@@christsavesreadromans1096 lol, Augustine. Furthermore, they got a lot of things wrong too.

@@classicchristianliterature Why don’t you read him extensively, and not just cherrypicked quotes from reformed websites.

@@classicchristianliterature "I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." -- St. Augustine. Not so reformed sounding.

@@classicchristianliterature This is reformed? “The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.”

@@classicchristianliterature So even though our Lord said the gates of hell would not prevail against the church, those whom had fellowship with the apostles themselves and those succeeding the apostles just didn’t “understand the gospel” But a man over a millennia later did? You’re beyond deceived.

@@accordio321 I do not actually. Reading his bio, seems like he was greatly used by Christ. Many reformed folks like myself seem to like him even though he would not fall into our camp. He has some book that’s massive (1300 pages), do you have that one?

@@bigtobacco1098 Berkhof is good. Fairly brief in some areas. Different theologians emphasize different areas so it’s good to have multiple.

@@classicchristianliterature agree... the context was "first"

What denomination are you?

@@classicchristianliterature Lately I've been going to an AG church, but I just call myself a "charismatic with a seatbelt". LOL The three that I also have are A Body of Divinity, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, and Grudem's Systematic Theology. (Craig Keener is one of my favorite theologians.) A few others that I'd recommend (which transcend denominational lines) are The Christian In Complete Armor by William Gurnall, Critical Dilemma by Neil Shenvi/Pat Sawyer, and Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices by Thomas Brooks.

I don’t know what to think of all the Bible only comments. Are there really that many Church of Christ folks on KZbin? Why are they visiting my channel? They usually last 1-2 questions and then dip out. Thanks for watching the channel! I’m with you, Van Mastricht was a master theologian.

@@classicchristianliterature The best explanation i can come up with is that there will always be opposition to what is good and right and true. And as we live in increasingly darker times, it will become more and more ferocious and inescapable. Keep up the good work, always love seeing appreciation for Reformed theology, God bless!!

No but seriously, you have a great library. I have many of the same books.

@@willIV9962 that’s awesome, tell me how you tolerate the dust covers? Lol

@@classicchristianliterature Dear sir, we are not here to discuss your many errors in stripping bare the designer's most illustrious and beautiful artwork, which serves no practical purpose. If the book was to be left without a dustcover, then the creator would not have made one. The mere fact that Bavinck's Wonderful Works of God still has a dust cover on it is an admission of your guilt. No, thou shalt recant and properly cover books!

I can’t read your comment because it’s not a direct quote from Scripture.

@@classicchristianliterature Indeed it is not a direct quote from Scripture, but at least I am pointing directly to Scripture!

@@Bijbelstudies so none of these books point to scripture? Is pointing to Scripture the only legitimate function of non-scriptural words?

Thanks for your comment. I’ll have to explore that a little deeper. Both Augustine and Thomas believed in sovereign grace / predestination. Both believed something quite different about baptism and original sin from the reformers. Augustine taught that in the baptized “concupiscence is not sin any longer”. This is in line with Rome’s current teaching. Augustine had a vastly different view of marriage and sex from the reformers too. His comments on concupiscence that I am aware of are written in that context. I think that there is a lot of overlap between Augustine, Thomas, and the Reformed… but they certainly differ here.

@classicchristianliterature I am Catholic and I actually believe that the thomistic view of predestination isn't that far off from Calvin other than sufficient grace vs common grace. I also don't think that protestant justification is that different from Rome. I think trents anathemas of Sola fide are more aimed against antinomianism

@@nickynolfi833 I have to say I admire that you are reading and exploring outside of your tradition. I have a great appreciation for Thomas, Bernard of Clairvaux, Anselm, Augustine…etc. I’m encouraged by the recent “ressourcement movement”. We as Christians can be clear on where we disagree and we should be. False ecumenism is no good. However, I think disagreement should be contextualized by love and humility. Thanks for watching the channel, hopefully I can make some more Reformed / Catholic comparison videos. I tried to represent all viewpoints fairly here.

I’ll have to read through that one and post it, good idea

Thanks for the recommendation. I’ve been reading his book on Roman Catholicism. I also may obtain his historical theology as well. Any thoughts on that work?

And the Son is biblical

Why was “and the Son” not in the Nicene Creed as formed by the Church fathers who gave us the Creed itself? Also, according to the Church (pre-schism) who has the right to add or remove from the Creed? Is it not so that all who did not accept the Creed as delivered to us from the Church councils (again, pre-schism) were, in effect, no longer in communion with the Church? Was the Creed not a litmus test as well as a declaration of the Faith? Does truth matter? Are we to believe and trust a religious group who for many centuries perpetuated an enormously consequential and revolutionary concept - such as that asserted in the so-called ‘Donation of Constantine’ which is a hoax, and was finally admitted to be a false and forged document by the RC church herself, but not until after that church had amassed power, wealth and influence impossible without the aggressive invocation of that very document? @@classicchristianliterature

@@brunocapolongo9883 why was the chalcedonian definition not in the original nicene creed?

I have lots of thoughts actually. I may need to make a video on this. First, Frame is brilliant and he loves Jesus. I’ve benefited a lot from his “history of theology and philosophy” lectures and book. I am concerned about his theology proper (doctrine of God) not being entirely orthodox. He proposes 2 divine existences. There has been a lot of discussion about this. A book “All that is in God” by James Dolezol discusses this briefly. He advocates something called triperspectivalism which I have not found to be clarifying in his discussions. Frame and Poythress both are influenced a little too much by modern philosophy I would say as opposed to older paradigms that have shaped historic Christian faith. Perhaps a lot of what they provide the church does contain useful answers to modern questions and modes of thinking. Just for me, I try to be careful when reading them. If I was limited on time and money I was willing to sink into a systematic, I would look elsewhere.

@classicchristianliterature thanks for your response. That's helpful... I have read All that is in God, I need to revisit it now... I remember being blown away by the "simplicity of God." I actually just recommended it to a friend.

@@VisionOnDuty have you read “confessing the impassible God”? It’s in the same vein as Dolezol’s book, but probably even better at answering some of the knotty questions.

@@classicchristianliterature I have not

Of course it is the Bible and the teaching of the Holy Church. We should not forget that it was the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the Bible.

@@classicchristianliterature So sorry, but my schedule makes it difficult to respond in a timely fashion. Sometimes I can get back to people in timely fashion but other times it is a chore just to remember commitments. Ley me look back at our discussion and I will respond.

@@Pastor-Brettbyfaith do you preach sermons?

True

Very well said sir.

@@classicchristianliterature IMHO, Calvin is basically a commentary on the Reformation. His OPINIONS are an insult to The Cross. Takes less than a minute to refute Total Depravity which collapses TUPLIP. Blessings to you and yours.

BTW, to directly answer, Mormons blindly follow Joseph Smith as many blindly follow Calvin. I’m a Christian and I follow THE CHRIST. Period.

@@rickward2977 as a “calvinist” I can tell you I don’t know anyone who blindly follows Calvin. Second, you don’t have a pastor? The Bible commands us to follow and imitate others who follow Christ. Hebrews 13:7 ESV Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. 1 Corinthians 4:16 KJV Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

So you are a monophysite?

@@Mike65809 my issue with Monophysitism and I think what the church was getting at in this creed, is that nature / substance and person / hypostasis are indispensable for this discussion. The unity of Christ is in His person. 2 natures (Divine and human) united in one person. If Monophysitism is correct, then there is a “third” thing. That is, if Jesus is a mixture of divine and human natures (one nature), He ceases to be either. He would be less than God because of a mixed nature with man and He would be different than man because mixed with God. The natures are preserved and in fact Jesus is both God and man.

@@classicchristianliterature Okay thanks for your reply. My understanding of Monophysitism is that there are two kinds, one Jesus was all God, the other is he was all man. I've never heard of the one you just mentioned. But that's fine. I think the two nature approach is not Biblical. Chalcedon acted like Jesus did his miracles by his own power, that is, by his divine substance. But John makes it clear he did his works by the Father in him. Not only this, but he was given the Holy Spirit without measure. So the Father worked in him by the HS. So he didn't have his own attributes of deity. He was deity in his identity, however. So the two natures approach only causes confusion and is not biblical. And I might add, it can only explain why Jesus didn't know the hour of his return in his human nature only, which is a Nestorian understanding. So he had a human nature, given the HS without measure, and was deity in his identity of the Logos. Now in his exalted state he has all attributes of deity again.

@@classicchristianliterature It may be similar to Kenosis, but he never gave up his identity as the Logos, so he remained deity, but without the attributes. As for having a body, I would say maybe. He appeared to Saul as a light. He is in heaven. Are there physical bodies in heaven?? Hard to answer. Now he can manifest in a body if he wants, but I would not assume he is in his body now. God almighty manifested in a body also, with Abraham. What I'm talking about is when he was here on earth, born as a baby, etc. He did not have two natures, and the concept is rather absurd. The same being can't have partial knowledge and also all knowledge.

All KZbin comments are erroneous too because not sanctioned by the RC church. Self-defeating argument

@@classicchristianliterature Wrong

Excrementum tauri ‘[Y]ou protestants’ is adversarial and generalization.

@grammaticopedanticus9727 And yet extremely accurate like saying "you people" or "you men" or "you women." All protestants are a contradiction to Christianity because all protestants deny Jesus Authority for having done what he did in John chapter 20 vrs 20-23

@@peterxuereb9884 again, why are we appealing to Scripture to disprove Scripture?

@@peterxuereb9884, thank you for your response. DJT lies. Lies are spawn of the devil. People of the Word renounce evil.

@grammaticopedanticus9727 I never said satan was the messiah, and you making that statement implies that I have. Truth is all truth, but not all interpretations of it are truthful. Hence, there is only one interpretation one understanding of Truth, which is only God inspired. Jesus inspired and instructured the Apostles it is from the Apostles with, by, and from them, that the Catholic Church started. It therefore has the same Ecclesiastical Authority as the Apostles. It therefore further stands to reason that Protestantism/Anglicanism have nothing in common with truth since they have no God given Ecclesiastical Authority. How could they, to not believe as the Apostles believed is to teach a different doctrine, in response to that St. Paul says, "Let them be anathema." Further scriptural text of which this was regarded as a prophecy at the time is 2 Timothy chapter 4 vrs 3,4 it is referring to a future event the wording tells me so and history tells me so. Protestantism/Anglicanism did not start for another 1500 years. Total frauds the lot of you.

@@peterxuereb9884, I take it you identify as Roman Catholic. For me, to speak as you do of either Joseph Biden (who is an actively observant (mass attendance, plausibly including partaking the Eucharist) Roman Catholic), or so of Donald Trump (who isn’t) would verge on the sin against the Holy Spirit. Take care lest you so transgress.

Desire is temptation. To say temptation is sin, than no one is saved. Even Jesus was tempted by Satan.

@@classicchristianliteratureConcupiscence in a higher subject matter, honestly with the state of the church they need all forms of Catechism. but I do appreciate the more advanced stuff, as lots of modern theology is surface level stuff.

@@classicchristianliterature if food is desire then it is gluttony, you are not hungry but just want more. Desire is the temptation of sin. If you have enough $$ but desire more, that is greed. We might want to define desire.... Further but I posit that desire is or road to sin. Why would the Buddha have taught us that to stop wanting is to set yourself free???

@@NONEOFYOURBIZ69 hunger “noun - a feeling of discomfort or weakness caused by lack of food, coupled with the desire to eat.”

@@NONEOFYOURBIZ69 correct and that goes back to my original comment - there are good desires and there are bad desires. We have to distinguish. I agree that bad desires are sin. When dialoguing with Roman Catholics, they do not think that evil desires are sinful as was explained in the video. I’m working on putting a video together that shows the Protestant view - concupiscence is sin and does not require the full consent of the will.

Thank you brother for the video, it was well researched. I’ll write a response tomorrow.

@@jpyoungkin6693 I appreciate it, thanks again for bringing this question to my attention. There is a lot of literature on this subject in the reformed world, from Owen, Turretin, Van Mastricht, Burgess, Goodwin, Murray…etc. All writing on the topic of original sin, imputation, guilt, corruption of nature, covenant / federal headship…etc. I’ve enjoyed going to these sources and trying to summarize my own thoughts in the topic. If I left anything of necessity out of the discussion, please let me know.

Great idea, some of these more modern statements are very good but the history and context would be useful to share as well