Welcome to our channel! We want to provide the best resource possible to help you understand spiritual truth better. Please subscribe, like and share our videos. But most of all, let us know what questions or topics you would like to know more about!
There are those who believe that when a man and a woman makes a vow before God between themselves then they are already married I do not believe the Bible teaches this.
I would have to say that in order to respect everything Scripture says, we would also follow our civil laws (Romans 13:1-2). Therefore, a verbal vow or agreement wouldn't fully bind a couple together in a marriage relationship.
Brother Kyle Campbell I love you thanks for the great teachings my elder brother I'm a great beneficiary of the great work you do there love you and continue praying for you ❤
Hello, You bring up the Greek words petra/petros argument and I believe it’s important to note to the viewers that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the word in the Aramaic is Kepha for Peter and Rock. There is no distinction in Aramaic in this verse, like you are suggesting. There is no distinction in this verse that says this word means a small stone and this word means boulder or bedrock foundation. Simply Jesus would have said, you are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my church. An interesting note is to look at Matthew 16 in the French. It came from the same Greek translation but a different language and it only has one word for both-Pierre. It reads, you are Pierre and upon this Pierre I will build my church. Also, many non-Catholic Biblical scholars admit that Peter is indeed the rock.
Thank you for your reply. I recognize that Jesus would have spoken in the Aramaic language, not Greek. I also believe that the book of Matthew was inspired by the Holy Spirit so His words were the thoughts and intents of Jesus’ words. There is still the truth that even though the word “Peter” and “rock” were identical in the Aramaic language, the use of the same word was to two different subjects: Peter and the confession which Peter made. The word “Peter” might have been “rock,” but the confession he made far excelled the man, Peter. Peter had just confessed that Jesus was both the Christ but also the Son of God. It is this truth upon which Jesus built His church. Jesus is the “chief corner stone God laid in Zion” (Mt. 21:42; 1 Pet. 2:6f). He is the only foundation upon which man can build. Paul wrote, “I laid a foundation and another buildeth thereon. But let each man take heed how he buildeth thereon for other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). There is only one foundation: Jesus Christ, not Peter. One of the great truths which confirms the inspiration of the Scriptures is that the Holy Spirit anticipated false doctrine before it ever was taught, then answered it. Such is the case of the doctrine that Peter was the first Pope. The Holy Spirit revealed that Peter was married (1 Cor. 9:5); He revealed that Peter was rebuked for error (Gal. 2:11-13); and that he rejected the adoration of any man (Acts 10:25f), a sharp contrast to popes of the present day. Peter never claimed to be anything (beside being an apostle of Jesus Christ) other than a “fellow-elder” of a local church, presumable in Babylon (which some say was Rome; others think it literal Babylon). As a “fellow elder” he was on the same level with all the others who were “fellow elders” with him. Jesus did promise him the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 16:19), which keys he used to “open the doors” to the kingdom to Jews on Pentecost (Acts 2:38f) and to Gentiles at the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48). Thank you so much for your reply. I appreciate both your spirit and your desire to defend what you believe to be truth.
@@loop287churchofchrist Thanks for your response. I appreciate it! You provided me with 1 Cor 3:11 and 1 Peter 2:6 that speak of foundations. I would also say there are a few more verses that speak of foundation stones. You quoted 1 Peter and I think an interesting point here is the word stone here isn’t Petros (the name Jesus gave Peter-John 1:42) it is lithos. This is a completely different word. Lithos is the everyday word for stone and petros is an uncommon synonym, which I believe makes its use as Peter’s name and in Matt 16:18 all the more striking. Another important thing here is that Jesus is the Church’s cornerstone, not its foundation. A cornerstone is only one piece of foundation (the corner part) and this doesn’t exclude other pieces. Want proof? Take Ephesians 2:20- its says the household of God is “built upon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” So together with the apostles, they form the Church’s foundation in this passage, which was written by the same person that wrote 1 Cor 3:11, showing there was no contradiction in his mind between Christ being the foundation in one sense and others being the foundation in another. Also look at Rev 21:14, where New Jerusalem is said to have not one foundation, but twelve, with the names of the apostles. This is a select group, including only the eleven who were apostles during Christ’s earthly ministry, plus Matthias (Acts 1:26). Not even Paul and Barnabas, who also were called apostles (Acts 14:14), were members of the Twelve. And then of course we have Matthew 16. For many reasons, this passage must be interpreted to mean that, in one sense, Peter is the rock on which the Church is built, but the point to be made here is that there is not simply one metaphor in Scripture for the Church’s foundation, there are five. -1 Corinthians 3-Christ is the foundation of the local Church. -1 Peter 2-Christ is the cornerstone of the Church -Ephesians 2-Christ is the cornerstone with the apostles and the New Testament prophets as the foundations. -Revelation 21-The foundation is the twelve. -Matthew 16-the rock is Peter. Every one of these assertions is true, but each in a different sense. One must read each passage in its own context, discern its meaning, and then harmonize it with the other five passages. One cannot take one’s pet passage and stuff its meaning into the other four. For some to take 1 Corinthians 3-or any passage-and stuff its meaning into Matthew 16 is as wrong as if Catholics were to take Matthew 16 and stuff its meaning into the other four. Speaking of context, your reading of Matt 16 and differentiating two different words doesn’t fit well with the context. For example, when God changes names it’s for a significant reason, and with your reading you are saying Jesus changed Simon’s name just to minimize or diminish him and point out that he is an insignificant stone. The result is “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! You are an insignificant little pebble. Here are the keys to the kingdom of heaven!” Such an incongruous sequence of statements would have been not merely odd, but inexplicable. And lastly, I think D.A Carson gives insight to the thought, reason and a history of using two words in Greek, and as I said in my earlier post, many other non-Catholic Biblical scholars agree. For example Carson says in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. “Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." Carson also says in the -Zondervan NIV Bible Commentry. “The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.”
@@loop287churchofchrist God tells us to keep the law, yet we cannot do that perfectly, we need Jesus' saving grace to save us. We do what God commands because He first loved us, and we want to show our love to Him. Nothing we can do can take us to heaven, the only power we have is to accept His free gift. We should get baptized, but if someone accepts Christ on their deathbed, and doenst get a chance to get baptized, God still forgives them completely and accepts them into Heaven. It's His free gift, not our works
The point is, though, that baptism isn't "our work". You are correct in that we obey the commandments of God because of our love for Him. No one should do it for any other reason. A part of "accepting His free gift" is submitting to what He tells us to do. The focus of this particular video is that we get baptized and realize that it's for the remission or forgiveness of our sins. Said another way, baptism is needed for us to be saved by God's grace.
Look I'm baptized and believe its a good thing. It's a confirmation of faith but was the theif on the cross baptized? I believe faith and repentance are what's necessary. Be blessed
Let me give you a couple of points to consider. First, the thief on the cross could've been baptized with the baptism of John for the remission of sins. We just don't know. More importantly, second, the thief on the cross died before Jesus died. That means that the New Covenant, which required baptism to be saved, wasn't yet in force. Hebrews 9:15-17 explains this. So Jesus could forgive someone. It's His prerogative as the Son of God. But once He died, everyone (including you and me) have to be saved in the way He wants. One of those things that produces salvation includes baptism.
Okay, but, like, why? If you are a good person, you should be saved, in my opinion. Whether you get dunked in water or not shouldn't matter at all, as well as faith. Sounds like a pretty petty god to me.
I can’t go by what I think in certain situations. I can only go by what’s revealed in Scripture. Turning to God and reforming your life takes specific steps. If I want to be saved, then I’ve got to listen and do them.
@@colederusha it's not about being good or bad, in God's eyes we have all sinned, every single person has done something wrong, even if it's as small as lying. God offers us the free gift of Salvation because He loved us before we even cared about Him. And if we accept that gift, he lets you into Heaven.
You are correct. We would only importantly add that once you have received the free gift by obeying what He says, you have to be faithful in your life to God. It is sad to lose someone's salvation after God has done so much to save us.
The sabbath day was abolished by Empire Constantine from Saturday to Sunday. That was a man made law and the day of worship is on Saturday. Sunday is the first day of the week and God rested on the 7th day. Also, its very clear that it is on Saturday
According to the New Testament, worship to God was on the first day, Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2). It is NOT a Christian Sabbath. The Sabbath was done away, not by Constantine, but by God when His Son Jesus died on the cross (Hebrews 8:13; 9:15-17).
Kyle, Your lesson on smaller churches was recommended to me by Coy Baldwin. He thought it was good, and I certainly agree. Excellent points. It is a lesson that could be beneficial for those both in larger churches as well as smaller churches to hear. Thanks for your work on it.
That's a very good way of putting it! I've never heard that expression before -- but it's biblical truth. It is very regrettable that some men and some groups have become so preoccupied with money, only to spend it on their desires. The true gospel shows that this is a worthy reaction to God's saving grace, not a way to enrich someone.
And remembering also, that Satan DID obey the law, much of the time. Including in the Job story. Or in however, he acquired the Prince of this World title... which is not always clear. Nor what Adam understood that title to be - or his own placement, relative to it?
Perhaps another way to consider is that God allows Satan to have power on the Earth. That is, Satan is only as powerful as God allows him to be. But Satan's power will never overpower God's (1 John 4:4). He is the prince of this world because he does wield great power in the hearts of people who don't want God to rule in their lives. It's a sad situation and causes so much grief on the Earth. But we are all grateful to God that He has provided relief in His Son Jesus.
If majesty is being a worm. Reproof: Job 25:6 How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm? This place is judgment. Genesis 1 is Lucifer and the fallen angels. They made man in their image. Man is an idol, a trap for angels. Only one Gospel: The Gospel of Reconciliation. Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself. We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness. If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever. Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods). REPENT FALLEN ANGELS.
The New Testament shows that angels are angels, and man is man. We are all created beings, but mankind is not fallen angels. Mankind is God's special creation. Yes, we did sin and we need reconciliation, which was provided in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
@@loop287churchofchrist In Genesis 3:5, the serpent said Ye shall be AS gods. In John 10:34, Jesus said Ye ARE gods. Stop believing your father, the devil.
@@qwerty-so6mlIn Genesis 3:5, the idea of them being "like God" refers to their knowledge of good and evil, which they did previously have. They were not deity. The Scriptures do not support that conclusion. The reference in John 10:35 is taken from Psalm 82 where God is holding a "trial" of sorts with unjust leaders and judges. These individuals were human, not deity.
@@loop287churchofchrist Praise EL! For the New Testament is in Greek to clear up that confusion. Jesus cannot lie. If Jesus meant judges, the Greek word KRITES would be found. In John 10:34, the Greek word THEOS is found. THEOS = gods. Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Shalom.
@@qwerty-so6ml The context of John 10 is very important. “Gods” can refer to others than God Himself, so if God called humans “gods” and “sons of the Most High," then the Jews are incorrect when they claimed that Jesus blasphemed when He referred to Himself as the Son of God.
Everything that can't be proven by scientific methods is "made up". All religions are merely ancient man's attempt to explain the world around him and his place in it.
The point of the video is that God's communication with man is beyond scientific study, so to speak. However, it deals with realities that can only be explained by a divine power. It's not just man's attempt to explain the world around him.
In Romans 7:1-6, we are very inclined to think that the law died, while the text says that we are the ones who die to the law. The law remains but we die to the sin through which we were arrested by the law. I thought Jesus Christ was manifested to take away our sins, but how come you say that Jesus Christ was manifested to take away the law?
Jesus both died for our sins and was the "end" or final purpose of the Law of Moses. Once He died on the cross, the Law of Moses was no longer needed, therefore He took away the Law of Moses as a body of teaching that someone is required to follow.
@@loop287churchofchrist Who owns that Law? Moses or God? The Ten Commandments are binding in all ages and they define the righteousness which the Gospel reveals.
The Law of Moses (including the Ten Commandments) were "nailed to the cross" and are therefore no longer binding on us today (Colossians 2:14). We live under the New Covenant of Christ (Hebrews 8:6-13). Of course, to be complete in our Bible study, most of the Ten Commandments were taught by Christ and the apostles, and those are binding on Christians; i.e. it's still ungodly to commit adultery. But the Sabbath was never required for Christians in the New Covenant. I'm sorry for not replying sooner. I only noticed this comment today.
In Christ's Day, the Controversy with the Pharisees was How To Keep the Sabbath. Today, the Controversy is Which Day shall we keep for the Sabbath? Christ did not meet the traditions and the interpretations of the Pharisees in His day. Today, His people will not meet the interpretations and the traditions of the so-called "Fathers of the church".
The question is not which day we keep for the Sabbath. The Sabbath has been done away. The question is which day do we worship God. That day is Sunday according to the New Testament.
@@loop287churchofchrist So, where is the command disparaging the Seventh Day Sabbath of the fourth commandment and putting Sunday as the sabbath of the Lord in its place in the Bible? Where did Christ positively teach that Sunday is the day replacing the Seventh Day Sabbath ? Show me One verse in the entire Bible teaching that Sunday is the new sabbath of the Lord. As you do that, let me make it known to you that the Sabbath - the seventh day Sabbath is the sign that Christ is the Creator and Sanctifier.
@@loop287churchofchrist In Matt 24:20, Christ is warning the people about the destruction of Jerusalem which will happen nearly 40 years after His death and resurrection, and He is proclaiming the binding claims of the Sabbath commandment. You have explaining to do: How is it you say that the Sabbath - the seventh day sabbath, is no longer binding, and yet Jesus says in His word that it was still to be binding 40 years after His death and resurrection?
@@okellojeremy2700 As Jesus was teaching Matthew 24, the Old Testament was still in force, and even after the death of Christ (when the New Testament was in force) New Testament Christians still respected and observed the Sabbath even though they weren't bound to observe it. A similar example of this would be Paul's desire to be in Jerusalem for Pentecost (Acts 20:16), a feast that was no longer binding on Christians.
@@okellojeremy2700 There is no verse "disparaging the Seventh Day Sabbath" in the New Testament, just as you have spoken. However, as we observe New Testament Christians and their worship from Acts 2 onward, they met on Sunday, the first day of the week, as is established in Acts 20:7. I'm uncertain of the reference of which you speak in your second paragraph about Christ and the Sabbath. Could you provide it?
