book", and *"Christ is not taught or known in it."* ; incredible point
is it possible to get the commantary of romans from David Bercot?
He is currently working in the finishing stages of editing it and it will be printed by August sometime. It will be available at scrollpublishing.com -Lynn
Minute15:9 ,,how did this man got a following?" 😂👍 [about Luther]
That is what I have been wondering
I wish this would be put in written form. I have Amish friends who respect David.
I will look into that. David is working on a Romans commentary, and if they are not too similar when the series is complete, maybe we will have it transcribed and edited.
The Amish are good, but also Trumptards
THERE IS PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN RIGHTEOUSNESS AND SALVATION AND IN SIN AND PERISHMENT
DO NOT LET ANYONE DECEIVE YOU THE WAY THE SERPENT THE TEMPTER DECEIVED EVE AND ADAM
THE TWO PARTICIPANTS IN A COVENANT EACH HAS HIS OWN RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE TERMS (LAW) OF THE COVENANT
GOD YEHOVAH'S PART OF SALVATION IS AT GOD YEHOVAH'S EXPENSE
BUT
MAN'S PART IN SALVATION IS MAN'S PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
IT TAKES PERSONAL REPENTANCE FROM SIN FOR A SINNER TO BE SAVED
IT TAKES REMAINING RIGHTEOUS (NOT GOING BACK TO SIN) FOR A SAVED MAN TO REMAIN SAFE
A SINNER WHO REFUSED TO REPENT WILL PERISH
A RIGHTEOUS MAN WHO BACKSLIDE AND FAILED TO REMAIN RIGHTEOUS WILL LOOSE HIS SALVATION
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF A TRUSTFUL RIGHTEOUS MAN WILL SAVE THE RIGHTEOUS MAN BUT CANNOT SAVE AN UNREPENTANT SIN
THE SINFULNESS OF AN UNREPENTANT SINNER WILL MAKE HIM PERISH BUT CANNOT MAKE A TRUSTFUL RIGHTEOUS MAN PERISH
THERE IS PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY PERSONAL SALVATION IN GOD YEHOVAH WHICH IS PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS IN GOD YEHOVAH BY PERSONAL OBEDIENCE TO HIS COMMANDS
SALVATION IN GOD YEHOVAH IS CONDITIONAL
PERISHMENT OUTSIDE GOD YEHOVAH IS CONDITIONAL
THERE IS PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN SIN OR RIGHTEOUSNESS
A SINNER OUTSIDE GOD YEHOVAH IS A SINNER BECAUSE HE PERSONALLY DISOBEY THE COMMAND OF GOD YEHOVAH AND NOT BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE SINNED
THE SIN OF A MAN IS HIS PERSONAL SIN
A RIGHTEOUS MAN IN GOD YEHOVAH IS A RIGHTEOUS MAN BECAUSE HE PERSONALLY. OBEYS THE COMMANDS OF GOD YEHOVAH AND NOT BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE IS A RIGHTEOUS MAN
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF A RIGHTEOUS MAN IS HIS PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS
THE ALMIGHTY GOD YEHOVAH THE RIGHTEOUS JUDGE NEVER CONDEMNS A RIGHTEOUS MAN BECAUSE OF THE SIN OF A SINNER AND NEVER JUSTIFIES A WICKED MAN BECAUSE OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF S RIGHTEOUS MAN
Isaiah 30:15 ASV
For thus said the Lord Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength. And ye would not:
Malachi 3:7 ASV
From the days of your fathers ye have turned aside from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith Jehovah of hosts. But ye say, Wherein shall we return?
Zechariah 1:3-6 ASV
Therefore say thou unto them, Thus saith Jehovah of hosts: Return unto me, saith Jehovah of hosts, and I will return unto you, saith Jehovah of hosts. [4] Be ye not as your fathers, unto whom the former prophets cried, saying, Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, Return ye now from your evil ways, and from your evil doings: but they did not hear, nor hearken unto me, saith Jehovah. [5] Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, do they live for ever? [6] But my words and my statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not overtake your fathers? and they turned and said, Like as Jehovah of hosts thought to do unto us, according to our ways, and according to our doings, so hath he dealt with us.
2 Chronicles 7:14 ASV
if my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Isaiah 55:6-7 ASV
Seek ye Jehovah while he may be found; call ye upon him while he is near: [7] let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto Jehovah, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Ezekiel 18:1-24,26-28,30-32 ASV
The word of Jehovah came unto me again, saying, [2] What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? [3] As I live, saith the Lord Jehovah, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. [4] Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. [5] But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, [6] and hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbor's wife, neither hath come near to a woman in her impurity, [7] and hath not wronged any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath taken nought by robbery, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; [8] he that hath not given forth upon interest, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true justice between man and man, [9] hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept mine ordinances, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord Jehovah. [10] If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth any one of these things, [11] and that doeth not any of those duties, but even hath eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbor's wife, [12] hath wronged the poor and needy, hath taken by robbery, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination, [13] hath given forth upon interest, and hath taken increase; shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him. [14] Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins, which he hath done, and feareth, and doeth not such like; [15] that hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, hath not defiled his neighbor's wife, [16] neither hath wronged any, hath not taken aught to pledge, neither hath taken by robbery, but hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; [17] that hath withdrawn his hand from the poor, that hath not received interest nor increase, hath executed mine ordinances, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live. [18] As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, robbed his brother, and did that which is not good among his people, behold, he shall die in his iniquity. [19] Yet say ye, Wherefore doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. [20] The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. [21] But if the wicked turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. [22] None of his transgressions that he hath committed shall be remembered against him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. [23] Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked? saith the Lord Jehovah; and not rather that he should return from his way, and live? [24] But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? None of his righteous deeds that he hath done shall be remembered: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. [26] When the righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth therein; in his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. [27] Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. [28] Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. [30] Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord Jehovah. Return ye, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. [31] Cast away from you all your transgressions, wherein ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? [32] For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord Jehovah: wherefore turn yourselves, and live.
Deuteronomy 26:16-19 ASV
This day Jehovah thy God commandeth thee to do these statutes and ordinances: thou shalt therefore keep and do them with all thy heart, and with all thy soul. [17] Thou hast avouched Jehovah this day to be thy God, and that thou wouldest walk in his ways, and keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his ordinances, and hearken unto his voice: [18] and Jehovah hath avouched thee this day to be a people for his own possession, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments; [19] and to make thee high above all nations that he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honor; and that thou mayest be a holy people unto Jehovah thy God, as he hath spoken.
I've long suspected that David Bercot plays fast and lose with scripture and church history..
The quotes he uses from Luther are half sentences taken grossly out of context.
For example, Luther's view on the book of Revelation is that no one seems to understand it and therefore it is better to stick to what clearly teaches about Christ. Many in the early church agreed that the book is confusing and has many possible interpretations. There was dispute about its inclusion in the canon. If you are trying to follow the early church then a lower opinion of Revelation is perfectly valid.
Luther also didn't add the word alone to Romans 3:28. He was translating the Bible into medieval German. German at that time required the word alone for the sentence to make sense in that language. Luther explains this if Bercot had read the entire quote instead of taking a small part of it grossly out of context.
Some of Luther's criticism of certain books he recanted as he got older.
Bercot seems to be unaware of any of this.
@Yellow Blackbird Thanks for giving this perspective. The book of Revelation is not the one that is most at issue here; Hebrews and James are more to the point. As far as I can tell, none of the early Christians had the same problems with those books that Luther had. If you have sources for where Luther changed his mind on those books, be sure to point me to them, and I'll pass them on to David.
Luther may have said that "alone" was required in German, but the question is whether that's true. This would never have been a problem if he and the other reformers hadn't made the interpretative judgment that we are saved by "faith alone" and without any works at all.
Which came first? Did he base this theology on his translation? In that case, he based his theology on what was not the original text of Scripture and something specific to medieval German. Did he base his translation on this theology? Then he enshrined his interpretation of Scripture into his own translation. Neither of them seems that great to me. -Lynn
@SoundFaithChannel Hello, thank you for listening and taking the time to respond.
The church historian Eusebius (260AD - 339AD) examined the early churches view of Hebrews and James and listed them both as antilegomena, which means they were disputed, but eventually accepted. One can read Luther's preface to James and Hebrews online by Google searching them. The entire preface should be read to really understand what Luther is saying. For example, he says this of James, "Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow…"
Luther says this about Hebrews, "However that may be, it is a marvelously fine epistle. It discusses Christ’s priesthood masterfully and thoroughly, out of the Scriptures, and interprets the Old Testament finely and richly. Thus it is plain that it is the work of an able and learned man, who was a disciple of the apostles, learned much from them, and was greatly experienced in faith and practiced in the Scriptures. And although, as he himself testifies in Hebrews 6:1, he does not lay the foundation of faith, which is the work of an apostle, nevertheless he does build finely thereon gold, silver, precious stones, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:12. Therefore we should not be hindered, even though wood, straw or hay be mixed in with them, but accept this fine teaching with all honor; though to be sure, we cannot put it on the same level with the apostolic epistles.
Who wrote it is not known, and will not be known for a while; it makes no difference. We should be satisfied with the doctrine that he bases so constantly on the Scriptures, showing a right fine grasp upon the reading of the Scriptures and the proper way to deal with them."
Luther is not trying to remove these books. He translated all of then and included them in his translation. He is giving his opinion on them without prejudice to anyone who might disagree.
Luther explains his reasons and process for translation in "An Open Letter on Translating" which he wrote in 1530. It can be found online and read for free. Here is an excerpt:
"I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -- if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say "the farmer brings allein grain and kein money"; or "No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain"; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk"; "Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?" There are countless cases like this in daily usage."
I would be inclined to trust him since he is the only one among us who spoke medieval German.
@SoundFaithChannel Further, many before Luther translated Romans 3:28 as, "faith alone."
Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):
Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).
Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).
Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).
Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).
John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).
Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).
Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.
Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).
To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):
Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).
Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).
See further:
Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.
Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).
Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.
Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.
This was taken from the blog "Beggars All Reformation and Apologetics" which has a great number of primary sources related to Luther and the Reformation.
@Yellow Blackbird
Thanks for the reply. Luther does say some nice things about James, but in his preface to the NT, he calls it an epistle of straw, not exactly high praise.
Also, in his preface to James, he says, "But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. . . . He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture." (www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html)
Not such high praise either. How can we trust an individual who judges Scripture according to his own theology, rather than vice versa?
On Luther's translation, our concern is not primarily with the words "faith alone" themselves. If inserting "alone" was all he had done, nobody would really care. After all, we believe that, when we are brought into the Kingdom at first, our works are not taken into account. But the words "faith alone" as used by Luther represent an unbiblical doctrine.
Simply the words "faith alone" found in the early church aren't an evidence that the Lutheran doctrine of "faith alone" is indicated. The early church did believe that when we are brought into the Kingdom at first, it is by faith alone, but they didn't hold to the Lutheran view. The early church believed, as Paul, Jesus, and the rest of Scripture teach, that we are justified by works on the last day. God doesn't merely look at an alien righteousness when he judges us.
It's not that we earn our salvation--certainly not! Neither faith nor works can earn salvation. But just as God requires faith as a condition for salvation, he requires works as a condition for salvation.
There was certainly dispute over Hebrews and James in the early church, but those who disputed them had no problem with their theology, so far as I know. Luther did have a problem with the theology of James, so that is a deep concern we would have with Luther.
I hope this makes sense; let me know if I can clarify better.
- Lynn
@SoundFaithChannel I understand what you are saying.
If you don't mind, could you explain what you think the Lutheran view of soteriology is? Because, based on your comments, I'm not sure if you do.
That BLANK SLATE idea sounds good, but it’s not how the early Christians, the recipients of the New Testament books, received them.
For generations, all they had to read was the Old Testament.
ALL of the gospel teaching they had was given to them orally, by the apostles or men whom they had trained.
None of them were blank slates.
From Pentecost on, they were hearing ‘the apostles’ doctrine’ from the men taught by Christ himself.
The first books were written 20-25 years after Christ.
The last over 60 years later.
With persecution and the Roman desire to wipe out their sect by killing the apostles and destroying their writings, it wouldn’t be until Constantine that the scriptures became freely exchanged.
In fact, the oldest intact New Testaments date from the early 300’s. Constantine gave large personal financial contributions to copy scripture so as to reverse the trend of the previous Emperors.
There were spurious other books floating about and even some good books that some held as scripture that were later rejected once the church leaders had time to weigh things and make decisions.
397 A.D. was the date when the Bible canon was settled.
Luther challenged all the books and ended up taking out 7 OT books for good from the Catholic Bible.
He also wanted James,Jude, Hebrews & Revelation out, but Melanchthon got him to keep them, but stick them at the back of his Bible marked ‘not for doctrinal use’.
ERROR IS INEVITABLE WHEN WE DERIVE OUR THEOLOGY FROM THE PREACHINGS AND TEACHINGS OF FALLIBLE MEN TO THE NEGLECT OF THE WORDS OF THE LAW OF THE COVENANT OF THE INFALLIBLE GOD YEHOVAH BY HIS SPIRIT THROUGH HIS PROPHETS IN THE TESTIMONY (TESTAMENT, WITNESS)OF LORD GOD YEHOVAH IN THE BOOK PF YHE LAW, THE PROPHETS AND WRITINGS OF LORD GOD YEHOVAH
Jeremiah 23:35-37 ASV
Thus shall ye say every one to his neighbor, and every one to his brother, What hath Jehovah answered? and, What hath Jehovah spoken? [36] And the burden of Jehovah shall ye mention no more: for every man's own word shall be his burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of Jehovah of hosts our God. [37] Thus shalt thou say to the prophet, What hath Jehovah answered thee? and, What hath Jehovah spoken?
Deuteronomy 13:1-5 ASV
If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he give thee a sign or a wonder, [2] and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; [3] thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams: for Jehovah your God proveth you, to know whether ye love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul. [4] Ye shall walk after Jehovah your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. [5] And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death, because he hath spoken rebellion against Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage, to draw thee aside out of the way which Jehovah thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.
I'm a lifelong Lutheran who has devoted a great deal of time to studying Luther and Lutheran doctrine. I am trying to be charitable but also honest. David Bercot GROSSLY misrepresents Luther. This presentation seems more like a sophomoric hit piece than a historian or theologian giving a well researched presentation. Most of the quotations from Luther are grossly out of context or are things he retracted. Bercot leaves out a massive amount of what Luther taught and wrote in order to assault a caricature of Luther that is so brazen it would make a Roman Catholic polemicist blush.
For example, Bercot takes a snippet of quotation from Luther where he says that he added "alone" to Romans 3:28 because he willed it. This is a gross abuse of what Luther actually said. Here is the full quote.
"Here, in Romans 3[:28], I knew very well that the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text; the papists [Catholics] did not have to teach me that. It is a fact that these four letters s o l a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate. At the same time they do not see that it conveys the sense of the text; it belongs there if the translation is to be clear and vigorous. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had undertaken to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our German language that in speaking of two things, one of which is affirmed and the other denied, we use the word solum (allein) along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say, “The farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; “No, really I have now nicht money, but allein grain”; “I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk”; “Did you allein write it, and nicht read it over?” There are innumerable cases of this kind in daily use.
But to return to the matter in hand! If your papist wants to make so much fuss about the word sola (alone) tell him this, “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says that a papist and an ass are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic jubeo; sit pro ratione voluntas [I will it; I command it; my will is reason enough” is line 223 from the famous sixth satire of the Roman poet Juvenal (ca. a.d. 60-140), directed against the female sex. Luther used the quotation when he wanted to characterize the capricious unlimited power of the pope]. We are not going to be the pupils and disciples of the papists, but their masters and judges. For once, we too are going to be proud and brag with these blockheads; and as St. Paul boasts over against his mad raving saints [II Cor. 11:21ff.], so I shall boast over against these asses of mine. Are they doctors? So am I. Are they learned? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they dialecticians? So am I. Are they lecturers? So am I. Do they write books? So do I.
Let this be the answer to your first question. And please give these asses no other and no further answer to their useless braying about the word sola than simply this, “Luther will have it so, and says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the whole papacy.” It shall stay at that! Henceforth I shall simply hold them in contempt, and have them held in contempt, so long as they are the kind of people-I should say, asses-that they are."
As you can see. Luther is explaining that he translated Romans 3:28 according to German grammatical rules so that it would make sense to the people reading it. He is tired of being harassed by Papists about it and so, in essence, tells them that they have no authority to question him, because he is just as educated as they are. His language is polemic, but Bercot completely fails to acknowledge this. If you actually want to convince people of your position, you have to be honest. Bercot is not honest.
Bercot is also dishonest about Luther's motives. Luther did not want to throw out James, Hebrews, or Revelation. He was simply of the opinion, which was shared by many in the ancient church, that those books were of a more questionable origin than the rest of the New Testament. Even so, Luther quotes from them, reconciled them, and translated them.
@Chemnitz Fan Thanks for sharing your perspective on this. It sounds like there can be more nuance to what Luther was saying, and that it may have sounded worse than he intended it. However, it still seems to me that the issues are still there:
- Luther made an interpretative judgment on what the text of Scripture was saying, one that was original with him, and then enshrined his interpretation into his translation and propagated it as far as possible.
- Luther based his right to do this on his high opinion of himself.
- Luther disliked James, Hebrews, and Revelation in part because they complicated his theology, even if he felt he could reconcile them to it.
I don't know that any of this is in doubt. Is it?
Thus, David's interpretation seems hardly dishonest or a gross interpretation. The issues he points out exist, even if Luther was able to speak of the issues in less shocking ways than it may have sounded from the quotations given. -Lynn
@Sound Faith I think Luther's interpretation can be found in the early church. Origen translated Romans 3:28 as "faith alone." If we are speaking more broadly about the idea of faith alone, "Mathetes Epistle to Diognetus" and "1 Clement" teach a soteriology that is very compatible with Lutheranism. Luther taught that we were saved by faith alone but true faith would produce works.
I don't think Luther's opinion of himself was any higher than David Bercot's opinion of himself.
Luther disliked them because he found that they were disputed in the early church, even some of his contemporary Roman Catholic enemies agreed with him about those books based on history. The greatest two were Erasmus and Cardnial Cajetan. So it wasn't a purely theological reason for Luther, and he wasn't the only one. I think this accusation works both ways. Since one could say that people who think works justify try to downplay Paul's words and redefine the way Paul uses the words "work" and "law".
I am not accusing you of this, but I've run into some people who call themselves "Kingdom Christians" who quote Bercot, and who openly question if Paul was an apostle and treat his epistles as second rate.
@Chemnitz Fan
Thanks for the reply. Our concern is that, though we believe that, when we are brought into the Kingdom at first, our works are not taken into account, the words "faith alone" as used by Luther represent an unbiblical doctrine. Simply the words "faith alone" found in the early church aren't an evidence that the Lutheran doctrine of "faith alone" is indicated.
The early church did believe that when we are brought into the Kingdom at first, it is by faith alone, but they didn't hold to the Lutheran view. The early church believed, as Paul, Jesus, and the rest of Scripture teach, that we are justified by works on the last day. God doesn't merely look at an alien righteousness when he judges us.
It's not that we earn our salvation--certainly not! Neither faith nor works can earn salvation. But just as God requires faith as a condition for salvation, he requires works as a condition for salvation.
There was certainly dispute over Hebrews and James in the early church, but those who disputed them had no problem with their theology, so far as I know. Luther did have a problem with the theology of James, so that is a deep concern we would have with Luther.
I hope this makes sense; let me know if I can clarify better.
You'll be glad to know that David gives absolutely no place to the theory that Paul wasn't an apostle. Just because someone who has heretical views quotes someone else doesn't mean the quoted person agrees with them on their heretical views.
-Lynn
@Sound Faith Lutherans don't believe that faith alone as mere mental acceptance of certain facts can save us. Faith alone justifies us, but true faith will produce works that show our changed heart and the indwelling of Christ. That doesn't sound too different from what you are saying. I think I mentioned that the Epistle to Diognetus and 1 Clement are some of the earliest writings outside the New Testament, and Lutheran soteriology finds much agreement with these texts.
I think you may still be assigning motivations to Luther that he may not have had. For example, if you have text A and you know that is scripture for certain. Then you have text B, which has become accepted as scripture but has a disputed past. Text B says something that, at least on a surface level, appears to conflict with text A. What would you do? I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that Luther started with a theologian position and then chose to ignore certain books. I think the truth is more nuanced. He also evolved as he studied more. He eventually found a way to reconcile Paul and James.
I would agree that there is a lot diversity of belief out there and I am glad Bercot doesn't question Paul's apostleship.
Anyways, thank you for listening and having a fair, respectful conversation. The internet is often so I am glad things didn't go that way. 🙂
@chemnitzfan654 Thanks for the reply. I'm familiar with the view that faith alone justifies but that works are a consequence of true faith. Our concern is that that doesn't seem to be the only way Scripture speaks of works. There are many passages in the New Testament where we are told that our works justify us on judgment day. As far as I can tell, that's something that Luther would have disagreed with.
And I definitely appreciate the respectful conversation as well! God bless. -Lynn
Why do you say these doctrines originate with Luther, rather than with Augustine for many of them?
Because Bercot has a very limited understanding of church history.
Love it! Taking lots of notes.
6:22 Does Calvinist really believe man doesn't have free will or do they believe that man does have the freedom to choose between sin or Righteousness but although he does do right sometimes his nature is bent towards sin.
Good question. Yes, it's hard to believe, but Calvinists actually do believe that humans do not have free will. They believe that God chooses who will sin or do good, as well as the exact sins and good deeds those people will do. They don't believe that man just has a bent toward sin, but that God has ordained that they will necessarily sin. -Lynn
@@SoundFaithChannel ❤
Thanks for sharing this wonderful message. 🙏
This man doesn't like Martin Luther and he is a liar. Martin Luther never said not to read the New Testament
@INNOCENT PRINCESS Of course not. That's why David didn't say that Luther said that. However, he did quote directly from Luther, where Luther claimed that some of the New Testament books were barely worth reading. -Lynn
EXCELLENT! Do you know if Mr. Bercot is able to make his notes available via a link above or on a separate website? If not, no worry, just thought I'd ask - thx.
I will ask him if his notes are available. You may have to wait until his Romans commentary comes out, because I am guessing he is pulling from that work.
@@SoundFaithChannel makes sense, no worries. I'm patient. I already bought his Book of Matthew. :-)
They offer an online class which have his notes in the teaching.
@@SoundFaithChannel is his commentary out yet?
@@freeindeed51 not yet he is taking a break from writing it. He will continue it in a few months. Lord willing.
14:35 This is so funny 😂🤣
Sorry, but you are being misleading. What you quoted from Luther was that he thought those specific books were of the most benefit for people to learn. You didn't quote him saying that the other books should be discarded! Romans really IS the NT in capsule form, and John's gospel is Jesus in His full divine nature. It appeared that he said IF you only had those books, you would know Jesus and His Gospel sufficiently. Salvation is by God's grace, not faith and works. Salvation is the gift of God. Works are not required for salvation or it wouldn't be Jesus's sacrifice and the gift of God, it would also be man working for it.
It appeared that he considered some of the other books to probably be more difficult to understand and coordinate with his "top" books, and they would be to a new believer. He was, in effect, a new believer from his RCC indoctrination. You didn't quote him claiming those books had a bad reputation, just a different reputation; and so they did. What is important about Revelation is that it is historically difficult to understand. Scripture even says that understanding will increase as we get closer to the events of Revelation, and that is what we see today.
The Great White throne judgment is of all the lost, not all who have ever lived. Those who are saved in Christ are not among these people. Read the context.
@joycegreer9391 Have you read what Luther wrote about the book of James? It seems pretty cringe-worthy to me.
Could you point me to the context that shows that Christians aren't included in the last judgment? -Lynn
Thank you for this series and for pointing out these terrible flaws with the theology of the heretic Luther. I used to be a big Luther fan, but in the process of becoming Orthodox I came to see the deep flaws in his theology
When you want to feel like you are walking with the Lord while living in sin, just find a church that teaches the doctrines of Luther. Chances are you will find even some of the church elders will be divorced and remarried, and the door greater will be wearing yoga pants. Face-palm🙈
The only "Kingdom Christian" I know who never stops talking about David Bercot is divorced and remarried. His wife wears yoga pants.
If you want the true gospel, find a Lutheran Church that holds to scripture and the Book of Concord.
15:01 Luther saying we could skip the first 3 gospels; check source
22:45 great point but then saying "we've got to take everything that the NT says" re salvation is far too general of terminology. You can't just say to an inmate w/ limited education "just read thru the nt"; we need to have a succinct concise concept that can be clearly imparted to the hearer and then supplementally have then read thru the NT regularly for the rest of their christian experience. To say any of us know all the nt or fully obey the nt is nonsensical. Perhaps you may not sin willfully, as you shouldn't but no one is walking in its fulness which means we need to summize it more clearly and accurately which will then draw others into the lifelong experience of knowing and obeying the nt in fullness. Just saying "we believe the whole nt" doesn't cut it. No one prophesied in this service-Paul says "all may prophecy" in 1 cor 14-just an example of many other deficiencies we all have individually and corporately
24:30 rev2:10 to him who overcomes and endures "not osas" exactly. The crown is clearly just slavation
26:30 "my will is reason enough!" Check source; he's not sure leo x talked like that but he certainly did
There is so much nonsense in this video. Luther was used mightily by God to bring the Gospel back to light in a world that was suppressed by the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Salvation by faith alone doesn’t mean that followers of Christ bear no fruit. Jesus said believers and unbelievers are known by their fruit. Salvation by faith alone also doesn’t mean that you just throw out doctrine. Correct doctrine is correct belief in the correct savior. You mentioned that Jehovah’s witnesses have faith, but they have faith in a false Christ. They believe that Christ is a god and not the only God. Roman Catholics believe that faith initially saves you, but then you have to keep their rules in order to maintain your salvation. That’s heresy and heresy does not save, but it condemns. Also, Luther’s teaching against works righteousness was the exact same thing that Paul wrote against in Ephesians 2:8-9 and in Romans 3:20 when he says that nobody will be justified by works of the law. We are spiritually dead sinners who have no hope in trusting Christ unless God draws us to himself as Jesus said. Our will is in bondage to sin and we will always run away from God unless he comes to us and changes our heart. Another point you made is that Luther taught eternal security. How is eternal life actually eternal if one can lose their salvation? Jesus said he would lose none that the father gave him, speaking of his sheep, those who trust in him. I felt the need to debunk the main points of this message because true Christianity was majorly misrepresented.
To understand the New Testament, you have to start with Jesus Chris and his gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).
To understand the New, you have to understand the Law and prophets
You have it backwards! The New is the Key to understanding the Old Law and Prophets. In the Gospel of Luke (24:13-32) Jesus opens the understanding of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus by revealing the true meaning of the Law and the Prophets which they did not understand.
Now watch a show called Adam ruines everything show and see how the next understands things now. Nothing New Under The Son Of God and he is same as well and his name Is JESUS CHRIST!!
What do you mean?
Heard them all. Lol
good morning. there is some TRUTH in this video but sir why would you try to compare laws of the land to GOD'S law? sure we are told to drive 55 but we obey the laws of the land because we do not want a ticket or go to jail. we obey because of fear. GOD'S law IS impossible to do because it requires a circumcision of the heart made without hands. YES Luther was very wrong about THE WORKS but you are not any better sir. because GOOD works are the result of our being saved NOT the reason for our salvation. and the good works were preordained for the TRUE believers before the world began. Ephesians 2:10 so no we do not have free will. is an illusion. GOD'S foreknowledge destroys free will and i tell you this, if free will existed than is totally broken. how is it that we have free will yet not one person has not sinned aside from JESUS? for crying out loud even JESUS said that without GOD HIS FATHER HE could do nothing. John 5:30.
I prefer to think we have will. In His providence, our Creator had invited us to exercise will in order to get things done in order to fulfil the commands to multiply and care for creation. Without will nothing gets done, it is the engine of life, what scripture calls the heart. And one thing our will is capable of is to respond to the good news of Jesus and then to continue to follow Him by becoming His apprentices. These are daily choices involving aligning my desires and actions (my will) with His as far as I am able by the power of His Spirit. I find the whole free will/predestination such a false dichotomy. I prefer to pray that daily His will be done as I offer Him my will.
@@manuelasilva9359 good morning. I do not disagree that we have a will but that our will is free that is a lie from the pits of hell and is why you do not find free will in the scriptures but you do find the opposite of free will. GOD is perfect and is why HE does not change because you can't change perfection. All that had happened, is happening and will happen in our lives has been written perfectly for us. Psalm 139:16 ...scriptures tell us we all are sinners. If free will is TRUE how can GOD te us we are all sinners and come short of HIS glory? ...Manuela the problem with religion and those who defend free will is that they dispise THE WORD OF GOD. not purposely but they do because scriptures are clear. That we are sinners, weak flesh, beasts, worms, etc....but is also in the scriptures that GOD takes responsibility and HE washed us all of all of our infirmities through the sacrifice of HIS SON JESUS CHRIST. our sins certainly are paid for but our salvation was not accomplished at the cross. Because our salvation involves change of character and is where I am today. My character has to be as JESUS CHARACHTER but I'm not naive. I like Paul in [Romans chapter 7] also struggle. With the mind I serve the law of GOD but with the flesh the law of sin. Who knew sin was a law huh.
Gilbert, many of these doctrines that you are supporting were not taught by the Christians in the days of the apostles and their successors. Determinism was actually taught by the gnostics. Many people believe that the Bible teaches such and such, when it was actually a theological belief for which the inventor cherry-picked Bible verses to support. Now when we read the Bible, we see those verses and may think they prove what we believe, but only because we've been conditioned to think that. It might be helpful for you to search into what the early Christians, those taught by the apostles, believed. -Lynn
@@SoundFaithChannel thank you for your response.
Now as for you thinking that that my belief[s] are those of the gnostics I'm here to tell you that I know not such religion. Never studied them nor have I ever been inspired to DO so. My authority are the scriptures and it is the holy spirit that has led me in my search and this journey for 17 years now. I fellowship with like minded folks who search the scriptures as I do but I belong not to any denomination. It is true that determinism has always been abused but I do beleive in determinism but I also know we reap what we sow.
Thank you, Gilbert. I didn't mean to say that you are a Gnostic--I'm sure you aren't! I was just saying that no Christians believed in determinism until Augustine. Augustine came to the church from the Gnostic religion, and apparently brought that belief along with him. A good read on this is The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism by Ken Wilson. Also, thehistoricfaith.com has a very good course on Calvinism. We do not find determinism in Scripture. It was when Luther and Calvin drew on Augustine in order to re-interpret Scripture that these ideas made it into the church. A careful reading of Scripture shows that determinism was read into Scripture--it didn't result from Scripture. Keep reading the Scriptures and seeking the Holy Spirit's guidance, and I'm sure he will lead you right. -Lynn
Why lie about Martin Luther is my question. He wrote the German Bible old and new testament so the people had their own bibles.... what a disgraceful liar
@INNOCENT PRINCESS Martin Luther certainly did many good things; however, he did some very concerning things as well. But I'm curious. What statement about Luther in this video wasn't true? -Lynn
Will you speek on the called Mandela Effect and speak? Yes I say speek and speak !
Can you explain? You are talking over my head a little.