She is the literal greatest ;)

@@Rogue-nc3pl I think this series is demonstrating quite well that is not the case. Do you have any of the appeals I made to Scripture throughout this video that you can disprove? Because I put forth a pretty clear case of the Angel of the Lord being given worship and being treated as Divinity, which of course Paul and Jude explicitly tie to Christ.

@PracticalChristianLessons it is dogma that made you squeeze implausibility in there.

​@@Rogue-nc3pl So the Angel of the Lord being called the Lord, receiving sacrifices, receiving worship, and being identified in places by the prophets where it was the Lord who acted, is me squeezing in the Angel of the Lord as divine in there? Which even ancient Non Christian Jews accepted, is me squeezing it in there? I'm happy to engage in a discussion if you wish to discuss the Scriptural evidence I've put forth, or on topics in the other videos I have made and will continue to make.

Actually my pastor is my pope, and he says your not God. Your dogmas can't prove this wrong.

Fascinating, big fella had to commit heinous blasphemy against the Roman Catholic Church in order to shame those silly protestants. Good work, team. We got em.

doesnt change a thing. Im still dog.

@johnnynephrite6147 (Philippians 3:2) 👍

@@PastorZach99 Ezekiel 4:12-15 "And you shall eat it as a barley cake, having baked it in their sight over a fire of human dung."

Hello from America! I have a few friends down in Brazil I hope all is well. I do not yet, I made a short at some point (it should be one of my recent ones) addressing it. The simple version is historically we have held to it, and many today still do, viewing it as proceeding from both Presbyters and Bishops. So for us Presbyterial succession is good enough. Peter King's Inquiry into the Constitution, discipline, unity, and worship of the Church is the work that fully convinced John Wesley of this view. archive.org/details/inquiryintoconstme00king/page/28/mode/1up Here is a free link. Something else I found interesting in my own personal studies is pretty much everywhere outside of the Roman Empire either didn't have bishops for several centuries, or if they had someone with a title of or similar to bishop (above the Presbyters) then they didn't function like Bishops of a dioses but more like a head pastor would. Samuel Moffet's "History of Christianity in Asia" Volume 1 covers this. Not in depth he mentions it as it comes up, but it's a fascinating history to get regardless.

I just realized you asked on the short I mentioned in my other comment 🤣.

What is Ba'al cycle? I am thinking Ba'al means "I AM against what you are birthing." Like the Flood, the splitting of continents until the Mediterranean Sea gets to Israel (Peleg's time), or the "tower of Babel" with a descendant of Asshur trying to make all nations as one under him. When? October's end with Halloween to Ramadan (two NEW MOONS bounding a feasting). Anyway, there seemed to be nothing about Ba'al here, so what gives?

@@ReligionOfSacrifice The Ba'al cycle is the story of the Canaanite deity Ba'al. The name of the series is about showing why the Bible over other faiths, focusing around the Old Testament and it's most notable "counterpart" was that of Ba'al who was the most common supreme deity in the ANE.

Glad to see another Dojo fan! Him and others have been huge as inspiration and resources for me, I hope to put out something that is at least a fraction of the quality of his work. And much agreed, I think we are going to see a rise in many of these older trains of thought, and these old apologetics and polemics will be a handy tool to have.

@@pipsheppard6747 🥰

@@XtiansLiE my case stands just as strong and firm in the Hebrew I am aware of the cases made. Continue following the series and you will see how there being one undivided God, is something I as a Trinitarian can fully affirm and is supported as the Biblical view.

and yes, the man who ended the Babylonian exile was Persian Cyrus the Great, who is called a messiah in our Bible.

The "widely accepted view" isn't built on new data. As John Oswalt demonstrates in his work, 60-80 years ago the standard view of Biblical scholarship, including those who weren't believers, was the opposite of todays. I'm aware of Zoroastrianism and others, and even compared to that (which did not influence the formation of Judaism at best it may have come into contact with it much later) there are very stark differences. The idea these themes are lacking in pre-exile Judaism is, at best, speculation. I have always disliked the label of Monotheism because of it's definition. We do not deny other "deities" exist, nor does the Bible. We deny they are in fact deity. Even with this corrected definition, the Old Testament theology is utterly unique compared to it's neighbors that it came from. They were surrounded by Pagan polytheist, the idea of a single, unique, creator God is foreign. Watch my video on creation myths to see this, and continue to follow along for more. And I cannot recommend John Oswalt's book enough. He goes through these types of claims in depth.

I should've added this comment. The most pushing piece of evidence for this is Zoroastrianism was founded in the 6th century BCE, well after Israel had been a nation.

@@PracticalChristianLessons "The idea these themes are lacking in pre-exile Judaism is, at best, speculation." - the opposite is true. If these themes were of any importance -> they would have been recorded in Torah and would not be contested by the established orthodoxy (Sadducees). What we have is these ideas appear in Prophets after the contact with Persians who liberated the exilic Jews. Moreover biblical text itself does not limit divine revalation nor true faith to Jews since we have this enigmatic Melchizedek.

@@PracticalChristianLessonsas an establised state religion Zoroastrianism is 6th century BCE, the Gathas, core scripture is dated 1200BCE, older than Torah.

I respectfully disagree, and I think this series will demonstrate that if you want to keep following along 🙂. Father, Son, & Holy Ghost, three in one are the Lord. This is the God, the only one God, due worship, I pray you see this great truth.

@@PracticalChristianLessons The hardest thing to understand is how people can continue along with traditions made by man. The history of the invention of the trinity doctrine is very easy to learn about. There is lots of scholarly documentation about how and why it was implemented. Despite this, people, because of their tradition, ignore the history, the scholarship, and the intervention of the Spirit, that tells us plainly, 'these traditions are not true.' And they prevent themselves from progressing and gaining more light and knowledge. James teaches, if you don't understand something, you can ask God who give to all freely, and you will receive. Therefore, those who follow tradition are not interested in following God, and those who ask God in the name of Jesus Christ, will know what is true. I have asked, and know the trinity is not of God. If plain and simple documentation wont convince you of reality, then exercise your faith, as commanded. Ask God as James directs you to do (1:5), and find out if you are of the one or of something else.

​@@recsporteducation4594 The Trinity is no tradition of man. If it were simply that 1, the Scriptures wouldn't be so full of signs pointing to it (as the series will continue to demonstrate), and we wouldn't see it amongst so many different groups. Judaism was always very broad, yet we see it throughout all of 2nd temple literature. Targum after targum in entirely different regions, even in Jewish text well into the medieval age. Jewish Scholars like Alan Segal, Benjamin Sommer, Daniel Boyarin all point out this was in ancient Jewish thought and some even note it is simply compatiable with monotheism even though they still don't believe it personally. The Trinity is there, it is no tradition of man. I and many others are not ignoring the history, in act I am demonstrating it in this series. I pray you see the truth, and this veil is lifted from your eyes. From the 2nd temple, through Justin Matyr and all the Church fathers, to today, and even amidst Jews who never converted like Philo who plainly taught a three member Godhead, the Trinity simply is the teaching of the Scriptures. God has revealed Himself as three in one.

@@recsporteducation4594 If you simply follow this series, and check into all the sources I mention, and follow their own scholarship, you will see what I have spoken bars out as true.

@@PracticalChristianLessons I'm not interested in anyone's justification for their reliance on the strength of men. I gave you the action required to understand spiritual things and you rejected it in favor of your tradition, backed up by an echo chamber of men. Good luck on your slow walk to eternity.

Plenty to come. I'll be filming another one today or tomorrow hopefully.

@@PracticalChristianLessons your terms are acceptable.

Of course! It's part of why I think reflecting on God's actions in your life matters, to see things exactly like this.

Thankyou! I'm hoping at some point to return to these and make a longer video on each one. I'm currently working through many various means of grace, but I definitely think the Sacraments lack a lot of love in modern Methodism even though they were so important in the Wesleyan revival.

What you just defined as "giving up" is the Perspicuity of Scripture and what has been taught not only since the time of the Reformation but also since the days of the early Church. Watch the first in the series and I break it down a little bit more I believe.

@@PracticalChristianLessons Well the Scriptures do not claim themselves as clear and I'm not aware of any early church fathers making that claim either. The multiple heresies fought by the early church were mostly brought about through a bad interpretations of Scripture.

@@bridgefin I will be demonstrating this as both the Scriptural teaching and the teaching of the fathers throughout this series. Such as the Irenaeus quote at the start of this video, this is but one of many quotes to come. Irenaeus and many others said the heretics were twisting the Scriptures, often they used the phrase, "they twist the clear meaning" or some variation. Follow along to see for yourself 😃

@@PracticalChristianLessons I appreciate your reply. It's funny that you go to the early church fathers on perspicuity of Scripture when you disagree with them on essential matters of salvation. Maybe you think they were pushing your doctrine but then your contradictory beliefs prove that you both are wrong and inconsistent on the essentials.

@@bridgefin We'd also argue they agree with us on essential matters of salvation, and I put forth no contradictory beliefs or inconsistencies. My live stream from last month shows some strong basis in the father on Sola Scriptura, and I will in the future do one on Sola Fide as well. Feel free to follow along and watch them, you will find a surprising amount of things among the fathers completely consistent with not only my own tradition but the beliefs the Reformation sought to revive and renew within the Church🙂

Watch my first video in the Perspicuity playlist for this definition, and we will at some point be doing a video on the Scripture interprets Scripture hermeneutic. There are murky parts of Scripture, the Reformers and those following their footsteps do not debate this, the modern ideas that do are separate from this.

To add to that, 4 Bible verses explicitly talk about the tradition of the Apostles, 1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess 3:6 and 1 Cor 11:2. The same St.Iranaeus of Lyon you quoted also said: “As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 And: “That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1) And: “It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times-men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. “With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree-that is, all the faithful in the whole world-and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1-2). It is rather ironic to critique Joe by saying "he didn't take this part of Luther's writing into account" and then ignore the above quotes of Iranaeus on this topic.

If you read the Council of Trent they claim to have the authority of Oral tradition, not all of which was simply put out in the public. That was in fact part of the very contention in the Reformation. And watch my live stream from last month on Sola Scriptura, I address many Church Fathers there and this exact idea in more depth.

​​​@@PracticalChristianLessons Thank you for your response. I have a final bone to pick with you, however. At around 2:00 you claim that the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that Protestants will agree on everything, and then state that it actually means that Scripture is clear on all that is necessary for salvation and righteous living. That is exactly the claim Joe is critiquing. He explicitly states in his video that he is not claiming that the doctrine of perspicuity means that Protestants/Sola Scriptura believers will agree on everything (as Luther initially claimed) but rather on the essentials of salvation and righteous living. That is what he is critiquing. He gives numerous examples in his response video and the prior video of Protestants/Sola Scriotura believers who do not agree on what the essentials mean, nor what even is essential or non-essential, despite the fact that all of them agree on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of Scripture as you laid it out. He is not critiquing the claim that Scripture is clear on everything (strawman). He is critiquing the exact definition you gave for the perspicuity of Scripture.

@@geckosman That is not Joe's claim. He has made his critique more vague & includes Unitarians among those he is using as a point of disagreement. And as I said in the video, different traditions disagreeing, doesn't disprove this. We disagree on clear statements already. And as I said later. If disagreements disprove something, then the Ecclesialist stances are also defeated. In fact we can't know anything, because people all over the world at all times disagree on clear statements. It just happens, it's part of being human. But that is the fault of people, not the medium of communication. If you want to defeat perspicuity you 1, need a different argument as this disproves all of us, and 2 you need to compare Lutherans to Lutherans, Anglicans to Anglicans. Not low Church evangelicals to Unitarians. And it is very telling, most Protestants even across traditions do in fact agree on what is necessary for salvation, and grant that we are all within it. So even if we may disagree across traditions, we do have some areas of overlapping agreement.

@@PracticalChristianLessons Joe is critiquing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, specifically the perspicuity of Scripture that goes along with it. He includes Unitarians as they also affirm the doctrine of Sola Scriptura along with the perspicuity of Scripture as you put it. It might be more apt to say "Sola Scriptura belivers" rather than Protestants, since you don't appear to think Unitarians are Protestant. Joe's definition is exactly the same as yours. He is critiquing the doctrine that all groups you mentioned (Unitarians, Lutherans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, etc.) hold in common. Since they hold this exact same belief in common it is not necessary to critique each one separately, as it would ultimately lead to the same argument being made multiplied with however many denominations there are. That is the reason he can make such a broad argument. Sola Scriptura is the foundation of Protestantism (along with Sola Fide) as we know it. The reason that he states that disagreements around doctrines necessary for Salvation among Protestants/Sola Scriptura believers (who all adhere to the same foundation of Sola Scriptura) disproves Sola Scriptura is because this means that Scripture isn't clear/is clear, we just can't really know what is means. And if Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith, and we cannot for certain know what it means, then there is a very big problem. Catholics and Orthodox disagreeing is not an issue in the same way as what Protestants disagree on, as the issues Catholics and Orthodox disagree about are due to the differences in Ecclesiology/Mariology/etc. A critique made about something both the Catholics and Orthodox agree on would not need to be made for both, while an issue they do disagree on would need to adress both separately (i.e. the Mary's sinlessness). Joe is critiquing the thing all the Protestants (and the Unitarians) agree on. I cannot understand why he has to critique each one separately, since they all affirm the docrine in the same way. The fact that the exact same method of determining what is essential to be saved is used (i.e. Sola Scriptura) and yet leads to all these myriads of outcomes (such as Unitarianism), is precisely the problem.

Yes, a confessional one. Watch my earliest videos and check the playlist on my channel, it is far from what many think of when they look at modern Arminian thought.

@PracticalChristianLessons Last question, what do you think of Arminians who deny the inerrancy of scripture like Liberal scholar Dr. Randal Rauser? There are also Conservative Protestants like Dr. Lydia McGrew who has some sort of combination of Arminian-Molinist thought but also denies the inerrancy of scripture. I will check your channel because the Calvinist Vs Arminian dialogue today can be full of straw men. Just for the record, I am a massa damnata Thomist so my initial biases are with the Calvinists though I would label myself an Augustinian as I prefer Augustine over Aquinas.

​@@computationaltheist7267 So I have two thoughts. I don't know Lydia's work myself, but I find those who deny Inerrancy generally fall into two camps. I think to deny it either way is an error, but for some they only deny it in name. Group 1 - They are denying it for some reason but normally some undermining of Scripture is present. Whether that be liberal theological worldviews, or something else, and is often a slipper slope into grievous errors. As Wesley said, if the Bible has one error it might as well have 1000, and when someone realizes that it can lead to them just suddenly doubting many parts and throwing many things out. Group 2 - Reject it in name only. I think of figures like Kenneth Collins who denies it by name, but in his article when he describes his belief it is completely in line with the Chicago statement and general definition of it. I find often this stems from being too steeped in the world of Academia and the way they use terms, rather than looking at the larger theological sphere's. I hope my videos are insightful! When I've had dialogues with my Reformed friends and we start getting into the nitty gritty we often agree on 99% of things, and disagree on very little. I've been told I sound basically Reformed more times than I count, and often here, "I didn't Arminius taught that," or comments on modern Arminians being all about free will they didn't know there were other thoughts.

@@PracticalChristianLessons Thanks for your answers. I will have to subscribe to your channel so that I understand Arminianism. I think it has been straw manned through pop Reformed apologetics that it's Pelagian theology.

​@@computationaltheist7267 It definitely has, it doesn't help many claim the title of being an Arminian, then proceed to be Pelagians. Part of why I started the channel was hoping to help call Arminians to return to the teachings that were held to and to reject the teachings that have strayed from that. That's why I still do readings from Arminius, you might find the current series going through his declaration helpful. And it's written in a way much easier to understand than his more scholastic writing.

I'm sorry sir I'm quite confused, how is this comment related to my video? 😅

@PracticalChristianLessons jesus confirmed the tanakh without that the gospels would be invalid.

@@frederickanderson1860 I agree.

@@PracticalChristianLessons ok Thanks for your agreement

Universalism being, the idea that all will go to Heaven? Just to make sure we are working with the same definition.

⁠@@PracticalChristianLessonsuniversalism is a doctrine that all shall be saved

@@nicklausbrain So, if it teaches all will be saved, how does that not deny Hell?

@@PracticalChristianLessonsbecause it does not see hell as a place (neither heaven as a place) but the purging fire of Gods presence. I believe you can find this definition in “on the soul and the resurrection” by Gregory of Nyssa

​@@nicklausbrain Ah yes I am familiar with Gregory's view, similar to Origins (which makes sense). But I would still call this view heterodox and quite seriously lacking on the severity of the Biblical witness to what Hell is. The witness implies a lasting darkness, however you explain what goes on in Hell it doesn't seem to be temporary. But I'm happy to have a discussion on that should I ever make a video on it.

Thankyou! I'm not tapped into a ton of Methodist preaching (I try to keep up with a handful of churches), only so much time in the day and full time job plus full time school plus everything else cuts into time. But no, not really. My church has this past year in a few sermons as Andrew has preached through Exodus and Romans, and addressed the issue very directly as part of doing these. But as you probably know we haven't reaffiliated with another Methodist denomination yet. I've looked for sermons on Jude & Revelation, on the purpose of the Church, all sorts of topics. And I find again and again the focus isn't on judgement. I hear about being a dead church, and needing to pursue the Lord. But when going through Revelation where is the talk of what it means to have the lampstand taken away? Where is the warning of judgement? In purpose I hear about outreach, bearing the name of God, shining His light, to call people in. But I rarely hear the express call, to turn from sin and flee the wrath of God. It's always turn from the world to life in God, but when you phrase it like that you leave off an important part. I hear about the Methodist zeal for holiness, but not about fleeing from the wrath to come. I'm sure there are Methodist who still preach on it, but it seems to be so few and far between. And honestly it hurts a bit inside to know so many have just let this important part of the gospel message just fall away.

Also if you ever find the secret to making more time so I can try and listen to more preaching let me know😂

@@PracticalChristianLessons I also spend my time in other ways. We make time for what is most important to us. I think you're doing a good job. I don't think there are many examples of good Methodists preaching on this. I asked, though, hoping you knew more than I did!

​@@plainspokenpod Thankyou! All the good I do is purely God and what He has done and is doing through me, all the bad is my own. I know Bixby Methodist had a sermon Fleeing the Wrath to come and the Methodist Societies meetings purpose as pursuing Scriptural holiness last year. My friend has just started there and says they don't pull punches in their preaching though the subject of God's wrath itself hasn't come up yet (he's only been there a few weeks). They might have some good stuff on it. I'll keep on the look though, and Lord willing prayers this focus will return to the Methodist as a whole.

The UMC is not all Methodist. The FMC, EMC, BMC, and many other faithful Methodist still exits. The GMC is currently quite on fire, but we shall see their future. That being said, especially in America but Western culture at large, we are needing some reform and renewal just as was needed in Wesley's day, and that is true for all traditions. Western Christanity is definitely in a rough spot, but God is greater than our problems, and the growth in places like Africa and South Asia is very inspiring for the future of Christanity as a whole. Semi related you might be interested in a group I heard about recently known as The Barnabas project, Jeffrey Rickman of PlainSpoken did an interview that came out yesterday, a very interesting group.

Amen!

Look up "The Merneptah Stele "

Yea. It feels like the conversation was everywhere months ago, then just like, returned to whence it came.

@@PracticalChristianLessons Good to keep it going. It's one that needs to be fleshed out and addressed

To Q1, no it doesn't teach all things are clear. Some parts are clear some aren't, but all things that are necessary for righteous living and salvation are. Which I guess ties into your own on Q2. I'll be doing a lot of work on Perspicuity in the coming months and publishing a large work addressing this and many more topics. Glad you enjoyed it, I hope this can be a very helpful series for you!

Exactly. And then, even when perspicuity is narrowed down to “everything needed for salvation and righteous living”, its defenders still have to do some massaging to get around the fact that clearly, different people read those perspicuous passages differently. In my experience (which is in no way authoritative lol) that problem results in question-begging by implying that all those who disagree with a given interpretation are “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” I *want* the doctrine of perspicuity to be true, but it seems to fall apart no matter what. I’ll be following these videos in hopes that they’ll change my mind! 😊

@@TheBillyDWilliams Hope they can be helpful!

@@TheBillyDWilliams But in my experience most of the disagreements are not on what is necessary for salvation and holy living, unless discussing with those who hold to things like, "you must submit to the bishop of Rome."

@@PracticalChristianLessons thanks for your reply and the videos! I hope they help too, this is a topic I’ve been struggling with for the past few years. 🙏 I’m glad that’s been your experience! Unfortunately, that has not been my experience. As a minister in an evangelical church that was thoroughly Sola Scriptura (to the point of essentially being SolO Scriptura), the amount of disagreements on “salvation and holy living” within just our small congregation was staggering. Baptismal efficacy, whether pouring/sprinkling were valid, soteriology, perseverance of the saints, Christian ethics, the necessity of the Lords Supper, church attendance, what doctrines have to be affirmed to be saved - all of these were points of contention among our leadership, and both sides drew their conclusions from Scripture. I spent so many hours debating my own elders and deacons that could have been better spent elsewhere. If Scripture truly is perspicuous, I find it hard to believe that so many disagreements would be present in a small congregation of people who all have the same fundamental commitment to knowing Christ through His word alone. Hope you can change my mind! 😊

All of us.

@@vinxit not sure if you are serious. But if you are, are you saying there’s no hope for Christians to understand Scripture? If so, what’s even the meaning of “perspicuity”?

Do Protestants need rebaptized if they convert? Some in the same tradition say yes some say no, who is darkened by their own sinful actions?

The hart of this, and I'll possibly touch on this more in a later video, man's sinfulness has placed a veil over some things. We don't see everything clearly, and there will be things we just don't agree on in this lifetime. The early Church has countless examples of very important disagreements, some that caused divisions and some that didn't but equally important as this.

@@PracticalChristianLessons but man’s sinfulness is a renowned fact. It’s not a surprise. We cannot claim Scripture is perfectly perspicuous only to realize that man, due to his sinfulness, will never have a chance to fully understand it. What’s the meaning of perspicuity at this point? It just becomes totally meaningless. It just boils down to who is less sinful than others, and who is there to decide?

I've been trying to think of what to say to this and all I can say is, thankyou, but thank the Lord not I. It is all because of Him that I am able to be a tool He can use for these things. I know what I would be like without Him, and what I am like now when I let myself grow distant, and I can say with confidence everything I do here would be but dust if it were not for Him and His guidance in what I do.

It's one of the reasons I need to learn German lol. I only need to learn like 6 languages.

@@PracticalChristianLessons Learn the Lutherlanguage so you can understand all of the Luther man's insults