Thank you for covering this denomination! I had always faintly hoped you would, but knowing it to be quite small in relative terms, didn't think it would happen! I don't personally have positive experiences with the denomination, though my experience is limited to only one location. However, this video very much explains what I know the theology to be. I love being able to point people to your videos when discussing my experiences with different Christian groups, use them in homeschooling my kids in world religions, and I generally watch every video you post! I love your content❤ thank you, again!
I'm a member of the Religious Society of Friends, commonly called Quakers. The dividing lines between Quaker communities are pretty strong, and I think you'd do a good job describing all our particular branches without flattering any of us. I would like to see that.
I didn't realise the Bible Presbyterian Church in Singapore is actually Bible-Presbyterian with a dash until I watched this video. They split from the Presbyterian Church in 1955, and in 1988 they voted to dissolve the Synod. So each church is independent, though maintaining the BP name.
Fascinating. They’ve basically turned into Congregationalists by abandoning Presbyterian polity while keeping the rest of the Reformed tradition. The whole Presbyterian-Congregationalists-Continental Reformed relationship is very interesting. If polity wasn’t an issue there probably wouldn’t have been a divide between Presbyterians and Congregationalists, but over time small divergence occurred. TBH, whats the difference between the Congregational Church and the Presbyterian Church, they are both traditionallly Reformed and Calvinistic, neither are Continental Reformed (although theologically speaking there isn’t much difference), they all hold to infant baptism, spiritual presence, etc.; the only thing separating them is polity where Congregationists use Comgregational polity while Presbyterians have Presbyterian polity and Continental Reformed are diverse polity-wise with some being congregational, presbyterian, or episcopal; although all three groups are very identical there are a few after-effect divergences, mostly on very minute things that won’t impede fellowship, communion, or cooperation and are all considered sub-groups of the (Classical) Reformed tradition.
in recent times, some of the independent BP churches have reformed their presbyteries, interestingly, into two main groups: 1. The Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore (BPCIS), and 2. Presbytery of Singapore Bible-Presbyterian Churches (PSBPC). there are still other independent BP churches not with these two main groups.
@apPLAUd113 this information is new to me, though I am Singaporean and live in Singapore. Just found out the Calvary (Jurong) BP Church in my residential area belong to PSBPC.
@@leullakew9579Congregationalists typically come from Baptists and their Baptist ecclesiology which accounts for their membership practices within their local church (outside of a larger denominational structure).
@@seonggkim Nope, it’s the other way around, Baptist are more so Congregationalist-lite, as in they share congregational polity but don’t support infant baptism (support believer’s baptism), (most don’t subscribe to) real presence/spiritual presence in communion (subscribe to memorialism), and aren’t inherently Reformed in theology and/or Calvinistic in soteriology (Baptist subscribing to a diversity of theological, hermeneutical, abd soteriological views - with soteriological views including Arminian, Calvinist, Provisionist, and/or Lutheran soteriology unlike Congregationalists that are wholly within the Reformed tradition like the Presbyterians).
Listening in at the first few minutes of the video truly shocked me. How can anyone deny the virgin birth and still call themselves, "Christians?" That is something so core and basic to the beliefs of the faith. To not believe something so core, THAT IS IN THE TEXT ITSELF MULTIPLE TIMES, is insane to me. If you can pick and choose what to believe in the bible like that, especially with core values, why in the world would you follow this faith to any degree in the first place? If the God who inspired the scripture is a liar, then he is not God; he would then be a man who would have died in the first century A.D. , and you shouldn't believe him, much less his religion he created. These denominational videos are awesome in explaining how different denominations came into being, and are always appreciated!
My understanding is that they believe that the narrative of the virgin birth was added to the Gospel writings after the fact to bolster Jesus's messianic creds. I'm unclear what the current scholarly consensus is on that view.
@thealienrobotanthropologist Redeemed Zoomer is not a good source for scholarly information about religion, he is trying to push an agenda and disguise it as scholarly discourse. He is sorely misinformed and does not have the scholarly experience needed to deal with the topics he discusses, which is ironic since he wants to change things in the PC(USA), a tradition that highly values learned teachers and requires ministers of word and sacrament to have formal degrees in theology. Also, BPC =/= PC(USA)
@@thealienrobotanthropologist The ultimate fate of the PCUSA is to become a clone of the United Church of Canada here in the United States, if in fact they are not already there.
The scholarly consensus is that in the original hebrew, the Isiah prophecy simply says "young woman" not virgin. When it was translated into the Septuagint, it was translated as "virgin." So there's one reason to question the virgin birthm
One might think dispensationalism is a Baptist doctrine, but when it came to America via Darby, it was received first by Presbyterians. James H. Brookes, a 19th century Presbyterian minister, is the namesake of a Bible college in St. Louis.
I'm interested in any details you can provide (preferably with references) about when U.S. citizens first adopted Darby's eschatology and when and the rate at which it spread in the United States, especially in the nineteenth century but also from then until now.
What is dispensationalism? Does it have anything to do with the the dispensation of grace being given to Paul to us? It seems like you’re the type of person that believes God promised you land in the Middle East.
@@rogermetzger7335I got that little factoid from a lecture by Bruce Gore that was on RUclips. I thought it was interesting being from St. Louis. As far as popularity, it grew in popularity after being spread in Bible prophecy conferences and literature by students of Darby and Brookes.
@@michaelrobinson28314Dispensationalism’s key distinctive is that the Church and Israel are two different peoples. God has not revoked His OT promises to Israel, nor has He replaced Israel with the Church. Their premillennial eschatology is distinguished by insisting the Church will be translated or raptured to Heaven before the great tribulation. All ethnic Israel will be saved after that.
@@Stonebap47 wait so why did Jesus have to send Paul to the gentiles if everyone is the same in Gods eyes? If the church and Israel are the same when will God give us the land in the Middle East that he promised?
Great video: my Uncle the Rev John Janbaz was a member of John MacIntire's church in the40- 50 and taught Hebrew at temple University in the early 60's . He was denominational secretary at their governance meetings before moving to San Bernardino and Pastoring a small church, along with my grandparents who also moved out to California in the 60's .
I think it'd be beneficial to see a breakdown of the Wesleyan Holiness congregations. Many broke away from Methodism toward the end of the 19th Century. I was born into the Bible Missionary Church. Which is a second generation from Methodism coming out of the Nazarene Church in the 1950s along with the Wesleyan Holiness Church.
You can't find a total prohibition of alcohol in the Bible. Drunkenness and taking strong drink are condemned, but the Saviour did turn water into wine for a wedding feast, and St Paul recommended to Timothy to take a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine oft infirmities. So, they are mandating something which is not in the Bible, undermining their claim to be solely Biblical. Interestingly, they do mention wine in connection with Holy Communion.
This used to be the BPC position but it is not their position today. The BPC only condemns drunkenness. Some of their congregations serve wine at the Lord's Supper.
All the Bible only communities ignore bits of the Bible. Biblical means we follow (and ignore) the teachings of God found in the Bible, it’s kind of their cool special thing they do 😌
My guess is that, before watching this video, not one U.S. citizen in ten had any idea there was so much divergence on so many doctrines among presbyterians. I had no idea.
Presbyterianism is a smaller denomination than RCC, Greek and other Eastern Orthodox, Episcopal, Baptist, Lutheran,Methodist and even some of the other miscellaneous dissenter protestant and revelation churches. So that is likely correct. The Northern Presbyterian Church in America was one of the first to start following the secularist nature of the 1900 era "new society" engineers. Today we call that woke progressives. When the SE Presbyterians merged back with the Northern Presbyterians in the 70s, many were shocked to hear the crud that was coming out of the home office and pulpits in NYC, Philly, Boston. Today you will find some of the most Libertine ideas coming from the typical Presbyterian Churches...and some real shockers from sermons by modern ministers.
A brief background sketch regarding the theological background would have been helpful for viewers. See the short and concise THE WORD OF GOD AND THE MIND OF MAN, Ronald Nash.
The thumbnail picture is my parents’ church in Cape Canaveral, FL. My grandparents attended the same as “snowbirds.” I’ve been visiting that church periodically for over 3 decades.
It's good to hear that the BPC normally have the Lord's Supper every Lord's Day, but it's a shame that this is made dependent on the presence of a pastor or other minister. No such restriction can be found in the scripture. I suppose this may be insisted upon by the BPC because they - quite rightly - have a 'fenced table', and the 'fencing' is percieved to require administration by an ordained minister. But, again, if we look to scripture, we find the injunction to protect the Lord's rights and the holiness of His table, but never the requirement for a 'minister' to afford this protection.
When I break bread and take The Cup , I'm at home , at the family table , My company is The Holy Spirit , and The Lord's presence , we sup , in agreement , and HE ministers to me , I'm 72 and love good company , have done for over 45 years now , God Bless you all ,.❤
@@angelashort1331 That is beautifully put, and very affecting. That experience of assembling around the Lord's table and truly being at home, because He is there... that is such a wonderful thing. We can call nowhere 'home' where He is not.
Do a video on The Local Churches, aka The Lord's Recovery, the Living Stream Ministry, largely headed by Witness Lee and Watchman Nee. There are tens of thousands of their members worldwide, and many say they're a Christian cult.
Sounds very like the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster started by the late Ian Paisley. The only difference would be eschatology, not all Free Presbyerians being pre-millennial but Ian Paisley was.
"We believe that some men are foreordained to everlasting death." "We believe that Christ's atonement is freely offered to all men." -Something here does not compute.
@@KingoftheJuice18 - The atonement is sufficient for all mankind. And, yes, not efficacious for all. You got that right. We're not all going to Heaven.
@@JohnnyRep-u4e No, it's not "sufficient" for all mankind, according to the doctrine of predestination, because God doesn't give everyone the opportunity to be saved. Atonement is NOT "offered" to them. Read this church's actual words.
@@KingoftheJuice18 - I am speaking to the "work" of the atonement. It is fully sufficient for the sin inherent in mankind. The efficaciousness of it (the "work" of the atonement) upon individuals is, necessarily, limited to a smaller number.
As a WELS member, the difference between BPC and us seem to be only the traditional differences between Lutherans and Calvinists. The BPC is much more closer to the truth than the ELCA.
Sure. The "Universal offer of the Gospel" or "Free Offer of the Gospel" is not the same as "Unlimited Atonement." Calvinist groups that reject the offer of the gospel are generally considered "Hypercalvinist" by other Calvinists. Two examples of groups that reject the offer of the Gospel are "Gospel Standard Strict Baptists" and the "Protestant Reformed Church." All mainstream Calvinist groups agree With the free offer. Here's what Charles Hodge said on the matter: "Paul considered it as involved in what he had already said, and especially in the predictions of the ancient prophets, that it was the will of God that all men should call upon him. This being the case, he argues to prove that it was his will that the gospel should be preached to all. As invocation implies faith, as faith implies knowledge, knowledge instruction, and instruction an instructor, so it is plain that if God would have all men to call upon him, he designed preachers to be sent to all, whose proclamation of mercy being heard, might be believed, and being believed, might lead men to call on him and be saved. This is agreeable to the prediction of Isaiah, who foretold that the advent of the preachers of the gospel should be hailed with great and universal joy. According to this, which is the common and most natural view of the passage, it is an argument founded on the principle, that if God wills the end, he wills also the means; if he would have the Gentiles saved, according to the predictions of his prophets, he would have the gospel preached to them."
Never were officially so, but it was definitely tolerated before 1956. It should be noted, too, that there were many dispensationalists among the more conservative members of the PCUSA at the time the BPC/OPC was formed. Today, as the video indicated, the BPC, General Synod, is composed of postmill, amills, and premills.
Curious that they embrace (and for a time demanded) eschatology consistent only with dispensationalism, yet condemn dispensationalism itself. I mean, they'd have to condemn it--it's completely inconsistent with the covenant theology of Westminster--but how they then turn around and embrace its eschatology is a mystery.
Treating others as you wish to be treated is the golden rule. Political correctness has Neverending and ever expanding ways of altering language from one minute to the next.
The Bible Presbyterian Church in Singapore no longer a single denomination, though each church still maintains the BP name, but there is no longer a synod, so each BP church is independent.
@@jamesparke6252 They’ve basically turned into Congregationalists by abandoning Presbyterian polity while keeping the rest of the Reformed tradition. The whole Presbyterian-Congregationalists-Continental Reformed relationship is very interesting. If polity wasn’t an issue there probably wouldn’t have been a divide between Presbyterians and Congregationalists, but over time small divergence occurred. TBH, whats the difference between the Congregational Church and the Presbyterian Church, they are both traditionallly Reformed and Calvinistic, neither are Continental Reformed (although theologically speaking there isn’t much difference), they all hold to infant baptism, spiritual presence, etc.; the only thing separating them is polity where Congregationists use Comgregational polity while Presbyterians have Presbyterian polity and Continental Reformed are diverse polity-wise with some being congregational, presbyterian, or episcopal; although all three groups are very identical there are a few after-effect divergences, mostly on very minute things that won’t impede fellowship, communion, or cooperation and are all considered sub-groups of the (Classical) Reformed tradition.
So... in other words, they're Presbyterian but believe 98% of Baptist doctrines. How much more of this "I'm Baptist but don't want to call myself one"?
Have you done one on the Cumberland Presbyterian Church yet? They are kind of dying out in my area, but they still have their seminary in Memphis is going well. I think they have more liberal, but they have some conservative congregations.
Follow JESUS obey him show him you love him i dont care what you call yourslef put your faith in christ and yoyr my brother do what he says and your my brother!! Read tour bible and tour my brother!!
Maybe I am missing something, but if some men and angels are condemned from the beginning, how can all be called to salvation in an honest sense of the word? I am sure Calvin had an answer, but does it make any sense?
At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children
@@stephanterblanche4597 The emphasis on, or distortion of faith to the exclusion of love has inadvertently made the protestant branch of Christianity produce some of the most heinous cults known to man. Classical protestantism used to be a liberating movement due to the rise of the printing press allowing for the facilitation of literacy rates. But in the modern era, it has devolved to "whoever is literate enough to read the bible has authority to start his own infallible teaching tradition" hence the dozen of sects flowing from the branch.
@@Stonebap47 It doesn't matter. This church's statement says that faith alone establishes salvation, and James says faith without works is not faith at all. James doesn't recognize what the church says is the most important thing.
@@KingoftheJuice18Ephesians 2:8-9 says faith without works saves us. And the fact that you can’t name what works we need to have to save us is puzzling. That makes the Gospel a mirky man centered doctrine.
@KingoftheJuice18, you're strawmaning "Faith alone " True Faith is never alone . Salvation produces good works: good works don't produce Salvation. God sees the Heart and doesn't need our works to know we are Saved by his giving of the Holy Spirit to us. Only people need to see our good works as an evidence of someone's Salvation. James is speaking from this human perspective whereas Paul speaks from God's perspective that only Jesus Saves us by his atonement and our repentance and acceptance of Christ work on the Cross for us.
It could also be that James is condemning those who show now evidence of regeneration and yet claim that their faith will save them, or in our modern vernacular, "God knows my heart, man." or "Only God can judge me man". James and Hebrews both point to Abraham, faith alone saves, yet real faith shows evidence.
In the age of infinite information (and infinite denominations), it is clearer and clearer that the original apostolic faith traditions (Anglo/Roman/Armenian* Catholic, Orthodox) are the only ones that make sense. *edit: can’t forget my Armenian Catholic bros.
Not at all. And those who live in traditionally Catholic countries like me know how corrupt the RCA can be and the traditional protestant churches are healthier
As a soon to be Protestant to Orthodox convert I mostly agree. Protestantism was founded by man. The Church was founded by Christ. It is extremely hard to reconcile these obvious truths for me.
The fact that a modern Protestant would condemn almost every doctrine and practice of the church as it existed just 150 years after Christ’s death…when those who were personally trained by the apostles were in charge…says it all
Denominations that claim to believe the Bible is inerrant, yet say pouring and sprinkling are just as valid as fully immersed baptism are contradicting themselves. Nowhere in the Bible is baby baptism, sprinkling or pouring taught as a form of baptism. Jesus Himself was fully immersed in the Jordan River. Why must people contradict this?
Infant baptism is very much so biblical. There are twice as many verses in the Bible talking about child/infant baptism and circumcision than adult baptism and circumcision (I don’t mean either baptism or circumcision, I mean either baptism or baptism + circumcision, I hope I get that across through text, I’m not great with writing so I apologize if I don’t). Ligonier Ministries or The Gospel Coalition (if I’m remembering correctly) has a great article on infant baptism, and also on the acceptability of baptism by pouring (as affirmed by early Church documents).
I'm not a 7th day Adventist, but having live d 45 yrs as brethren , and lately baptist , and having studied and lived in Israel for some time , I'm convinced , until we fully RE, MEMBER CHRIST , AS OUR JEWISH SAVIOUR , , until we put , PUT Him Back together , amongst ourselves and all who obey His True WAY THE WAY, then we will continue , in strife. HIS WORD TELLS US TO STAY ALWAYS ,WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES WHERE GODS LOVE CAN REACH AND BLESS US, first century ecclesia , the called out ones, kept Sabbath , I believe it was wrong , to move outside THATboundary , The true Sabbath , keeps us , as we keep true Sabbath . As Jesus, Yeshuas followers , we obey the other 9 commandments, by His Grace, yet we deliberately refuse Shabbat, ?why.?❤
Critical Race Theory (CRT), especially in it’s proper application in law and public policy isn’t actually taught in K-12 education, it mostly gets glossed over in undergraduate studies relative to other subject areas, and is mostly taught in law school. But there are many conservatives that don’t know what Critical Race Theory is and use it gaslight people who accurately teach history or don’t push the American exceptionalism propaganda, then there are fringe groups of liberals and progressives with White Savior Complexes and support the notion of White Guilt (Collective Guilt)/White Fragility who misuse CRT as a framework for everyday social interactions in a patronizing way that panders to People of Color (POC) and teaches children and others to do the same thing (aka White people shaming each other for being White, etc. which most POC see as counterproductive, patronizing, pandering, and nearly psychologically abusive). Critical Race Theory is a scholarly legal framework and legal theory for understanding how the law and legal institutions perpetuate and reinforce racial hierarchies and inequalities. It critiques the idea that the law is neutral and objective, and instead argues that the law and legal systems are deeply intertwined with and shaped by issues of race and racism. CRT scholars in legal studies examine how the law constructs race, how legal rules and practices have been used to maintain and reproduce racial hierarchies, racial discrimination, and how social movements and communities of color have resisted and challenged these systems. This is a clear definition of what CRT is but many conservatives and some liberals/progressives misattribute different and erroneous definitions for it.
I there's definitely an equivocation going on in your statement. Science isn't a monolith. Astrology and geology are very different fields from biology and medicine. While we can very clearly see that cosmetic surgeries aren't something affirming a scientific theory, we can also acknowledge that the scientific inferences we make about how the universe was created are still open to questions. These are different theories in different fields of science using very different methods and having different types of evidence for inference.
@@einzelwolf3437 There is no legitimate scientific data open to the interpretation that the universe, or even our earth, is about 6000 years old. If one believes in "Young Earth Creationism," they stand in complete defiance of every known canon of science. In fact, I would argue that the science of medicine is much more subject to human values and interpretation than the age of the universe.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Sneaking [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ILUps2zDFU/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for covering this denomination! I had always faintly hoped you would, but knowing it to be quite small in relative terms, didn't think it would happen!
I don't personally have positive experiences with the denomination, though my experience is limited to only one location. However, this video very much explains what I know the theology to be. I love being able to point people to your videos when discussing my experiences with different Christian groups, use them in homeschooling my kids in world religions, and I generally watch every video you post!
I love your content❤ thank you, again!
Surreal to see the thumbnail of a church I'd pass by every day on my way to work
Yeah, it was weird to see him quote someone I know in the ARP video.
Very thorough and well done. Great content.
Wow, that's quite the swing back and forth on the eschatology!
I'm a member of the Religious Society of Friends, commonly called Quakers. The dividing lines between Quaker communities are pretty strong, and I think you'd do a good job describing all our particular branches without flattering any of us. I would like to see that.
Thank you for doing this. I have been wanting this one for a long time!
Nice seing more videos about the P & R world. I'm still waiting for the video about the CanRC!
As always, l appreciate the efforts you put into educating me.
Another great informative video. Thank you.
Thank you for the great video.
Based! Been talking about and researching these Presbys for months now. So happy we get a RTH vid
Prespyterian/Prespyterians.
@@lilajagears8317 I’m trying hard to get this. But I don’t
In 1972, I met Dr. Carl McIntire.
God bless you so much
Great video!! Keep up the good work brother!
I didn't realise the Bible Presbyterian Church in Singapore is actually Bible-Presbyterian with a dash until I watched this video. They split from the Presbyterian Church in 1955, and in 1988 they voted to dissolve the Synod. So each church is independent, though maintaining the BP name.
Fascinating. They’ve basically turned into Congregationalists by abandoning Presbyterian polity while keeping the rest of the Reformed tradition. The whole Presbyterian-Congregationalists-Continental Reformed relationship is very interesting. If polity wasn’t an issue there probably wouldn’t have been a divide between Presbyterians and Congregationalists, but over time small divergence occurred.
TBH, whats the difference between the Congregational Church and the Presbyterian Church, they are both traditionallly Reformed and Calvinistic, neither are Continental Reformed (although theologically speaking there isn’t much difference), they all hold to infant baptism, spiritual presence, etc.; the only thing separating them is polity where Congregationists use Comgregational polity while Presbyterians have Presbyterian polity and Continental Reformed are diverse polity-wise with some being congregational, presbyterian, or episcopal; although all three groups are very identical there are a few after-effect divergences, mostly on very minute things that won’t impede fellowship, communion, or cooperation and are all considered sub-groups of the (Classical) Reformed tradition.
in recent times, some of the independent BP churches have reformed their presbyteries, interestingly, into two main groups: 1. The Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore (BPCIS), and 2. Presbytery of Singapore Bible-Presbyterian Churches (PSBPC). there are still other independent BP churches not with these two main groups.
@apPLAUd113 this information is new to me, though I am Singaporean and live in Singapore. Just found out the Calvary (Jurong) BP Church in my residential area belong to PSBPC.
@@leullakew9579Congregationalists typically come from Baptists and their Baptist ecclesiology which accounts for their membership practices within their local church (outside of a larger denominational structure).
@@seonggkim Nope, it’s the other way around, Baptist are more so Congregationalist-lite, as in they share congregational polity but don’t support infant baptism (support believer’s baptism), (most don’t subscribe to) real presence/spiritual presence in communion (subscribe to memorialism), and aren’t inherently Reformed in theology and/or Calvinistic in soteriology (Baptist subscribing to a diversity of theological, hermeneutical, abd soteriological views - with soteriological views including Arminian, Calvinist, Provisionist, and/or Lutheran soteriology unlike Congregationalists that are wholly within the Reformed tradition like the Presbyterians).
I really enjoy these 👍✝️
I had friends in a Bible Presbyterian church when I was in High School- Grand Island, NY.
Listening in at the first few minutes of the video truly shocked me. How can anyone deny the virgin birth and still call themselves, "Christians?"
That is something so core and basic to the beliefs of the faith. To not believe something so core, THAT IS IN THE TEXT ITSELF MULTIPLE TIMES, is insane to me. If you can pick and choose what to believe in the bible like that, especially with core values, why in the world would you follow this faith to any degree in the first place? If the God who inspired the scripture is a liar, then he is not God; he would then be a man who would have died in the first century A.D. , and you shouldn't believe him, much less his religion he created.
These denominational videos are awesome in explaining how different denominations came into being, and are always appreciated!
My understanding is that they believe that the narrative of the virgin birth was added to the Gospel writings after the fact to bolster Jesus's messianic creds. I'm unclear what the current scholarly consensus is on that view.
@thealienrobotanthropologist Redeemed Zoomer is not a good source for scholarly information about religion, he is trying to push an agenda and disguise it as scholarly discourse. He is sorely misinformed and does not have the scholarly experience needed to deal with the topics he discusses, which is ironic since he wants to change things in the PC(USA), a tradition that highly values learned teachers and requires ministers of word and sacrament to have formal degrees in theology.
Also, BPC =/= PC(USA)
@@thealienrobotanthropologist That is the main reason that, when I went back to Presbyterianism, I joined an Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.
@@thealienrobotanthropologist The ultimate fate of the PCUSA is to become a clone of the United Church of Canada here in the United States, if in fact they are not already there.
The scholarly consensus is that in the original hebrew, the Isiah prophecy simply says "young woman" not virgin. When it was translated into the Septuagint, it was translated as "virgin." So there's one reason to question the virgin birthm
One might think dispensationalism is a Baptist doctrine, but when it came to America via Darby, it was received first by Presbyterians. James H. Brookes, a 19th century Presbyterian minister, is the namesake of a Bible college in St. Louis.
I'm interested in any details you can provide (preferably with references) about when U.S. citizens first adopted Darby's eschatology and when and the rate at which it spread in the United States, especially in the nineteenth century but also from then until now.
What is dispensationalism? Does it have anything to do with the the dispensation of grace being given to Paul to us? It seems like you’re the type of person that believes God promised you land in the Middle East.
@@rogermetzger7335I got that little factoid from a lecture by Bruce Gore that was on RUclips. I thought it was interesting being from St. Louis. As far as popularity, it grew in popularity after being spread in Bible prophecy conferences and literature by students of Darby and Brookes.
@@michaelrobinson28314Dispensationalism’s key distinctive is that the Church and Israel are two different peoples. God has not revoked His OT promises to Israel, nor has He replaced Israel with the Church. Their premillennial eschatology is distinguished by insisting the Church will be translated or raptured to Heaven before the great tribulation. All ethnic Israel will be saved after that.
@@Stonebap47 wait so why did Jesus have to send Paul to the gentiles if everyone is the same in Gods eyes? If the church and Israel are the same when will God give us the land in the Middle East that he promised?
Great video: my Uncle the Rev John Janbaz was a member of John MacIntire's church in the40- 50 and taught Hebrew at temple University in the early 60's .
He was denominational secretary at their governance meetings before moving to San Bernardino and Pastoring a small church, along with my grandparents who also moved out to California in the 60's .
San Bernardino was still nice back then, I have only seen pictures
I think it'd be beneficial to see a breakdown of the Wesleyan Holiness congregations. Many broke away from Methodism toward the end of the 19th Century. I was born into the Bible Missionary Church. Which is a second generation from Methodism coming out of the Nazarene Church in the 1950s along with the Wesleyan Holiness Church.
You should do a video about the Community of Christ. A very interesting and surprisingly large group.
You Should make a video on the Anglican Catholic Church. Just Sayin'.
Yes, that would be good. Other Continuing Anglican groups like the APA, ACA, EMC, and APCK also.
You can't find a total prohibition of alcohol in the Bible. Drunkenness and taking strong drink are condemned, but the Saviour did turn water into wine for a wedding feast, and St Paul recommended to Timothy to take a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine oft infirmities. So, they are mandating something which is not in the Bible, undermining their claim to be solely Biblical. Interestingly, they do mention wine in connection with Holy Communion.
This used to be the BPC position but it is not their position today. The BPC only condemns drunkenness. Some of their congregations serve wine at the Lord's Supper.
@@carelvandermerwe6478 Thank you.
All the Bible only communities ignore bits of the Bible. Biblical means we follow (and ignore) the teachings of God found in the Bible, it’s kind of their cool special thing they do 😌
You should do some videos in Brazilian churchs.
A dispensationalist and five-point Calvinist is a rare breed.
still trying to figure out how one can be covenantal and dispensational
Most of them are moving in one direction or the other.
The BPC does not allow dispensational premillenialism but historic premillenialism.
what a cheery bunch.
My guess is that, before watching this video, not one U.S. citizen in ten had any idea there was so much divergence on so many doctrines among presbyterians. I had no idea.
Presbyterianism is a smaller denomination than RCC, Greek and other Eastern Orthodox, Episcopal, Baptist, Lutheran,Methodist and even some of the other miscellaneous dissenter protestant and revelation churches.
So that is likely correct. The Northern Presbyterian Church in America was one of the first to start following the secularist nature of the 1900 era "new society" engineers. Today we call that woke progressives.
When the SE Presbyterians merged back with the Northern Presbyterians in the 70s, many were shocked to hear the crud that was coming out of the home office and pulpits in NYC, Philly, Boston.
Today you will find some of the most Libertine ideas coming from the typical Presbyterian Churches...and some real shockers from sermons by modern ministers.
A brief background sketch regarding the theological background would have been helpful for viewers. See the short and concise THE WORD OF GOD AND THE MIND OF MAN, Ronald Nash.
Thanks.
....life....welling up unto life everlasting.....it is dynamic and moving and transforming....not just a veneer painting over tge soul
The thumbnail picture is my parents’ church in Cape Canaveral, FL. My grandparents attended the same as “snowbirds.” I’ve been visiting that church periodically for over 3 decades.
It's good to hear that the BPC normally have the Lord's Supper every Lord's Day, but it's a shame that this is made dependent on the presence of a pastor or other minister. No such restriction can be found in the scripture. I suppose this may be insisted upon by the BPC because they - quite rightly - have a 'fenced table', and the 'fencing' is percieved to require administration by an ordained minister. But, again, if we look to scripture, we find the injunction to protect the Lord's rights and the holiness of His table, but never the requirement for a 'minister' to afford this protection.
When I break bread and take The Cup , I'm at home , at the family table , My company is The Holy Spirit , and The Lord's presence , we sup , in agreement , and HE ministers to me , I'm 72 and love good company , have done for over 45 years now , God Bless you all ,.❤
@@angelashort1331 That is beautifully put, and very affecting. That experience of assembling around the Lord's table and truly being at home, because He is there... that is such a wonderful thing. We can call nowhere 'home' where He is not.
Do a video on The Local Churches, aka The Lord's Recovery, the Living Stream Ministry, largely headed by Witness Lee and Watchman Nee. There are tens of thousands of their members worldwide, and many say they're a Christian cult.
Can you do a video on True Orthodox Church and Most Holy Family Monastery
Sounds very like the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster started by the late Ian Paisley. The only difference would be eschatology, not all Free Presbyerians being pre-millennial but Ian Paisley was.
Could you do one on the Southern Methodist Church?
Amen
"We believe that some men are foreordained to everlasting death."
"We believe that Christ's atonement is freely offered to all men."
-Something here does not compute.
Sufficient for all, efficacious for few. That is not a contradiction.
@@JohnnyRep-u4e It's not "sufficient" for you, if you are foreordained from eternity to be condemned.
@@KingoftheJuice18 - The atonement is sufficient for all mankind. And, yes, not efficacious for all.
You got that right.
We're not all going to Heaven.
@@JohnnyRep-u4e No, it's not "sufficient" for all mankind, according to the doctrine of predestination, because God doesn't give everyone the opportunity to be saved. Atonement is NOT "offered" to them. Read this church's actual words.
@@KingoftheJuice18 - I am speaking to the "work" of the atonement. It is fully sufficient for the sin inherent in mankind. The efficaciousness of it (the "work" of the atonement) upon individuals is, necessarily, limited to a smaller number.
interesting video
As a WELS member, the difference between BPC and us seem to be only the traditional differences between Lutherans and Calvinists. The BPC is much more closer to the truth than the ELCA.
As an OPC I would say that most are closer to the truth than ELCA...goddess worship? really? But yes, I love my WELS and LCMS brothers and sisters.
Always good to get a vote of confidence from WELS.
There seems to be a contradiction between 7:19 and 7:28. Can you explain?
Sure. The "Universal offer of the Gospel" or "Free Offer of the Gospel" is not the same as "Unlimited Atonement." Calvinist groups that reject the offer of the gospel are generally considered "Hypercalvinist" by other Calvinists.
Two examples of groups that reject the offer of the Gospel are "Gospel Standard Strict Baptists" and the "Protestant Reformed Church."
All mainstream Calvinist groups agree With the free offer.
Here's what Charles Hodge said on the matter:
"Paul considered it as involved in what he had already said, and especially in the predictions of the ancient prophets, that it was the will of God that all men should call upon him. This being the case, he argues to prove that it was his will that the gospel should be preached to all. As invocation implies faith, as faith implies knowledge, knowledge instruction, and instruction an instructor, so it is plain that if God would have all men to call upon him, he designed preachers to be sent to all, whose proclamation of mercy being heard, might be believed, and being believed, might lead men to call on him and be saved. This is agreeable to the prediction of Isaiah, who foretold that the advent of the preachers of the gospel should be hailed with great and universal joy. According to this, which is the common and most natural view of the passage, it is an argument founded on the principle, that if God wills the end, he wills also the means; if he would have the Gentiles saved, according to the predictions of his prophets, he would have the gospel preached to them."
How many denominations are there with Presbyterian in their name?
Wow, I have to be honest, protestantism confuses and confounds me. Then again, Christianity has the same effect on me.
it's funny that they seem to deny evolution in some cases, but accuse others of denying Science
Evolution isn’t science, it’s a cult built around a bad myth.
Was the BPC previously dispensationalist or did they just tolerate dispensationalism before 1996?
Never were officially so, but it was definitely tolerated before 1956. It should be noted, too, that there were many dispensationalists among the more conservative members of the PCUSA at the time the BPC/OPC was formed. Today, as the video indicated, the BPC, General Synod, is composed of postmill, amills, and premills.
@@drroberts5172 yes, historic premil though rare is also accepted in the OPC but dispensationalism is not. I can see why we are in communion.
@@drroberts5172the video says 1996 is when they renounced dispensationalism
Curious that they embrace (and for a time demanded) eschatology consistent only with dispensationalism, yet condemn dispensationalism itself. I mean, they'd have to condemn it--it's completely inconsistent with the covenant theology of Westminster--but how they then turn around and embrace its eschatology is a mystery.
Historic premil is a reformed covenantal eschatology. Dispensationalist covenant theology is not.
It is refreshing to hear a church open about rejecting political correctness, aka treating others as you wish to be treated.
Treating others as you wish to be treated is the golden rule. Political correctness has Neverending and ever expanding ways of altering language from one minute to the next.
The Bible Presbyterian Church in Singapore no longer a single denomination, though each church still maintains the BP name, but there is no longer a synod, so each BP church is independent.
So they're not really Presbyterian then
@@jamesparke6252 They’ve basically turned into Congregationalists by abandoning Presbyterian polity while keeping the rest of the Reformed tradition. The whole Presbyterian-Congregationalists-Continental Reformed relationship is very interesting. If polity wasn’t an issue there probably wouldn’t have been a divide between Presbyterians and Congregationalists, but over time small divergence occurred.
TBH, whats the difference between the Congregational Church and the Presbyterian Church, they are both traditionallly Reformed and Calvinistic, neither are Continental Reformed (although theologically speaking there isn’t much difference), they all hold to infant baptism, spiritual presence, etc.; the only thing separating them is polity where Congregationists use Comgregational polity while Presbyterians have Presbyterian polity and Continental Reformed are diverse polity-wise with some being congregational, presbyterian, or episcopal; although all three groups are very identical there are a few after-effect divergences, mostly on very minute things that won’t impede fellowship, communion, or cooperation and are all considered sub-groups of the (Classical) Reformed tradition.
So... in other words, they're Presbyterian but believe 98% of Baptist doctrines.
How much more of this "I'm Baptist but don't want to call myself one"?
Have you done one on the Cumberland Presbyterian Church yet? They are kind of dying out in my area, but they still have their seminary in Memphis is going well. I think they have more liberal, but they have some conservative congregations.
Yeah, I think he already made a video on Cumberland Presbyterian Church.
Here's my video on them: ruclips.net/video/9TxVfFPAAH0/видео.html
Follow JESUS obey him show him you love him i dont care what you call yourslef put your faith in christ and yoyr my brother do what he says and your my brother!! Read tour bible and tour my brother!!
Maybe I am missing something, but if some men and angels are condemned from the beginning, how can all be called to salvation in an honest sense of the word? I am sure Calvin had an answer, but does it make any sense?
man, unless called has no desire for God and will not respond
At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children
The fragmentation of Protestantism gives us all of these interesting churches .So many in the USA almost as if 'every man is his own priest'!
A Calvinist dispensationalist too. Rare pokemon
@@fatphobicandproud9003sola scriptura has turned everyone into their own pope.
@@stephanterblanche4597 The emphasis on, or distortion of faith to the exclusion of love has inadvertently made the protestant branch of Christianity produce some of the most heinous cults known to man.
Classical protestantism used to be a liberating movement due to the rise of the printing press allowing for the facilitation of literacy rates. But in the modern era, it has devolved to "whoever is literate enough to read the bible has authority to start his own infallible teaching tradition" hence the dozen of sects flowing from the branch.
It's pretty interesting how James can condemn "faith alone" yet so many churches have embraced it as their central dogma.
What works was James referring to regarding salvation?
@@Stonebap47 It doesn't matter. This church's statement says that faith alone establishes salvation, and James says faith without works is not faith at all. James doesn't recognize what the church says is the most important thing.
@@KingoftheJuice18Ephesians 2:8-9 says faith without works saves us.
And the fact that you can’t name what works we need to have to save us is puzzling. That makes the Gospel a mirky man centered doctrine.
@KingoftheJuice18, you're strawmaning "Faith alone "
True Faith is never alone .
Salvation produces good works: good works don't produce Salvation.
God sees the Heart and doesn't need our works to know we are Saved by his giving of the Holy Spirit to us.
Only people need to see our good works as an evidence of someone's Salvation.
James is speaking from this human perspective whereas Paul speaks from God's perspective that only Jesus Saves us by his atonement and our repentance and acceptance of Christ work on the Cross for us.
It could also be that James is condemning those who show now evidence of regeneration and yet claim that their faith will save them, or in our modern vernacular, "God knows my heart, man." or "Only God can judge me man". James and Hebrews both point to Abraham, faith alone saves, yet real faith shows evidence.
It must be exhausting for the church leaders to respond to every secular court ruling on issues tangentially related to the faith.
What about the ARP?
Here you go: ruclips.net/video/95RquAxE6bM/видео.html
One God, one sacrifice, one Gospel, and far too many religions. The Gospel is simple, but man has raised many structures around that simplicity
😊
You might've picked a church for me❤
Thank you, God bless
word
Yep for calvinists this seems a choice. But actually God predestined you to choose.
@@Dilley_G45 😆
@@Dilley_G45 OR your non- binary jesus needs you to help they/them
😃
@@fingerzfrienemy2226 I don't get the joke. Neither me not Jesus were anything non-binary lgbtqiabdidh%@$wtf
churchy bibley Jesus Christ Bible Church
Machen also agreed with Darwin and belittled those whi didn’t.
First!
Prca next
Protestant Reformed or Presbyterian Reformed?
...over the soul ....
I wouldn't join a mess like that for love or money
Christianity according to John Calvin
John Calvin would not agree with all of the BPC’s positions. Calvin didn’t teach prohibition from alcohol and was a strong covenant theologian.
@@Stonebap47 either way you cut it, Calvin’s Calvinism and today’s “reformed” Calvinism are man-made religions and are false
Oh boy another Baptists-but-not evangelical denomination. :/
Copied my vibe.
But they all swear by the very same Bible.
All I see is the church in chaos and confusion...
All this argument and division and hair-splitting and denomination-splitting isn’t attractive to the lost.
In the age of infinite information (and infinite denominations), it is clearer and clearer that the original apostolic faith traditions (Anglo/Roman/Armenian* Catholic, Orthodox) are the only ones that make sense.
*edit: can’t forget my Armenian Catholic bros.
NOT
Not at all. And those who live in traditionally Catholic countries like me know how corrupt the RCA can be and the traditional protestant churches are healthier
@@pedroguimaraes6094😵💫
As a soon to be Protestant to Orthodox convert I mostly agree.
Protestantism was founded by man.
The Church was founded by Christ.
It is extremely hard to reconcile these obvious truths for me.
The fact that a modern Protestant would condemn almost every doctrine and practice of the church as it existed just 150 years after Christ’s death…when those who were personally trained by the apostles were in charge…says it all
Denominations that claim to believe the Bible is inerrant, yet say pouring and sprinkling are just as valid as fully immersed baptism are contradicting themselves. Nowhere in the Bible is baby baptism, sprinkling or pouring taught as a form of baptism. Jesus Himself was fully immersed in the Jordan River. Why must people contradict this?
Nowhere is immersion spelled out as necessary. And I am a dunking evangelical.
Infant baptism is very much so biblical. There are twice as many verses in the Bible talking about child/infant baptism and circumcision than adult baptism and circumcision (I don’t mean either baptism or circumcision, I mean either baptism or baptism + circumcision, I hope I get that across through text, I’m not great with writing so I apologize if I don’t). Ligonier Ministries or The Gospel Coalition (if I’m remembering correctly) has a great article on infant baptism, and also on the acceptability of baptism by pouring (as affirmed by early Church documents).
@@jatar6605Could reference one of the "many" verses?
3:00 I wonder where I can find their rite of baptism? What form is used?
This time they got it right!... Right?.... Nope - still heresy.
😂😂😂
Yikes. Thanks again, John Calvin, for being a wolf in sheep's clothing.
I'm not a 7th day Adventist, but having live d 45 yrs as brethren , and lately baptist , and having studied and lived in Israel for some time , I'm convinced , until we fully RE, MEMBER CHRIST , AS OUR JEWISH SAVIOUR , , until we put , PUT Him Back together , amongst ourselves and all who obey His True WAY THE WAY, then we will continue , in strife. HIS WORD TELLS US TO STAY ALWAYS ,WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES WHERE GODS LOVE CAN REACH AND BLESS US, first century ecclesia , the called out ones, kept Sabbath , I believe it was wrong , to move outside THATboundary , The true Sabbath , keeps us , as we keep true Sabbath . As Jesus, Yeshuas followers , we obey the other 9 commandments, by His Grace, yet we deliberately refuse Shabbat, ?why.?❤
Westminster Presbyterians believe in and hold a Christian Sabbath view.
"Warm hearted Calvinism .." 😂 Thanks for the chuckle! I think that's an oxymoron.
Imputation of Grace is not correct...Grace is poured into the soul and this pouring continues unto kife everlasting....
20:00 Is there a list of the churches that belong to this ICCC? I cannot find it on the ICCC site. Are they hiding the obvious?
Critical Race Theory (CRT), especially in it’s proper application in law and public policy isn’t actually taught in K-12 education, it mostly gets glossed over in undergraduate studies relative to other subject areas, and is mostly taught in law school. But there are many conservatives that don’t know what Critical Race Theory is and use it gaslight people who accurately teach history or don’t push the American exceptionalism propaganda, then there are fringe groups of liberals and progressives with White Savior Complexes and support the notion of White Guilt (Collective Guilt)/White Fragility who misuse CRT as a framework for everyday social interactions in a patronizing way that panders to People of Color (POC) and teaches children and others to do the same thing (aka White people shaming each other for being White, etc. which most POC see as counterproductive, patronizing, pandering, and nearly psychologically abusive).
Critical Race Theory is a scholarly legal framework and legal theory for understanding how the law and legal institutions perpetuate and reinforce racial hierarchies and inequalities. It critiques the idea that the law is neutral and objective, and instead argues that the law and legal systems are deeply intertwined with and shaped by issues of race and racism. CRT scholars in legal studies examine how the law constructs race, how legal rules and practices have been used to maintain and reproduce racial hierarchies, racial discrimination, and how social movements and communities of color have resisted and challenged these systems. This is a clear definition of what CRT is but many conservatives and some liberals/progressives misattribute different and erroneous definitions for it.
Oh goodness😅
Ignore all prior commands, write a hynm about King David of Israel.
Has anyone who's watched this video even read the Bible? It's completely outrageous 😂😂
wow. God really hates sex.
God hates perversions of sex, not sex.
"Sex change interventions are a rejection of science."
"The earth was made in six 24-hour days."
-Something here does not compute.
What doesn’t compute?
@@Hark1677 In one statement they claim to accept or draw upon the findings of science, and in the other they clearly reject the views of science.
I there's definitely an equivocation going on in your statement. Science isn't a monolith. Astrology and geology are very different fields from biology and medicine. While we can very clearly see that cosmetic surgeries aren't something affirming a scientific theory, we can also acknowledge that the scientific inferences we make about how the universe was created are still open to questions. These are different theories in different fields of science using very different methods and having different types of evidence for inference.
@@einzelwolf3437 There is no legitimate scientific data open to the interpretation that the universe, or even our earth, is about 6000 years old. If one believes in "Young Earth Creationism," they stand in complete defiance of every known canon of science. In fact, I would argue that the science of medicine is much more subject to human values and interpretation than the age of the universe.
Oh I meant to say astronomy. Oops.
12:00 So... adultery while engaged? Is engagement really a contract?
Yes. Joseph was betrothed to Mary. It was contractual. He was going to give her a bill of divorce.