The early fathers believed nothing close to reformed dogma.
@classicchristianliteratureАй бұрын
@@christsavesreadromans1096 lol, Augustine. Furthermore, they got a lot of things wrong too.
@christsavesreadromans1096Ай бұрын
@@classicchristianliterature Why don’t you read him extensively, and not just cherrypicked quotes from reformed websites.
@christsavesreadromans1096Ай бұрын
@@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.
@christsavesreadromans1096Ай бұрын
@@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.”
@christsavesreadromans1096Ай бұрын
@@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.
@accordio321Ай бұрын
Do you have any works by David Pawson?
@classicchristianliteratureАй бұрын
@@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?
@david.calvin.Ай бұрын
Very nice library and run-down. I was waiting to see what church fathers books you had but i didnt see any. No Augustine even? Seems like you are a little thin on church history but you may have all these somewhere else?
@bigtobacco1098Ай бұрын
Berkhof
@classicchristianliteratureАй бұрын
@@bigtobacco1098 Berkhof is good. Fairly brief in some areas. Different theologians emphasize different areas so it’s good to have multiple.
@bigtobacco1098Ай бұрын
@@classicchristianliterature agree... the context was "first"
@e.m.80942 ай бұрын
One thing it looks like you may not have much of which I have found extremely beneficial are study aids covering biblical times and their customs and cultures. Alfred Edersheim, Lois Tyverberg, Kenneth Bailey, Amy Jill Levine, Larry Hurtado are all great in my opinion.
@e.m.80942 ай бұрын
I have a relatively large collection of Bible study aids, theology books, etc. too, and can you believe we only have three of the same books? 🤷
@classicchristianliterature2 ай бұрын
What denomination are you?
@e.m.80942 ай бұрын
@@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.
@jeff88352 ай бұрын
It's funny seeing the Bible-only comments!! Strongly agree with Beeke, the Puritans wrote the best Christian material, can't wait for 5th volume of Mastricht!!!
@classicchristianliterature2 ай бұрын
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.
@jeff88352 ай бұрын
@@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!!
@miserable_sinner3 ай бұрын
good recommendations. I'm half way through Berkhof and on page 410 of the Institutes. I haven't read Beeke's systematics yet. Both are excellent works.
@willIV99623 ай бұрын
Look what we found here: an anti-dustcover heretic. 🤨
@willIV99623 ай бұрын
No but seriously, you have a great library. I have many of the same books.
@classicchristianliterature3 ай бұрын
@@willIV9962 that’s awesome, tell me how you tolerate the dust covers? Lol
@willIV99623 ай бұрын
@@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!
@Bijbelstudies3 ай бұрын
I can only recommend the Bible. The books of men makes things complicated and turn men away from the sound Truth of the gospel. Gods heart weeps about all these books.
@classicchristianliterature3 ай бұрын
I can’t read your comment because it’s not a direct quote from Scripture.
@Bijbelstudies3 ай бұрын
@@classicchristianliterature Indeed it is not a direct quote from Scripture, but at least I am pointing directly to Scripture!
@classicchristianliterature3 ай бұрын
@@Bijbelstudies so none of these books point to scripture? Is pointing to Scripture the only legitimate function of non-scriptural words?
@nickynolfi8334 ай бұрын
This video seems to reject the idea that "the reformation was the triumph of augustine's soteriology over his ecclesiology" . Augustine did not think concupiscence was sin. The more i learn the more i realize that reformed theology really has nothing to do with Augustine, and thomisim is way more inline with augustine. Not being inline with augustine doesnt prove reformed theology false but that quote stated above needs to not be claimed anymore
@classicchristianliterature4 ай бұрын
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.
@nickynolfi8334 ай бұрын
@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
@classicchristianliterature4 ай бұрын
@@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.
@Beganagain4 ай бұрын
Will you please post and read The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics?
@classicchristianliterature4 ай бұрын
I’ll have to read through that one and post it, good idea
@Beganagain4 ай бұрын
This is a very important document. Thank you for posting and reading it. 👍🙏🕊✝️
@Bewareofthewolves5 ай бұрын
Good stuff. Thanks for putting this out! I hope many people become familiar with this understanding of Jeremiah 31 and 32.
@scrappybobbarker52245 ай бұрын
Amen and Amen
@erichoehn82625 ай бұрын
A great high level that you can use devotionally is 50 Core Truths of the Faith by Greg Allison.
@classicchristianliterature5 ай бұрын
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?
@brunocapolongo98835 ай бұрын
This is the corrupted version of the creed with the insertion “and the Son” which even the RC church now admits is NOT the version given to us by the Church fathers. For a short explanation as to why this version is a disaster, see videos by Orthodox priests such as Fr. Josiah Trenham.
@classicchristianliterature5 ай бұрын
And the Son is biblical
@brunocapolongo98834 ай бұрын
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
@classicchristianliterature4 ай бұрын
@@brunocapolongo9883 why was the chalcedonian definition not in the original nicene creed?
@VisionOnDuty5 ай бұрын
Any thoughts on John Frame Systematic Theology?
@classicchristianliterature5 ай бұрын
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.
@VisionOnDuty5 ай бұрын
@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.
@classicchristianliterature5 ай бұрын
@@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.
@VisionOnDuty5 ай бұрын
@@classicchristianliterature I have not
@giuseppea46795 ай бұрын
Promo sm
@againstthepope23625 ай бұрын
These canons are the result of those who knew scripture and held dearly to them as their compass to their souls. May we do the same. 🙏
@Pastor-Brettbyfaith5 ай бұрын
Try the Bible. It's all we need. If you use a particular theologian for aid in understanding, be sure that you have searched the Scriptures first, trusting the interpretation of the Holy Ghost. Then you will have a base to build your house. God gave some to be teachers... and we should listen to them, but our source material should always be holy Scripture!
@spackretired5 ай бұрын
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.
@Pastor-Brettbyfaith5 ай бұрын
@@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.
@classicchristianliterature5 ай бұрын
@@Pastor-Brettbyfaith do you preach sermons?
@kevinphillips1506 ай бұрын
All of these titles are from reformed christian writers? Christianity did not exist before the Reformation took place?
@bigtobacco10986 ай бұрын
Berkhof first
@blazers11776 ай бұрын
You don’t have to agree with Calvin but have some respect for the reformed faith, Calvin and Luther are the reason Protestants exist in the first place, you can agree to disagree but Calvinism definitely isn’t heresy it’s one of the most God centered forms of Christianity as opposed to man centered. John Calvin quite literally invented systematic theology let’s not be ignorant and disregard the thoughts of the of men that yes the Holy Spirit used in the right time and the right place in history. Christians who don’t regard church history have a huge hermeneutical blind spot, we are not the first people to engage the scriptures in history and we’d do well to learn and gain insight from the knowledge the Holy Spirit has revealed to men in the past.
@kennethjoseph83606 ай бұрын
True
@DavidRamirez-ww5kv5 ай бұрын
Very well said sir.
@scottleighton16877 ай бұрын
Thank you. Well done on the reading you have a gift.
@rickward29778 ай бұрын
Love you brother but you lost me at “Calvin.” Might as well recommend something by Joseph Smith.
@rickward29776 ай бұрын
@@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.
@rickward29776 ай бұрын
BTW, to directly answer, Mormons blindly follow Joseph Smith as many blindly follow Calvin. I’m a Christian and I follow THE CHRIST. Period.
@classicchristianliterature6 ай бұрын
@@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.
@danniesue22548 ай бұрын
While I was listening to this I checked on my son 3 time, lol. Then I realized it was your child in the background and not mine, lol Thank you for doing these.
@Mike658098 ай бұрын
Chalcedon had it wrong by maintaining that Christ had two natures. BUT he said he did his miracle by the Father dwelling in him. It was not his own power. He was given the Holy Spirit without measure. Right? All he said and did came from the Father. So where did the two natures idea come from? What was deity was his spiritual identity of the Logos. That Logos spirit was made into a man's spirit.
@classicchristianliterature8 ай бұрын
So you are a monophysite?
@classicchristianliterature8 ай бұрын
@@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.
@Mike658098 ай бұрын
@@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.
@Mike658098 ай бұрын
@@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.
@peterxuereb98848 ай бұрын
All books are erroneous because all books are written by those who contradict the scripture's. To deny what Jesus said to the Apostles in John chapter 20 vrs 20-23. Is to deny Jesus Authority, in denying Jesus Authority, you protestants have placed yourselves above Jesus.. This is a why the Catholic Church, which began with, by and from, the Apostles who were inspired and instructed by Jesus Christ, has always regarded protestants and protestantism as a contradiction to Christianity.
@classicchristianliterature8 ай бұрын
All KZbin comments are erroneous too because not sanctioned by the RC church. Self-defeating argument
@peterxuereb98848 ай бұрын
@@classicchristianliterature Wrong
@grammaticopedanticus97278 ай бұрын
Excrementum tauri ‘[Y]ou protestants’ is adversarial and generalization.
@peterxuereb98848 ай бұрын
@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
@classicchristianliterature8 ай бұрын
@@peterxuereb9884 again, why are we appealing to Scripture to disprove Scripture?
@grammaticopedanticus97278 ай бұрын
For me, imperative every American student of theology (lay or clergy) - Charles Octavius Boothe: Plain Theology for Plain People. Also, for concise reference overview, J. S. Whale: Christian Doctrine. And I do not think it verbal overexertion to use the expression ‘for heaven’s sakes’ whatever one’s received tradition of orientation - eastern, western, Roman Catholic, Orthodox (variously autocephalous), Protestant, Anglican, Anabaptist (which John Calvin’s wife was), Reformed, Lutheran, pentecostal, Assyrian Church of the East, Mar Thoma of south India (to indicate a few) - to venture outside it is imperative of the Gospel, whatever our experience of compliance!
@grammaticopedanticus97277 ай бұрын
@@peterxuereb9884, thank you for your response. DJT lies. Lies are spawn of the devil. People of the Word renounce evil.
@peterxuereb98847 ай бұрын
@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.
@grammaticopedanticus97277 ай бұрын
@@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.
@lou_-mg7mb9 ай бұрын
Thank you 👍
@steveareeno659 ай бұрын
Excellent video. Love seeing Bavinck and Vos on your list. Two of my favorite. Berkhof as well
@NONEOFYOURBIZ699 ай бұрын
Desire is sin ... It is the devil whispering in your ear.
@sleepystar16389 ай бұрын
Desire is temptation. To say temptation is sin, than no one is saved. Even Jesus was tempted by Satan.
@sleepystar16388 ай бұрын
@@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.
@NONEOFYOURBIZ698 ай бұрын
@@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???
@classicchristianliterature8 ай бұрын
@@NONEOFYOURBIZ69 hunger “noun - a feeling of discomfort or weakness caused by lack of food, coupled with the desire to eat.”
@classicchristianliterature8 ай бұрын
@@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.
@Ben_G_Biegler9 ай бұрын
Friendly neighborhood Lutheran here. This is a good analysis of the issue, I almost became a Papist at one point and this is one of the main reasons I didn't. Scripture clearly teaches concupiscence is sin and on top of that this kindof theology destroys ones conscience. You are constantly analyzing your sin wondering if it was concupiscence or really sin, worried that you committed a mortal sin.
@OrthoBro75169 ай бұрын
Have you done anything on Eastern Orthodoxy? Even if you disagree it may be useful to present the views of the Eastern Fathers as well
@classicchristianliterature9 ай бұрын
@jpyoungkin6693
@jpyoungkin66939 ай бұрын
Thank you brother for the video, it was well researched. I’ll write a response tomorrow.
@classicchristianliterature9 ай бұрын
@@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.
@jtakayamaukon9 ай бұрын
Thank you sir, much enjoyed. Keep up the great work :)
@lou_-mg7mb9 ай бұрын
Hi Brother. Glad to hear the Lord drew you into Covenantal Theology. What church do you go to? Grace and peace to you.
@lou_-mg7mb9 ай бұрын
Really appreciate it. Lots of good information in this one. Seems like good, Christ-honoring doctrine. Lots to think about. Wonder if you might like to post some info on the history behind each document?
@classicchristianliterature9 ай бұрын
Great idea, some of these more modern statements are very good but the history and context would be useful to share as well