Відео

My brother is very smart; I agree we have to renew our minds with Scriptures.

Vos Group is great!

This is great stuff!

Media has its ups and downs

Anywhere to get more info on this?

Sounds like Barth. Based

I love how God preserved the truth till this day, the church will live forever

wow, keep it going brothers! i love this channel.

I hope that Reformed Forum continues to grow! Much needed.

Thank you for your work. I really got much from your ministry. Best regards and prayers from Russia All Glory to The God.

@110 min. "All Israel being saved can be Jews and Gentiles"!!?????????????? Sure, why not? As though God is casting a Mel Brooks comedy in which Gentiles play the Jews! So, tell me again that you don't seriously hold to replacement theology.

Love the idea of a “book club”. A monthly, or twice monthly, meeting time to review and share what we’ve learned would be very exciting.

As to Zionism, I do not know that Israel is actually back in the land now, as far as God is concerned any more than the mistaken zeal of those carried to Babylon thought of rebellion and had to be quieted by the prophets. Or the premature zeal of Moses in murdering an Egyptian to think to free Israel .

Im grateful for Van Til. A blessing to the church. Glory to our Triune God!

@1:02:06 "they're actually organically the development of the one and the same covenant. " Then was the Mosaic law covenant no more conditional than the Abrahamic? If the law was a move toward greater conditionality, then how is this seen as a linear progression of GRACE?

But why must the inheritance to Israel not include the land? If everything of God, then why not the scrubby piece of land also? Or is that too much? Are we thinking as God Who promised, or as theologians who have inherited a system which has a stake in denying the land promises? Do we also deny the millennial kingdom because we are perhaps just a little too asetic? Why did not the Lord originally use Abram's line to Sarah, " You have Me!" But God specified the land promises. And as far as I have noticed, the sun and moon continue and the tide continues as before. Unless the sun, moon, and tides will become figurative also. Then the land promises still hold.

John 17:3 ESV - And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 17:15-17 ESV - I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

If the kingdom is realized and no longer future, yet lacking in physical indicators satisfactory to Biblical prophetic fulfillment in any physical or visual fulfillment, then why should we be concerned about perceptions of sins any more than as bad dreams of our imagination? Sins are no longer real either. Everything is realized and in the past, the imagination of sins being no more than a spiritual reminder of what is no longer. A cause for rejoicing and not a call to repentance.

A doctrine correctly understood from the Bible in 2024 is every bit as true, no matter how recently read and understood, as that doctrine understood twenty centuries ago. Same Bible. Same truth. Same Holy Spirit. In fact the truth must always be new and cutting to the soul of a person. And no truth should ever be considered any more respectable because an ancient council, ir a confession or a creed has featured that truth. A Biblical truth is only ever true because it is Biblical. That is all a truth needs. Ut should be given no more respect because it is in a creed or confession. I remember, recently saved, while reading John, my ears got hot as I realized that "Jesus is God"! I was not aware that anyone else also knew this to be true . But it did not matter whether I was the first and only. I knew this as truth, no matter even if this was heresy to everyone else. And so must all truth be. There is something wrong with you if truth is more true when the whole Church shouts it as truth. The Holy Spirit teaches a soul at a time.

One very odd obsession of the small minded is to criticize ideas according to their "NOVELTY". Somehow the sixteenth century for the Reformation was incredibly ANCIENT. But three hundred years later is very recent. And look to the background of those newbies. But hey, the Reformers were real Roman Catholics! We do not need to imagine some Catholics in the Darby closet, some Jesuits perhaps! The Reformers were actually the real thing!

You should have introduced Zack Groff as the guy who wrote the songs about the PCA and the BCO

All this to say membership is advised but it’s still not “commanded “ Discernment is advised and commanded, as just one example

The actual proponents of ‘Replacement Theology’ are the dispensationalists, who have REPLACED Christ with a reemerged national Israel as the sacred centrepiece of the scriptures. ✔️

in your scholarship have you found any hymns to Mary?. I understand she was called the Arc of the covenant.

I can't find this book anywhere. Would love to have a copy in hand.

I'm a non believer (agnostic atheist) but I out of necessity originally because very interested in the Bible and more importantly it's origin, original meaning of passages etc as I'm aware of the amount confusion Christian often have with it. I only know a little really, but some of the things I've learned are that the old Testament wasn't intended to be a literal interpretation nor could it be, since it's wrong about almost everything it says with regards to how life came about and cosmology too. Adam and Eve could not have possibly existed according to genetics and biology but in order to hold onto the belief one must engage in a myriad of intellectual acrobatics. God's character: Any God who is said to be omniscient omnipotent omnipresent and omnibenevolent would never have become upset from two innocent naive individuals disobeying an order not to eat fruit. Especially when he knew the outcome ahead of time. This is an obvious fable with a moral and not history

Great summary that we seldom hear in churches.

25:39 I might miss something here, but didn't Calvin also describe the Father as the 'beginning and fountainhead of the whole of divinity'? Institutes 1.13.26

This has been a very rich episode Brothers, thank you!

So, RC's firm foundation is...Aristotle? Sounds about right. But at least 'stotle wasn't a Pelagian, so it's all good.

The problem persists that there is no recorded instance in scripture or early church documents of any analogy to modern church membership practices. What is lacking is a clear understanding of godly submission. What must be taught and clearly understood is that, unlike when crossing the threshold of a Lyons' Club or similar organization, entering a real Christian church for the purposes of worshipping the triune Christian God and subsequently to gather and fellowship with other Christians, you are by definition submitting to God and, by His commandments in His written Word, submitting to the eldership of that physical body of believers. That is true membership, not the contrived signing of documents and agreeing to abide by manmade bylaws and church constitutions. Also, your callous ridicule of the family who may have been very sincere when saying they are members of the invisible church demonstrated significantly more than all the other eloquent arguments.

Re: the language that serves to control Re: confessing deepest desires Re: confessing your identity Re: sexuality vs. the soul Re: the language that serves to control -- What about the language to _express,_ e.g. to express ideas and objective realities and truths (for instance, the moral goodness, or other transcendentals, is not relative] Re: confessing deepest desires -- Strange view on confession: viewing sins as 'deepest desires'? 🤔 My sins aren't my 'deepest desires', the _deepest_ desire is God. Sins are the desires of our fallible and not properly ordered nature, but ultimately, they're nothing in comparison to the deepest longing for the communion with God. They (temptations and sins) even often serve as cheap imitations of that highest good, otherwise they wouldn't be attractive. Our soul is so created and disposed, that at our deepest level, it's God and the good that it longs for. Re: confessing your identity -- What about just venting out, processing one's emotions? That's why people talk and share. _Expressing_ what's inside to vent out and regulate emotions, gain a perspective. Thinking it's the process of _creating_ an identity is nominalist, as if there's no intrinsic identity/sense of being, but only what's being socially constructed. There's INDEED something to it when we talk about constructing the narrative of one's story, (e.g. what one pays attention to, what one omits, can tell a lot how one wants to present themselves). BUT it's still _expressing_ and performing/presenting to others' what's inside (the self-image, the intention to self-represent, etc.), not the process of being constructed through the act of speaking alone. Re: sexuality vs. the soul [this is informed by the Catholic theology of the body perspective] The sexuality is, actually, huge a reduction of love. It's love we all truly yearn for. Human sexuality (particularly: human marriage) is so created, that it ought to symbolize, be an icon of, the communion of the soul with God. The marriage of the Church/soul with Christ the Bridegroom. Therefore, our sexual sphere is a sphere that is not only about animalistic drives, but is linked with the 'heart'/soul of the most intimate physical connection with the other (in the holy matrimony) and with the mutual self-gift. The communion in the flesh of the spouses is their 'tent of meeting', and the intimacy of that connection is a sign for higher, spiritual communion of the soul with God. But in ordered to be that, it has to be properly ordered, be the fruit of love, not of lust (therefore the institution of monogamous marriage). If we let go of this aspect (of the mutual self-gift and the communion of two persons), what is left is hedonistic drive for pleasure, and it's then in the domain of lust, of disordered passions. It looses the sight of God. At the same time, the drives remain strong, and and soul yearn for connection deep down. Focusing on sexuality alone, especially on disordered sexuality, becomes then the _inversion_ of what God has meant as a purpose for a human person, and a mockery of the human's life purpose (which is to lift our souls to God and perfect our fallen natures, not behave like animals determined by their instincts and drives).

Nice episode! Please don't use AI art as it relies on plagiarism of existing art. Plus you could surely use a photo of a nice OPC church or something like that.

How do I apply to join the reformed church please I am begging 🙏

@1:06:45 Hayek is incredible

this podcast would be a lot better. If you would let the guest speak more and interject less. The Facebook quote had nothing to do with what the author was espousing and quite frankly detracted from the flow of the presentation.

Listening to this channel makes me think I need to read Kline. Where should I start with him?

Whoa! #163! Looking for an expose of Van Til called "The Faith Until Van Til - And Still". I think it's penned by the late Bible Presbytherian pastor (Edmonton!), Edward Crawford. Thanks!

No - the human names associated with the Bible are meaningless. Also - the fact that I believe there were 2 or 3 primary authors (human) of the book in NO way means that I do not believe in the innerancy of the Word or Biblical prophetic prophecy. Pick a better hill to die on - you guys sound like intelligent fools.

Good stuff! Thank you, brothers!

I read Biblical Theology but i am amazed how much you guys bring out of it. Keep it up!

I’m reading Mastricht and he dealt with this in his Prolegomena, thank you for this clarification.

Interesting that John's gospel begins not at the incarnation but in the beginning. This podcast is actually helpful for a richer reading of John.