Welcome to the Scroll Publishing RU-vid channel. We are a small publisher of Christian books and recorded teaching CD's, but these are not ordinary books and CD's; Our books and CD messages challenge our readers to return to the historic Christian faith that focused on an enduring love-faith relationship with Jesus Christ and obedience to His Kingdom teachings.
Our commitment to you is to publish books and recorded messages that combine intellectual honesty, spiritual integrity, and sound scholarship. We are not affiliated with or beholden to any denomination, church, or religious organization. So we don't have to alter historical evidence in order to please someone else. We seek only to please Christ with what we publish.
I really can't make heads or tails of what this excerpt teaches. So Romans is aught to be read "differently", how then? Which verses? How did Luther come to that conclusion? Who had a different interpretation before? What was their view? Why did that view make more sense?
Sorry about that. It is a trailer or teaser. These are only little snip bits of the first 5 episodes of the series. You will need to go to the Sound Faith RU-vid channel to see the entirety of each message. www.youtube.com/
one says you cant, no way, and the other says you can......so what is up with that......sounds like a contradiction or a false teaching....and neither is a good option..
evidently it is not the divorce that is the issue, as Paul says that if one divorces the only two options are to remain single, or reconcile....and not reconcile, if possible....so it is the remarriage.......and God is not looking for someone else, to marry....
sexual immorality.....is it not the case of Erasmus that changed this, from adultery....and is it not true that Luther promoted this, thus opening the floodgate to divorce and remarriage....
@@jesusstudentbrett Hey Brett, I’m doing well. Thank you brother! Do you have an email I can reach you at? My email is in the “about” section of my channel.
The so-called Augustinian reading of Paul didn't begin with Augustine. John Chrysostom in the east was interpreting Paul very similarly already, and Augustine learned much of it from Ambrose, who understood Paul that way before him. And we see Clement of Rome, back in the first century, understanding Paul that way, too. And if we take the Pastoral Epistles as pseudo-pauline, then we have a canonical interpretation of Paul in that manner. But if we take them as genuinely Pauline, then we have Paul himself understanding it in that manner..
Hi Taylor, so that is pretty vague, since I dont see, in general, second century AD writers, in much agreement with Augustine, could you be more specific about your supposition that Clement of Rome understood Paul like Augustine? We have only one letter to the church of Corinthian from Clement, and he does quote Paul. So what can you reference from Augustine that lines up with Clement? Is it just a couple dots that we cannot really, honestly draw a Trend Line graph from, if you follow the math analogy?... if we are honest. Augustine taught soooooo... much in oposition to 2nd century writers. They taught Free Will, but Augustine departed from that teaching Predestination/ Predetermination, opposed by early writers like Justin Martyr in First Apology vividly opposed... for example.
I’m not sure what you think you’re referring to. The Augustinian reading of Paul is a Gnostic one. Augustine adopted Manichaean proof-texts to bolster his novel doctrines. He combined elements of Stocism, Neoplatonism and Manichaeism into his theology but utilized established Christian terminology. Augustine has single-handedly done more damage to the church than anyone else in history.
I am not aware of even one reputable Patristics scholar who has read all of the known writings of the early Christians who wrote prior to Augustine who would go on record to claim--and back it up with proof--that anyone (in the church) prior to Augustine can be found teaching a double predetermination of individuals to heaven or hell based on absolutely nothing they had done. John Chrysostom was a well-known teacher of free will/synergism. Ambrose taught that God predestines people based on His foreknowledge of the future. And what proof can you bring forward that Clement of Rome did not believe in free will? Augustine himself taught free will for over 25 years after he initially came into the church; Augustine taught God's election of individuals based on His foreknowledge of the future--until c. 412 A.D. at the time that he had his conflict with the Pelagians. AFTER 412 A.D., Augustine changed his theology. He even tried to go back and edit some of earlier works to reflect his reversion to his pre-Christian determinism. But he did not do a good enough job of it. Augustine began to teach determinism after 412--prior to that time he held to the traditional free-will teachings of the church. Free will was a basic element of "the rule" of the church. Anyone not teaching free will was called a heretic. Even the Second Council of Orange (529) rejected Augustine's deterministic doctrines!
There is a difference between foresee and foreknew. There is also a difference between believing the gospel based on the flesh which profits nothing vs believing as a result of the redemptive work of Christ. Luke and Paul definitely believed we are completely dependent upon God to believe (again flesh profits nothing like Jesus said).
I think there is way more that ties into this. First, I recommend looking at it from the Jewish perspective. Look at their history, Moses, manna, then died. How did the disciples understand Jesus food? “But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, “No one brought Him anything to eat, did he?” Jesus *said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.” John 4:32-34 NASB1995 They understood His food is to do His work when they asked; “Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”” John 6:26-29 NASB1995 Jesus also said; “But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘M AN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.’ ”” Matthew 4:4 NASB1995 So is Jesus present at the Lords Supper? Yes, the body of believers have Christ in them. It is a full meal which includes the bread and wine. It is a time of Christ like fellowship. It was done in the homes and tent (by Paul). When Jesus said “This is my body”, He was speaking both singular and corporately. Remember He said “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” on the cross. We now have many born again believers. This is spiritual. It is parallel to the loaf of bread, where each disciple tore from a piece of it. We are one body. However bread is perishable, we are to work for the food the endures to eternal life. Just like Jesus and the disciples talked about in the above passages. Communion entails every word that comes from the mouth of God, not just a handful of verses. “In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.” Hebrews 5:7-14 NASB1995 “Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.” 1 Peter 2:1-3 NASB1995
no one would believe.....where does this come from as it is a teaching, so evidently some do think this, and use the story of Joseph and Mary as an example to attempt to prove this point....
context plays a part, of translation....que....is what, in Spanish, but can be translated to that, depending, on the context.....so in any translation, to ignore this is to be lost in the translation....
Matthew does clear up the issue, with the example of Joseph, and Mary......one has to go to a great extent, to ignore this clear teaching, of the text....
one would have to ask.....what is sexual immorality, as sex, out of the marriage covenant, is......adultery, end of story......so, once again....you go against your own principles of interpretation.....by using an incorrectly translated document...
as this was published in 1982, way long, after Erasmus is said to have changed this, from fornication and having been promoted by Luther....so it looks like we are off to a bad start....
Yes, he comes back and he and his believers will make the earth the way God purposed in the first place. Going to heaven is not mankind’s place. Really, David, you study enough to understand the purpose of God. Listen to NT Wright about the new creation.
That was a story about how people should treat people not a teaching about death. Really David I am surprised at you! A good scholar would do more research on such a story. One drop of water wouldn’t help anyone!
Is posting a youtube video taking part with the world? If not, why? What about using money which is backed by the government? Is that taking part with the world? If so, why did the apostles advocate taking up offerings? Where do you draw the line?
