Great content, thank you for sharing John. Could you please do a vid on who wrote Hebrews?

Okay. Your brain is a hundred times larger than mine. 🤯 With that said, your analysis of various approaches to universalism is excellent, and good food for thought. Glad I found you!

Only thing i personally would have like to have seen in your review is that you had displayed yourselves in the giant PIP and had the debate scenes in the two inch window - we really only needed to hear the audio; otherwise your breakdown review was good and needful. Thanks..........sry but that debate was long an painful to look up craig's big nose for over an hour :)

Great stuff ❤️🙏

RIP Padre Gutierrez......we all should cellebrate his fabolous life journey and his tremendous humanity contributions to the world.... 👏👏👏👏

Hope pt2 is coming real soon hope it’s about Justification Theory !

You’re killing me with the cliffhanger lol

Excellent content, thank you for sharing brother.

I much prefer the way Campbell speaks in contrast to Bentley Hart. Character is essential to speak with authority. Often its the way we say it than what we say.

In trying to get my head to understand how Doug Campbell breaks up Romans between the objectors words and Pauls.

Hey there my brother! I always felt that something was wrong in reading Roman’s 1-4 and how this was a dialog between this teacher and Paul so liberating and btw Are you planning on making a commentary on Roman’s Or maybe putting Paul and the teachers dialogue like in a play format?

Lamb of the Free is next on my reading list but this is really making me want to start early!

I love Douglas Campbell's work, but I am dissatisfied with his account of human agency especially in Dogmatics. It seems to me that in the end he flushes down the Charybdis whirlpool of hyper-Augustinianism. I buy all the talk of structures and tradition facilitating capacity and hence freedom, but freedom isn't defined by added capacity. Once a potter knows how to fire up a kiln, knows how to source and preserve good clay etc. they then are free to create beautiful pottery. But their freedom consists in whether they want to make pots or cups. Freedom is the choice to make cups or pots. A machine can have the capacity to create pottery, but we wouldn't say it is free. It is programmed to make either pots or cups. Do we choose to respond to God or to love? Campbell says no. He loses me there.

🙏👍

The hilasterion as gift from God is resonant with Tonstadt’s argument in his commentary that the use of Habakkuk in ch 1 is meant to set up a scenario where God’s own reputation is on the line and “proof” is needed from God that God is not in a position of wrath over against humanity. It simultaneously shows that God is not in a posture of wrath toward us, and it contradicts the opponent whose speech in Ch 1 claims that God is fundamentally in that retributive, transactional posture.

The Table x Englewood is the collab I didn’t know I needed

So if that "seated with Christ" thing is true of us now, then what you would say that does for us in the here and now? Is there any practical purpose for that? I mean it sounds great, but I don't see how it affects anything in "real life", just a foreshadowing of things to come. thx.

OK, so to get this right---by itself the Bible doesn't have authority in itself, until God speaks through it by his spirit. So this sounds to me sort of arbitrary, like one can just say "Here, God is speaking through the scripture. Now it has authority." and if someone disagrees, then well, they don't see your understanding of authority in that circumstance. But maybe they're right, maybe you are, who knows? At this point, it all seems like anyone can make up stuff and say it's from God. I'm very willing to agree the Bible isn't inerrant, I can't see how anyone can prove inerrancy either way. With all the translations and versions and traditions and denominations/doctrines, it seems like a crap shoot. Just believe what you want and call it "faith" and try to keep believing it hard enough till it seems real to you. And I'm not at all trying to argue for a license to sin. Just how to construct a belief about God, how he works in one's life, what this whole thing is about.

Uh. Jesus death addresses Temple Judaism, Israel’s exile and gentile inclusion.

The snark is just……..

It isn't penal substitution, it's love substitution

I was postmill/amill before i knew Apokatastasis. So i thinks history ends when all the nations turn to God on earth and the remaining unbelieving remanet of Jews finally do too, the reign of christ, all are under the feet of Christ. Then the return of christ with the last enemy remaining to be abolished, That is death. With the trope that some of the last will be first and some of the first will be last. But all come to Him. That's How do I view it right now until I see otherwise.

My only thing is was any violence used in that whip jesus made.

Very interesting video. Genuine question here, even though it may inadvertently sound antagonistic: does any particular amount of Scripture need to be true to maintain it’s authority? So for example, to take an extreme as a test of the principle, if nothing in Scripture were true, would it still have authority in your view?

The reading really help put it together.

How on earth do you participate in Christ’s death?

This is the message that Pauline dispensational midax and acts 28 Believers have been saying the Evangel of 1st Corinthians 15 the conciliation these are all locked within Paul's Epistles

Good summary of this rich article. I’ve read through it multiple times in the past. My one small quibble would be that at one point you discuss and critique DBH and his exaltation of pre-Augustinian / Byzantine theologians and note that the Byzantines were also twisted and perpetrators of violence. Of course, Hart speaks to the eastern flaws in many instances elsewhere (Atheist delusions & his history of Christianity). However, first, the Byzantines were not what Hart is referring to with pre-Augustine theologians. Second, one can’t really conflate pre-Augustine with Byzantine. The Byzantine empire was in its infancy when Augustine was born. There was hardly a well established Byzantine school of theological thought when Augustine began writing. But, Hart has in mind the Cappadocian fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, Nazianzus) as well as Origen, et al. These were neither violent nor did their theology lead to such horrors as Augustine’s did/does. But thanks otherwise.

The basis of antisemitism in Christian and Islamic society is the colonialist cultural appropriation of Judaism by these other religions. Cultural appropriation also results in hatred by the larger dominant society that is doing the appropriation for the smaller, weaker society that is being appropriated. In places like China and India where there is no cultural appropriation of Judaism, then there is no antisemitism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation Cultural appropriation[1][2] is the inappropriate or unacknowledged adoption of an element or elements of one culture or identity by members of another culture or identity.[3][4][5] This can be especially controversial when members of a dominant culture appropriate from minority cultures.[6][1][7][8] According to critics of the practice, cultural appropriation differs from acculturation, assimilation, or equal cultural exchange in that this appropriation is a form of colonialism. When cultural elements are copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture, and these elements are used outside of their original cultural context - sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of members of the originating culture - the practice is often received negatively.[9][10][11][12][13] Cultural appropriation is considered harmful by various groups and individuals,[14] including some Indigenous people working for cultural preservation,[15][16] those who advocate for collective intellectual property rights of the originating, minority cultures,[17][18][19][20] and some of those who have lived or are living under colonial rule.[1][21][22][20] Cultural appropriation can include exploitation of another culture's religious and cultural traditions, dance steps, fashion, symbols, language, and music.[23] Those who see this appropriation as exploitative state that cultural elements are lost or distorted when they are removed from their originating cultural contexts, and that such displays are disrespectful or even a form of desecration. The above perfectly describes the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. Amazing! And the problematic issues created by this colonialist cultural appropriation of Judaism have entered into the collective unconscious of Christians and Muslims: "According to Jung, the human collective unconscious is populated by instincts, as well as by archetypes: ancient primal symbols such as The Great Mother, the Wise Old Man, the Shadow, the Tower, Water, and the Tree of Life.[1] Jung considered the collective unconscious to underpin and surround the unconscious mind, distinguishing it from the personal unconscious of Freudian psychoanalysis. He believed that the concept of the collective unconscious helps to explain why similar themes occur in mythologies around the world. He argued that the collective unconscious had a profound influence on the lives of individuals, who lived out its symbols and clothed them in meaning through their experiences. The psychotherapeutic practice of analytical psychology revolves around examining the patient's relationship to the collective unconscious." Hiding beneath the surface of both Islam and Christianity will always be the need to create in their societies an overriding compulsion to dispossess, oppress, and diminish Jews and Judaism. There are about 2.8 billion people in India plus China, but with a relatively small sector of Christians or Muslims, and there is little antisemitism. Even in Christian and Muslim countries where there are no Jews, there is still intense antisemitism. But did the Jews give Christianity permission to use and appropriate our cultural heritage like this? No way. The original sin of cultural appropriation not only damages Jews, but also damages non Jewish people that are exposed to Islam and Christianity by supplying them with a fertile source for antisemitic discourse and consciousness. I can very confidently say that most of the hate focused on Jews on college campuses today is from a confluence of Islamic and Christian collective unconscious and conscious antisemitic narratives. I won't sugar coat this. Islam and Christianity are total frauds. It would be great if they had made the pagan world more civilized. If these religions had used Judaism to improve on the horrible practices of paganism. But I can't say that happened. To be honest, both Christianity and Islam should have consulted with Judaism so they could create something based on Judaism that would be appropriate and positive. Nazi antisemitism in Germany was ostensibly about race, but really it was about aspects of the collective unconscious of Christian uncivilization, about the deep antisemitic discourse inherent in their uncivilization. And this is now resurfacing here in America. The hate for Israel and Judaism we find today is certainly not about the Palestinians. Otherwise, we would see the woke folks also protesting about other far more lethal conflicts now taking place in places like Sudan and Ethiopia. We Jews saw that in WW2 when Jews were being loaded onto cattle cars and transported to places like Awschwitz and Triblinka, that countries like Great Britain and the United States neither bombed the rail lines or allowed Jewish refugees to immigrate into their countries. It has been observed that in the postwar period that post Holocaust Christianity was forced to reconsider their traditional antisemitism due to the recognition of Christian barbarity and savagery towards Jews during WW2. However, by now much of this memory and self examination has, by the passage of time, been forgotten. Also, criticism of Israeli policy has been used to allow Christians to resurrect their suppressed antisemitic religious discourse. However, when it comes to Islam, their Jew hatred has never been repressed, never been denied. It is overt, highly toxic, and dangerous. The antisemitism inherent in Islam is what brought on the barbarism displayed on October 7th. And this has nothing at all to do with Palestinian national aspirations or modern Zionism.

Let’s go!

lfggggggg🫡🫡

Another great video thx guys 🙏

Apologetics (when it comes to bible scholarship) is just literary-historical creationism. The denialism they engage in is the same - they’ll either 1. deny the very legitimacy of the field or 2. try to create false ambiguity when it comes to the academic consensus, acting like the subject is more debated or there’s more room for non-naturalistic explanations (and “traditional” beliefs on subjects) to be true than there actually is. It's this dishonesty that guarantees none of them have actual relevant education or credentials in the field - most don't even read actual scholarship.

I noticed you guys critiquing Eastern Orthodoxy and evangelicals converting to it. Have you made an episode detailing your criticisms? I’d definitely be interested in hearing your take on it.

Yea, missing worship on Sunday has a very negative and oppressive effect on your mind and spirit as a believer. Missed Sundsy worship with other believers for 5 months because of work. Then another 2 months after major surgery. Once I was able to return for the past 2 months, immediately my thoughts, and my thinking has cleared, was able to think about my future and reprioritze my goals. Returning to work next week and back to working Sundays. But only briefly as I may have secured another job that not only have Sundays off but have time to pursue goals. I will make less money but the tradeoff is worth it.

I was laughing so hard when Metaxas seems to be under the impression that the Confessional Church was "against" the Third Reich's antisemitism.

Are there any organizations you could recommend to start getting involved with prison ministry, or finding a mentor?

Love all your videos you guys are right on👍

Time to heed the warning of a friend of mine. Read Cost of Discipleship Read Life Together Then stop and read Sasse

This is really great news love knowing this thanks 🙏

I see it perfectly thanks Doug and Jon this means a lot!!!!!

I love the message here yet I think we have to be careful about glibly casting aspersions on 'Reaganomics' or reducing the Gospel to a social cause. If we are going to talk about 'persons' being connected then throw people with a different idea of economics or politics under the bus then it's not really helping.

This song at the beginning is so awesome. What is it? I cant find it for the life of me on the internet.

Great video love it

Great conversation. Timestamps would be nice.

Succinct presentation

[updated: fixed my mistranslation of 1 Thess 2.6-7] I find myself in complete agreement with the evaluation of chapters 1-3 presented in the video. I am puzzled as to why some scholars imagine that Timothy brought back acusations against Paul of him and Silas being perceived by some as exploitative charlatans, when they without justification try to mirror-read 1 Thess 2:3-6 as a defense against acusations. By contrast, it looks to me as if Paul is narrating their shared memories of the pattern of Jesus being presented through the ethos of Paul and Silas (see also the allusion in 1:5), and that this portrait was rightly perceived by the Thessalonians (kathos oidate - in alignment with how you know) Paul is overflowingly thankful for their perception of his Christ-inspired pattern for imitation, which was implanted in them during their endurance of afflictions (1.6 - ‘and you transitioned as imitators of us and of the Lord, having-accepted-with receptiveness the word into much affliction with joy in the Spirit of sanctity’) All throughout, he is emphasizing their familial relashinship with ‘adelphoi’. The Greek of 2.6-7 is badly punctuated and interpretedl in most English translations, imo. The problem is that the word for burden/weight/charge, which recurs as a verb in 2.9, is translated as ‘authority’, and interpreted as an omission. The present tense middle participle that means ‘being-able/being-enabled’ (dynamenoi) is inteprreted as ‘though we could have asserted’ Thus ‘though we could have asserted our weight as Christ’s apostles. But the Greek, plainly read mean the opposite in my judgement Woodenly translated, it goes like this: nor [were we] seeking glory from-out-of men - neither from-of you, nor from-of others. Being able in(to) weight to be as Christ’s apostles, we-transitioned in contrast thereto (the strong adversative ‘alla’) as unpretentious/naive (‘nephoi’ - childlike) among you… It seems to me that The participle dynamenoi is the beginning of the next sentence and is part of an adverbial phrase that modifies how they ‘transitioned’. How they positively were as Christ’s representatives - namely unpretentious and genuine caretakers who fully invested themselves : the image of the nursing mother. They were not seeking glory sourced in men, and were not being in if for money, but (see the division in NA28 which I think is correct) They were able to make a profound impression (weight) by transitioning among the Thessalonians as genuine caretakers - genuine representatives of Jesus. They were unpretentious caretakers who carry the burdens for others. This is the weighty model/pattern that is enabled in Christ’s true representatives (apostles), who portray his humility and self-giving love. Thus my translation, looking back to the beginning of the sentense in 2.4, where they are living among the Thessalonians as those approved of God and entrusted with the gospel, v4b-6 (‘not as pleasing men or with unhonorable pretense’, God being invoked twice) defines what they were not, and v7 then begins defining what they were positively as apostles: “(6) nor seeking glory sourced from men - neither from you, nor from others. (7) In being able to carry weight as Christ’s representatives, we instead transitioned as unpretentious among you, as if a nursing mother who would cherish her own children.” Here we see that not only were they not having any negative traits - but as true delegates of Christ they were able to be with weight in becoming caretakers for the Thessalonians, bearing the burdens of their converts. This strikes me as Isaiah 53:2 LXX inspired imitation of the the way the suffering servant is announced before God: as a male child/servant (hos paidion) , and like the scripted suffering servant in the poem, which Jesus chose to enflesh instead of grasping for the inheritance of being like God, they make sure that the announcement that is expressed through their appearance and ethos, is not what would normaly appeal to human ideas of glory and significance. In sum, it is not at all a defense against acusations by Paul’s dearly beloved brethern. The report Timothy brought is presented as 100% positive (3:6-8), though verse 10 indicates that they are not yet as far advanced on the path towards sanctification as Paul and Silas and Timothy. Paul uses loving richly metaphorical language here like nowhere else in all of his letters, and it seems to me that the Thessalonians are simply his favorite people in the world in the moment where he writes this letter. When he writes at the end of Chapter 2 ‘you are my glory’ I can’t imagine that he means that he receives glory from them or on account of them, but that what he cares most about in the world is that they will be there along with him, when Jesus returns at his parousia with the saints.

Beker visited our class when I was at Drew University in 1989. I had no idea who he was at the time, but I have come to appreciate his often-overlooked contributions to Pauline studies since then.

He keeps forcing legal language onto biblical ideas. I learned forgiveness was the divorce or separation from sin. The thing that we were indebted to. The thing which held us in bondage. "In whom we have redemption: the forgiveness of sins." The redemption or being delivered from the place of slave to free in Christ is the "forgiveness" of sin. We are no longer bound to its service.

Just got Doug’s and John new book going to start reading today thx so much this way of looking at paul change me also Steve Chalke new book is excellent 🙏