Understanding the Golden Chain of Redemption

[TheDanBlan]

Awesome! Now do it again with Ephesians 1.

[joeadantona]

Catholics (Roman and Orthodox) view the Church as a set institution established by Christ which a man may move into or out of. But Calvinists view the Church simply as the invisible collection of individual believers. So when the Catholic sees Romans 8, he sees a declaration of God's foreknowledge of the institutional Church. When a Calvinist sees it, he sees a declaration of God's foreknowledge of individual believers. This, naturally, leads to absurdities.

[vlambert100]

By your reasoning of Galatians 5:4 then you should also condemn as heretics two of your beloved saints, Cephas(Peter) and Barnabas. Clearly they were using the Law to justify their faith, and Paul was disgusted by this hypocrisy (Galatians 2:11-19). I guess Peter and Barnabas chose to ignore the call of Christ.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@vlambert100

Actually, no, St. Peter was not circumcising Gentiles. He had temporarily stopped eating with them.

[vlambert100]

@KabaneTheChristian It doesn't matter. Paul which you quote in both verses of Galatians is angry at those who are using the Law to justify themselves. He was very angry at Peter for doing this, and we see had he continued he would lead futher people into the wrong idea of justification. I think if Paul had not rebuked him we are given an idea of what would happen as he was angry at Peter for leading Barnabas astray.

[vlambert100]

@KabaneTheChristian I also wanted to say that now you are in agreement with the Calvanistic point of view because you are now making the same clame as D.A. Carson in his book Love in Hard Places that Paul was not "eternally condemnding" Peter.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@vlambert100

I am in agreement with a Calvinist, but not the Calvinistic point of view, because that idea is not uniquely Calvinist. Calvinists also believe in the resurrection of Jesus, but my agreement with them on that point does not give me a unique affinity with Calvinism.

[casablanca4381]

off the topic but I never like Jacob. He was rotten manipulative deceptive scoundrel for stealing from his bro Esau. I can relate to Esau more than Jacob. I am that sibling that got cheated in life from another>:(

[ReformedGospel]

God chose Jacob and Esau, two individuals, not two groups. Try reading a bit more carefully next time.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@ReformedGospel

Um, yeah, if you had actually read Romans 9 carefully, you would know that the two texts St Paul cites concerning Jacob and Esau are Genesis 25, where the context is, and I quote, "Two nations are in your womb", and Malachi 1, where Jacob and Esau are used as symbols for the nations which they bore- Israel and Edom.

No, sir, you need to read more carefully, and understand that whenever the Apostle cites an OT text, he has the entire context in view.

[ReformedGospel]

The Greekish church is false. In protestantism we advocate individuality and hence it corresponds to democracy. Greekish church advocates community and hence communism. If you look at what happened, you know that communism has failed and democracy has triumphed over all corners of the world. Therefore, in principle your "orthodox" greekish church is false.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@ReformedGospel

This is probably the most amusing comment I've ever read. In hell there is a democracy, in heaven there is a kingdom.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@ReformedGospel

Oh yeah, forgot to mention that the Communists slaughtered millions of Orthodox Christians.

And the Biblical world was collectivist. Collectivism doesn't equal communism. I'm really, really cracking up at this comment of yours.

[vlambert100]

@KabaneTheChristian And men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church gave their lives to fight against Nazism.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@vlambert100

Yes?

[oedipusrexsophocles]

@ReformedGospel Um.... Seriously?

In the Church you act the way God wants of your own volition. You choose to act a certain way because you love God. In Communism, however, you HAVE to act a certain way--the way the government tell you to--or you'll be sent to the gulag. One is all about free will, the other is all about suppression of free will. Not the same thing at all.

[BalmungSama0]

@ReformedGospel As Kabane has properly responded to everything else in your post, I will only add this:

"Greekish"? Seriously?

[XDragasesX]

@ReformedGospel hahaha democracy has triumphed all over the world? the US is a Republic, the UK, Canada, Australia are Constitutional Monarchies....these countries only have a representational democratic system with corrupt corporate gophers. Russia is an oligarchy, the largest populated country in the world is still Communist, China. And what did Christ say? "Render unto Caesar's that which is Caesar's". Monarchy is not anti-Christian in fact Christianity has declined when democracy came about.

[Theologica37]

9:45 is the hammer to the head. So many people miss that! Very, very well done.

[alexukback]

which bible translation do you use.. i like your video god bless you and keep up the good work wb alex

[KabaneTheChristian]

@alexukback

I use the ESV generally, just because I have a Bible program which makes it very easy to quote the Bible, and it uses the ESV.

[WilliamTapley]

Matthew 22:14

"For many are called, but few are chosen."

Simple.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@WilliamTapley

Actually, it's not so simple. ἐκλεκτός, the word translated "chosen", just is just as easily translated "choice", like a choice cut of meat. It refers to excellence in terms of holiness. This fits much better with the context of the parable, where a man cannot enter the kingdom because he is not dressed properly. It's not talking about predestination at all, that is just a poor translation of eklektos.

[vlambert100]

@KabaneTheChristian Actually, when the word is taken into context with the rest of the NT it means "chosen out" or "selected." This Greek word appears over 22 times in the NT and is always translated to these meanings.

[vlambert100]

@KabaneTheChristian Source: Strong's Concordance

[vlambert100]

@KabaneTheChristian This term especiall refers to those who are chosen as a recipient of special privilege. See Col. 3:12.

[TrustinJC]

While I accept that this could be rendered as you state. I think Paul actually did teach and believe in personal predestination.

The problem is that he changed his teaching to fit a particular circumstance. He became the be all to end all to all people. Paul's teachings are not just difficult to understand, but rather PURPOSELY confusing and full of contradictions.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@TrustinJC

When St Paul says that he becomes all things to all people, he is not talking about changing his doctrines, he is talking about practice. Like, if certain people are offended if he eats meat, he won't eat meat around them. He circumcised Timothy (because Timothy was born to a Jewish mother) to avoid offending the Jews. St Paul did not teach individual predestination. I have a couple videos on Romans 9 and plan to release a more complete exegesis of 9-11 in the future...

[TrustinJC]

@KabaneTheChristian This is what Paul wrote: For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law;

con't

[TrustinJC]

@Kabane Pt 2 1 Cor con't: 22) to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

I understand the temptation to try and come away with a meaning that falls into your philosophy about Paul. I see it all the time with people who believe in Paul. Everyone says his writitings are difficult and confusing. Which really means, people have a license to interpret the meaning to his writings any way they please.

Con't

[TrustinJC]

@Kabane Pt 3 I've no desire to hijack your comment section and take it down a rabbit trail. So i'll just say that I like your videos. You give excellent explainations of your interpretations. And I believe you have a heart for God. For this reason, I look forward to your video on Ephesians. And I agree that individual predestination is a lie.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@TrustinJC

Thank you sir! I'm also coming out with some videos in the future about whether Paul really taught Sola Fide.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@TrustinJC

I don't see any justification for saying that this means that Paul is a liar. Virtually every commentary I've checked (including ones that aren't Christian, so they have no bone to pick), reads it the way that I read it. I used to believe in Sola Fide and individual predestination, it was actually by studying Paul and what the holy Fathers said about the writings of Paul that my mind was changed.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@TrustinJC

Well, yes. That's my point. He never changed doctrines. He made an effort to avoid offending the Jewish people by continuing to observe the precepts of the Torah. This is why he circumcised Timothy, to avoid offending the Jews. Now, if he said that you must be circumcised to be saved, that would be heresy. But he never said that. It's about avoiding needless offense. If this is St Paul's dastardly plan, why is he laying it out for everyone to see?

[KabaneTheChristian]

@TrustinJC

The fact of the matter is that if there was a Pauline party and a Petrine party in the Christian faith that continued unto their deaths, then there would have been a Christian community that followed St Paul, and a Christian community which didn't, both which had connections to the Apostles. But that's not what we see. We see the earliest Christian bishops clearly using the writings of both Apostles. Clement even speaks of the Church of Corinth being commanded by both Peter and Paul

[TrustinJC]

@KabaneTheChristian Have you looked into the Donatists? The only history we have of early christianity is tid bits from secular sources and the Catholic Church and it's sister church's of Orthodoxy.

There were many who opposed the Catholic church. What do the history books tell us about the booksthey considered inspired? The Donatists for example?

If clement speaks of Corinth being commanded by both Peter and Paul, why does Paul then claim Peter was for the Jews while he was for the Gentiles?

[KabaneTheChristian]

@TrustinJC

The Donatists were actually former Catholics (both the Eastern and Western Churches were united here, and I consider myself Orthodox Catholic, so when I say Catholic, I'm talking about ancient Orthodoxy) who broke away from the Catholic Church because they believed priests and bishops who had renounced Christ were no longer true priests and could therefore not baptize, chrismate, or administer the Holy Eucharist. They were Orthodox Catholic in literally every other way.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@TrustinJC

Now, as for Galatians, what happened was that St Peter had stopped eating with the Gentiles. That is he acted as though he considered covenant membership to be defined by works of the Torah. St Paul never accuses him of heresy. In fact, he makes it clear that St Peter only did what he did because he was afraid of certain heretics who came from Jerusalem (2:12 and furthermore that Jesus had entrusted the gospel and a true apostolic ministry to Peter. (see 2:7-8)

[theman77777777232]

@KabaneTheChristian

"Jesus had entrusted the gospel and a true apostolic ministry to Peter"

So why do you personally agree that Roman Catholicism is not the true Church if the Pope is supposedly the successor of Peter? This is the main conflict that has me torn between Orthodoxy and Rome. I've been doing my best to study, but so limited on time, I can't study enough. I have to depend on people like you and Theologica37 who have already been there and done the research.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@theman77777777232

The Pope of Rome is not the ONLY successor to Peter, succession from Peter does not guarantee Orthodoxy, and it does not imply the prerogatives that Rome says it does. That's in a nutshell. We can Skype sometime.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@theman77777777232

Every bishop of the Church fulfills the ministry of Peter when he presides at the Eucharistic offering. Furthermore, the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Antioch both succeed to a Church founded by the Apostle Peter. St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome, affirms this.

What I mean is that even when one is a successor of Peter, that does not mean that you will never become a heretic. If a bishop becomes a heretic, he ipso facto loses jurisdiction over his See.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@theman77777777232

Thus, if a Pope of Rome fell into heresy, he ipso facto loses jurisdiction over the See of Rome. Roman Catholics suggest that the Church of Rome is preserved from heresy in a way that other local Churches are not. Nothing in Scripture or the history of the Church suggests this.

I studied many writings. But read the Apostolic Canons. They are the most ancient comprehensive explanation of church government that exists. They do not mention the Pope of Rome. Not once.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@theman77777777232

Now, here is the letter of St. Cyprian I was referring to:

tinyurl(dot)com/7oy4nun

And the letter of St. Gregory:

newadvent(dot)org/fathers/3602­07040.htm

[KabaneTheChristian]

@TrustinJC

On top of that, I'm going to release a video on Ephesians 1 in the future, and that pretty much takes care of all the predestination prooftexts from St Paul. St Ignatius of Antioch knew personally both Sts Peter and Paul and used both of their writings. This makes clear that these two Apostles were in complete harmony as far as their teaching went.

[thunderbolt94]

Calvinism is retarded! This is a great video! :)

[tehknologik]

Have you watched the Tudors?

[theman77777777232]

Really like the new hair style kabane!

[robtul12]

Lol. Why are your dogs agitated?

[banjobanjo2]

Matthew Gallatin also does some great podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio against Calvinist thought.

[OCaoimhghin]

Nice job. If one ignores the rather artificial chapter divisions of 8/9, I think the passage you interpreted underlies Paul's assurance that God has not abandoned the Jews but will ultimately save them, in spite of their current rejection of the Gospel. Of course, you can't stress enough that Paul is talking about Jews (collectively) and Gentiles (collectively). To read Romans primarily as a discourse on individual salvation is to misread it, as you well understand.

[stereodust3]

Romans 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.......................Gr­ace and works don't mix. Just satin' :P

[KabaneTheChristian]

@stereodust3

If you want to understand Romans 11:6, you need to read it in the context of the entire book and first-century Judaism and not in the context of 16th century debates based on a bad German translation of the New Testament. Romans 11 is talking about God's ultimate purpose for Israel, and how it is that the Gentiles are incorporated into the Messiah while the Jews who rejected Him are not. He has proven that being made righteous is established upon...

[KabaneTheChristian]

@stereodust3

...the system of grace, not law, as explained in Romans 4:4. The Jewish opponents of Paul were claiming to have the sole rights to the covenant based on their possession and obedience to the Torah. Paul calls this line of thinking "law." It's about claiming that God is obligated to save you based on your observance of the law. Since nobody observes it perfectly, if you work under law, you're screwed.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@stereodust3

The solution is that you operate under the system of grace, where you diligently seek God by the power of the Spirit, and God judges you based on the holiness produced in that system. Not as a judge judges a criminal, but as a father judges a son. "Pistis" in the writings of the Apostle refers to an attitude of faithfulness towards God, trusting in His promises. This is why both Abraham and David are brought up.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@stereodust3

Abraham believed God, and that trust in God was credited to his account (not the extrinsic obedience of Christ was credited to his account on the basis of faith, but the faith itself was credited as dikaosyne.) David committed a sin with Bathsheba and was cut off, but when he repented, he was received back. You can see that the "faith" referred to in the writings of Paul is an attitude in his quotation of Habbakuk, "The righteous shall live by faith."

[KabaneTheChristian]

@stereodust3

And then in Romans 3:25, the Lord Himself is called a "hilasterion pistis", or "mercy seat of faithfulness." Faith, unless animated by works done by the power of the Spirit, however, is dead faith that cannot save. It's still faith- it's just dead. Just as the body without a spirit is still a body, so faith without works is still faith. But they are both worthless.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@stereodust3

Thus, both Abraham and David are examples of faithfulness. Abraham the prototype of all who trust in God's promises, and David the prototype of all who repent of their sin. Romans 11 comes in this theological context. Ethnic Israel cannot receive the blessings of the covenant as long as they mark the covenant by Torah-observance, because that covenant cannot be kept perfectly. You receive the blessings of the covenant by grace, not by works of the system of Torah.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@stereodust3

Thus, Paul writes:

(Romans 6:22) But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.

You're set free by being immersed into the Messiah through Baptism (6:2-4), you receive the Spirit, the Spirit sanctifies you, and this sanctification leads to eternal life by God's grace.