This is the RU-vid channel of Trinity Bible Chapel. We are a church that meets in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
If you are a Christian we hope that these videos will encourage you, build you up, and embolden you to live for and preach Christ. If you are not a Christian we hope that the Lord will use these videos to convict you to repent and trust Christ for the forgiveness of your sin.
For more about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and how you can have peace with God visit onlyjesus.ca
For more information about Trinity Bible Chapel visit trinitybiblechapel.ca
The good news is different, between prophecy and mystery. Israel during that time to now (since Paul) with gentiles. Galatians 2:7 (KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that THE GOSPEL OF THE UNcircumcision was committed unto me, as THE GOSPEL OF THE Circumcision [was] unto Peter;
It’s sad, I’m searching for many preachers on this passage to see where they lead and it’s unfortunately. 12 Apostle foundation is Jesus earthly ministry which towards Jews only and their final days which was interrupted by dispensation of grace of God which was a mystery revealed to Paul. Paul is our apostle and many are not established in gospel of Christ which is the way to be saved today not kingdom gospel.
Love this brother and love this church. I believe Pastors reading ESV, I mainly read KJV (I’m not KJV only) it definitely renders this text differently. Ex verse 3 (in KJV) David is referring to his enemies as a bowing wall & a tottering fence not himself. Correct me if I’m wrong what am I missing? Honest engagement here, this totally changes the text. Again love this church hope to visit again very soon.
According to the text in Dan.8: 8,9 the „little horn“ grew out of one of the 4 notable horns of the Greek kings, successors (in Greek - „Diadochi“ „successors“) of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC). Thus, as recorded, the account of the angel in Dan.8: 8-12 chronologically takes us to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (215-164 BC) - a Syrian king of the Hellenistic Seleucid dynasty. The wicked and blasphemous deeds of King Antiochus IV Epiphanes fully correspond to what is written about the „little horn“ in Daniel Ch. 8! But the historical king Antiochus IV was only an type of the real Antichrist at the end of time. The future Antichrist is described as a „little horn“ elsewhere in the book - in Daniel Ch. 7. (cf. Rev. ch. 13). That future „little horn“ (the proto-type) that will operate at the end of the present age will be the small, but arrogantly-proud, Judeo-Zionist state of Israel, with its spiritual-political leader - a false messiah and a false Christ standing in the Temple in the city of Jerusalem, as a god, and arrogantly claiming to be the messiah king of the nations of the whole world; having the blasphemous claim to stand in the place (remove the authority) of the True Messiah and King - the Lord-God Jesus Christ (see 2 Thess.2: 3-10). In distinction to the „little horn“ in Daniel Ch. 8 (i.e., the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes), the „little horn“ of Daniel Ch. 7 rises at the end of time, among the 10 (i.e. all) horns that sprung from the body of the fourth world empire - Rome (see Dan.7: 23,24), and this is the ever-warring, against Jesus Christ and His Church, Judeo-Zionist (elite of) Israel.
He has that parable wrong, a true Christian would not hesitate to share their oil, keep reading chapter 25 and notice to whom Jesus sais "get away from me I never knew you" he sais it to them who did not share food to the hungry, to them who did not shelter the homeless, did not give water to them who are thirsty. Jesus picked up the 5 foolish, because their faith was strong, because had they had extra oil they would have shared it. Jesus knows your heart, selfishness is not the Christian way. Read Luke 6:27-38 ALWAYS READ IN KJV, THE TRUTH IS MUCH EASIER TO SEE, I can give so much more about this parable, but for now I will add, this; the faith of the wise, was not solid, because had it been, they would have had no fear to share their oil, knowing they would be blessed and God would have kept the oil burning.
Why is he a traitor? Because he went against God's will of putting Jesus into the hands of those who wanted him killed. IF it was God's will for Jesus to come only to die, then all those who helped him go to his death should have been glorified. BUT, we know that all those who rejected, betrayed and killed Jesus were NOT glorified but suffered tremendously, even Jerusalem was destroyed. THEREFORE, it was NOT God's will for Jesus to die but to live and create the Kingdom of Heaven on the Earth, which has yet to be accomplished.
I can't get past this verse. I never feel like I have enough faith. I have tried to be saved so many times, but I am not. I have convinced myself, I believe, but this verse just keeps telling me I haven't.
If you really want to know what is happening. If you can actually handle some truth. I invite you to watch the documentary "Bad Faith" then use your reason and critical thinking and draw your own conclusions
Those who do God's will are always glorified. Many clergy believe that Jesus was only sent to die. IF that's true, then all those who helped Jesus go to the cross, should be glorified. BUT, they weren't. Judas threw down the money. Judas has been vilified as a betrayer. Jesus said it would have been better if had not been born. Then, Judas hanged himself. That doesn't seem to be glorification, does it. It proves that Jesus was not sent to die. But, to be accepted and followed, as he said from the very beginning of his ministry
Insanity and lying and Pharisees. So haven't had a chance to watch this yet. But are we talking about the self-proclaimed the 13th apostle who does not have a throne to the right hand of Jesus in heaven? You know the one that teaches his gospel not jesus's. Paul the Pharisees among Pharisees and a fellow herodian
The king of Jerusalem had a biblical mandate from Yahweh to uphold justice and righteousness over his people. (Prov 16:2, 29:14, 20:28, 29:4, 22:11, etc) Herod held that office and the divinely appointed mandate for upholding justice and righteousness that came with the office of the King when he delivered Christ over to Pontius Pilate to be flogged, scourged and crucified. Christ told Pilate, “therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.” John 19:11 The very last mortal to deliver Christ to Pilate was Herod. If God’s prophetic anger was aroused by unjust kings like Ahab and Baasha, how much more Herod.
The Eastern Orthodox Church does not enumerate the mysteries as this guy suggests. You can just do a RU-vid search and find priests talking about this. They hold to the seven that the Roman Catholic Church have, but they do not limit them to those. He later talks about the priesthood of all believers. Yes, very good, the NT says believers are a royal priesthood. But Israel in the OT was also called a kingdom of priests, amd yet they had a dedicated priesthood as well. So the priesthood of all believers does not by itself undercut the priesthood of the EOC or RCC. I think I will just add more of my comments to this one. In answer to the first Q&A question, he said that EO priests can get married. From my understanding, priests can BE married, but if they are to marry it has to be before their ordination. A single man who becomes ordained as a priest cannot then get married while a priest. I also think it a bit odd to criticize the EOC for their emphasis on the Incarnation but then go to Athanasius to argue for sola scriptura in the early church. Athanasius is, of course, the author of the famous treatise ON THE INCARNATION, which has that (also famous) line, "God became man that man might become deified" (I don't like the translate "might become God," because the Greek text doesn't just reuse the word θεός there). And by the way, in that treatise, Athanasius talks a lot about Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, so it isn't like he tosses those out to talk about the incarnation instead, although I have been a bit concerned myself about what I think is maybe an overemphasis on the incarnation. I'm also just not sure Dr. Costa is quite in tune with the nuances of how the EOC views salvation and "faith working through love" (which is from Galatians 5:6, by the way). In fact, in most of these discussions, the word "salvation" is never quite defined, and so I think there ends up being a lot of talking past one another, because people just aren't quite talking about the same thing. Although this video is titled "Eastern Orthodoxy & the Gospel," I didn't hear much about how EO actually denies the gospel. Again, to affirm "faith working through love" seems to me simply to affirm Galatians 5:6 and James 2:14-26. And while if you press Protestants, they will agree that salvation includes sanctification and glorification, salvation is really talked about and thought about as equal to justification (and "going to heaven when you die"). Salvation in the EOC seems to more explicitly and more consistently incorporate sanctification and glorification/deification, so that to say that salvation has no place for works sounds like saying that sanctification has no place for living a more holy life. Dr. Costa also references Joshua Schooping's book *Disillusioned*, which I have read, regarding Jesus being angry and people having to approach him through his mother. I think this is a valid criticism of those prayers and practices, but I do not think it is fair to equate that to the EO mindset generally, and especially not to the official teaching of the EOC. In fact, priests that I have listened to and read say over and over again that God is NOT angry with us and WANTS to save us. A common criticism from the EO against the Protestant understanding of penal substitution is that it an angry God who must be appeased by blood. Whatever you think of that criticism, it indicates a reluctance from the EOC to talk about God as angry and distant. I think there is a lot more that I could comment on here, but I will just give a summary now. While I think Dr. Costa gives a handful of points that are worth consideration, there is also to my estimation quite a bit of misrepresentation, as well as some odd arguments that don't have a lot of force. But I am not Eastern Orthodox, so take these things for what you will. I may also have misrepresented Eastern Orthodoxy somewhere. I appreciate the opportunity to hear arguments against Eastern Orthodoxy, though, as I continue my inquiry.
Did he just say that Cain's offering to God was rejected because it was produce from the ground, which was cursed and was a product of human labor? Wow, I have never heard that interpretation before. Surely, he doesn't think Abel did no work in caring for the flocks. I dont know, I think he maybe needs to rethink the story of Cain and Abel and whether Cain even had a good heart before God when he made his offering.
Pascha is not Communion. I assume that was just him misspeaking. Pascha is Easter. Also, a criticism against the current Patriarch of Moscow is not necessarily a criticism of Eastern Orthodoxy as such.
Rrgarding the offices of the Church, the Eastern Orthodox Bible has an appendix on this. Their argument is that the distinction between bishop and presbyter under the monarchical episcopate structure was a semantic development, not an actual development of offices. That is, when the words were used interchangeably, there was still a "protopresbyter" for the sake of good order. Early in the second century - and we see this with Ignatius - the word "bishop" began to be used exclusively for the protopresbyter. The rest of the presbyters were still just called presbyters.
