At St Thomas’ we are united in our conviction that God became one of us in the person of Jesus Christ. He died in our place and rose again to bring us forgiveness and new life. We aim to help our church live for Christ, serve our community and make Christ known. We hope this channel blesses you. Please hit the subscribe button straight away so that whenever new videos come up you can get them.
I want to ask, please answer me. When God created the universe, did God use raw materials? If God did not use raw materials in creating the universe, then what was it that became the universe, was it God's Word that became the universe or what was it that became the universe?
Lots of good ideas here. 1. The dull thud answer: if asked what you do, and you want to make a conversation, don't give a dull thud answer, such as 'pastor' (means nothing to most people), 'minister of religion' (means boring to most people), or 'bible college lecturer'. Here are some alternatives; truthful, but inviting: not pastor, but: 'I work with community groups to help people develop their natural wisdom'; not minister (of religion): 'I am a community educator/organizer and I work with people in the area of using ideas to grow'; not bible college lecturer, but: I lecture in a small college in the area of life-ideas/life skills'. All conversation starters, and you can get to the 'church-speak' as quickly or as slowly as you want. I'd suggest slowly to be able to show the real substance of your work. 2. Rather than 'do you have a faith' (most people don't regard their beliefs 'a faith'; too churchy - I love talking to people about their real beliefs (about life): we can really get to know each other then, and no comeback because we're strangers, right? 3. Then follow Chan's approach, but more questions from you than monologue by you. 4. You don't have to 'convert' someone, or read them the 4 spiritual laws, or 2 ways to live, you need to treat them as real people. Maybe the conversation will go far, maybe it won't but your work is simply to represent the gospel in language and context that means some thing to the other person...no churchy language again.
No one gives a monologue in a conversation...except (some) Christians, of course. Here's the low down: Have three concise versions of your 'story': the quick quip, the one sentence elevator version and the conversational one, intended for interaction. All of course in non-churchy language. Then, be able to answer the seven basic questions: 1. Why are you a Christian? 2. Why do you believe Jesus is Christ? 3. Why do you read the Bible? 4. Why do you go to church? 5. Why do you believe in God? 6. Doesn't evil prove there's no God, or he is not powerful or really loving? 7. Doesn't science disprove the Bible (they mean, of course, its cosmogony). and the bonus, number 8 8. Aren't all religions basically the same, and its variant: I'm spiritual, not religions. Try to answer no. 7 without facile nonsense such as "The Bible isn't really a science text book", or "Actually, the Creation story and evolution are quite compatible."
I'm so encouraged and edified by your sermons, here in Maine, USA. May the grace and strength of our Lord continue to bless your church in North Sidney.
Pelagianism didn’t just preach that works could help us get into heaven. He argued that we could reach heaven without the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He believed that by living a perfect life you could actually deserve heaven (something no Christian professes as we are stained by original sin). The historic Christian belief was quite different. Works were a part and by Jesus Christ becoming man and dying for our sins he made it possible for man to become like him. This discussion isn’t a discussion against Peterson but against the penitential historic belief of Christians around the world. Peterson hasn’t argued that we may become worthy of heaven by taking on responsibilities but just that taking on responsibilities brings meaning into our life. This is true regardless of your beliefs of the gospel. I appreciate being critical but this is a non-point.
To judge a man that strives for nothing but good and truth - and then label him like you have any authority. Hypocrite. Your lord is working through him, open your eyes.
The problem is even men like Mr. Peterson have forgotten the poor. Hes at the Universitys and campuses but he does not lift a finger for the poor. He has all the answers but does he serve the poor as our Lord did.
What seminary did you go to? You clearly have never read the bible in Hebrew or the Koine Greek. We have a statement about people like this. "Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye do not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor diminish from it, to keep the commands of Jehovah your God which I am commanding you." and "Revelation 22:18-19 `For I testify to every one hearing the words of the prophecy of this scroll, if any one may add unto these, God shall add to him the plagues that have been written in this scroll, 19 and if any one may take away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the scroll of the life, and out of the holy city, and the things that have been written in this scroll;'"
What Peterson says is essentially what Christ says. The kingdom of God is not a place where you can say go here or there, but it's within you. So is the kingdom of Darkness Heaven and hell are within you Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand is essentially the same thing as get your bedroom clean, get your house in order Peterson also directly speaks against, and explains really well the works of the Pharisees, and how they take the name of the Lord in vain by saying and not doing Before Abraham was, I am Abraham rejoiced to see my day, he saw it and was glad How did Abraham see Christ? In Isaac, it was the word made flesh The spirit of life and truth manifest in the flesh In Isaac In Jesus of Nazareth And in all those that believe on his name today You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free I respect that this pastor is trying to protect from possible Idol worship of Jordan Peterson. But is the spirit behind Peterson, not Peterson himself that people admire It's the articulation of truth He speaks as one that has authority and not as the scribes As did Christ So who is Christ? He is the spirit of truth, the word of God manifest in the flesh
@nathanporter3569 thank you for that rebuke my brother, the gospel is the person of Christ Jesus, he is the fullness of the Godhead in a body. the very image of the Almighty, who overcame all things. as we behold him we are changed from glory to glory Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness even so must the son of man be lifted up Sin and death are the result of separation from God through the knowledge of good and evil. Since we are made in God's image, yet we have destroyed that image, God in his infinite love, wisdom, and mercy sent his son to be made into our image, even the image of sin, which was the crucifixion of Christ, that we might be justified by him, through faith Christ crucified is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There we know evil, obviously. It's the wickedness of man that devised crucifixion It's the knowledge of Good, because He was only good. He willfully laid down his life in the will of the father that we may see the perfect image of righteousness and love. He that is born of love and righteousness is born of God The cross of Christ is also the tree of life, Jesus said except a man eat my flesh and drink my blood he has no life in him So in the beginning we were separated by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and had no way to the tree of life Christ fulfilled all things that we may now have eternal life, in him. Through faith in his blood, and not his blood only, but in that he is also risen from the dead, seated at the right hand of the father, our great high priest making intercession for us day and night. He has overcome all things Oh death where is your sting! Oh grave where is your victory! There is no other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved, that is the name of the Lord Christ Jesus Whose over will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved!!!
@@josephpchajek2685 that's good Something to think about, Jesus came to fulfil all things. ALL THINGS, that includes the knowledge of good and evil. This is the thing that God said would separate man from him correct? Actually God said the day you thereof you will die. So Christ had to fulfill this as well. He did so in his person, and through his suffering at Calvery. Is not the wicked works of man crucifying the Lord of Glory evil? On the same hand, is it not the most good, in that he willfully laid down his life being perfect and without sin? So by definition it is the knowledge of Good AND evil The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not only a lesson, but a spiritual truth Knowing good and knowing evil is why we die Evil is obviously evil, and "good" can deceive us, therefore we are lost and must be led by the Shepherd Cain's sacrifice looked "good" think of how good the first fruit especially back then would have looked. Abels would have looked "evil" ( think about how awful it is to slay a baby lamb that you have raised from birth ) God accepted one and rejected the other. The one that would have looked good outwardly God rejected. Why? God looks at the heart. The sacrifices of God are a broken heart and contrite spirit, which did not come by offering fruit( the works of our own hands), but by the slaying of the lamb that you dearly loved. Hearing it cry for mercy but none being given is terrible. ( Christ fulfilled this at Calvery, he cried to the father but was forsaken) It broke Abel's heart. ( The father allowing his son to be delivered over to the most terrible death broke him as well) He bevame as God, broken because of the terribleness of sin. And God had respect to Abel because he was broken, as God was broken, because of our disfellowship with him. His sacrifice was one of love, not of works, as was Christ's and the fathers ( who are one) So, because of the actual knowledge of both good and evil we are completely and absolutely corrupt So now the way of God is by faith alone By faith Abel offered a better sacrifice And the life, death, burial and resurrection of Christ brings that same brokeness, which God will not despise. How do I know? He rose Christ from the dead. The work is finished, it was finished before the foundation of the world When God reveals to us his son Jesus, and we behold what he has done for us, it truly breaks us and causes repentance. It causes God to look at us with mercy. And we actually became as God is. Broken because of sin. And that brokenness causes God to have mercy and raise us from the dead, as Christ was To tie it all together on how the cross of Christ is both the knowledge of good and evil and at the same time the tree of life, just simply look This is perfect love, nothing can over come it. Through the knowledge of Good and evil Christ overcame it so we can now have eternal life Except a man eat my flesh and drink my blood he has no life in him We now LIVE by the faith of the son of God who loved us and gave himself for us He overcame ALL things that we might become the righteousness of God in Him
@@josephpchajek2685 yeah that's pretty cool. Paul talks about both of these things in Romans right? How the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. He uses the foolish things to confound the wise, and the weak things to bring down the mighty. The Lord is truly incredible and worthy to be praised!
@@josephpchajek2685 yeah and you're absolutely right about Christ fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, and not destroying them. It was the weakness of our flesh that was the problem, not the Law. Christ addressed this by crucifying the flesh on Calvary, so that by faith in him we die, and are raised. All by faith. Now resurrected by the same spirit that rose Christ from the dead, not to sin but to grace. Life and holiness in the spirit. With all the fruit, meekness, temperance, gentinless, kindness, love, long-suffering, faith. It's cool because these absolutely cannot be brought about by effort, but by beholding the Lamb Something else cool I noticed in Abel, and really in shepherds in general The demeanor of a shepherd is essentially the embodiment of the fruit of the spirit The demeanor of Cain is that of endless work Christ has called us to rest, in him, by faith It's so amazing. God's word is truly unsearchable, joy unspeakable and full of glory Thankful for you brother, thanks for bringing clarity to the word of God
Please plead the blood of Jesus Christ over me, and pray that He leads me in all things. Pray that my mind is filled with the thoughts the Lord wants me to have, and my heart is filled with His love. Also please pray for energy, focus, strength and safety for me at work. Thank you and may God bless you in Jesus holy name. ✝️🩸✝️🩸✝️✝️🩸🩸
Hello Sir/Mam, I saw your RU-vid channel. ( St Thomas'North Sydney ) Your channel has many videos but not enough views and subscribers. Your channel should be optimized, and your videos are very good but your video optimization is very bad Example: SEO score is very low, no perfect title - description - no SEO-friendly tags added, no social media sharing Platform, and some in your RU-vid channel Settings are not correct. Because of this, your video is not reaching the people who are interested and you are not getting enough views, likes, and subscriptions Many problems for which your video views and subscribers are not good. As a result, your video views are not affected. You need SEO for your RU-vid channel immediately. As a video SEO expert, I look forward to your response. I can help you grow your RU-vid channel Happy New Year 2024 Thank you.
Sebelum saya datang kepada kalian semua, saya mengatakan saya telah memaafkan kalian semua, baik dari Kristen protestan Rock Baptis Crhuck dan Kristen protestan di Indonesia yang telah memfitnah dan menghakimi saya, maaf mungkin dengan ucapan saya dapat menyingung perasaan kalian, saya mohon maaf, Bishop Baron saya mohon maaf, jika saya dapat menyinggung perasaan Bishop Baron, saya mohon maaf. Semua orang di dunia ini, dengan adanya kemuliaan yang saya buat, saya tau kalian mencintai saya dan bahkan yang tidak mencintai saya, saya mohon maaf saya tau saya manusia biasa sama seperti kalian. ✝️🙏❤️👏
Maaf Jesus menciptakan kemuliaan melalui saya, Jesus datang untuk kita semua, Jesus tidak pandang bulu Agama dan suku bangsa. Jesus dan Maria mencintai dan mengasihi kita maka Jesus dan Maria menyelamatkan dan membebaskan kita, dari perbuatan dosa yang kita buat sendiri. Maka Jesus mengatan Bapak Maafkan dan ampuni mereka sebab mereka tidak tau apa yang mereka lakukan di dunia ini Amen.⛪ 🙏✝️📖❤️👏
The preacher chooses to refer to rest at 3:56 as being something we have when we reach the end of our lives - in the age to come. While this is not untrue it is notable since - as I explained below the sermon in this series on Genesis 2:1-3 - he has already spoken in contradiction of rest being what Hebrews 4 says it is - something which Adam and Eve have in God BEFORE being sinners - and therefore us too until the preacher proves the doctrine of original sin. If not when preaching on Genesis - when will the preacher argue the case for original sin - instead of presuming it into existence? I will prove further down that original sin cannot be correct doctrine. At 6:15 the preacher rightly explains that we cannot understand the gospel without seeing it from the perspective of the ugliness of sin. However let me point out that it is in fact possible to fail to miss the heart of God revealed in the gospel EVEN WHEN we speak non-stop about sin - if when doing so we fail to see sin as a rejection OF THE LOVE OF GOD. At first glance God’s love for love and God’s hatred for evil seem to be logical equivalents - and therefore surely interchangeable. Surely if they are nothing is lost in speaking only of God’s hatred of sin - instead of explaining how God’s hatred of sin is in fact God’s love for love in its logical opposite? But in the context of the Christian message this is not the case. Speaking only about God’s hatred of sin without explaining that it is God’s love for love causes us to miss God’s motives. This is why I am arguing strongly against original sin - because it also obscures God’s motive in creating human beings. God didn’t create us in order to express his hatred for evil (should the opportunity arise) - he did so in order to share his unlimited love for love with us. The preacher at 8:20 explains very well what Adam and Eve’s having knowledge of good and evil means. It is their usurping of God’s place as both the definition of good and evil - and judge of it. Good and evil are then judged without the judges being united with God’s unchanging mercy and grace. At 15:07 the preacher chooses to defend the doctrine of original sin on the basis of what he believes is plain observation - he considers naughty children to be proof of our all having sinful natures from birth. But this is contradicted by the bible - which says in Deuteronomy 1:39 that children should not be considered to know right from wrong until they reach a certain age (this being necessary for our behaviour to be sin - sin isn’t the action without the attitude - if person A addicts person B to drugs against their will and B then takes someone else’s money to get a fix that isn’t sin): ESV And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it. In the circumstances of his presenting no proof for original sin the preacher is failing to account for three things: - the fact that children are still forming the ability to behave in a disciplined manner doesn’t make their failure to do so proof of sin (what appears to be rebelliousness can instead be an inability to cope) - if children behave as though sinners but don’t have sufficient understanding of what it means to sin they aren’t sinners - if children behave in ways that do seem to be consistent with awareness of right and wrong and a wish to defy it that can be the result of the failure of the parents to be appropriate models - children are not required to own the effects of that failure until surely nearing the point of adulthood - or perhaps even later (in the case of some more limited forms of failure). At 15:18 the preacher again speaks about all of us - not just children - being inclined towards sin - but he never offers any explanation for how this has become the case. If he had done so the only place he could turn would be Psalm 51:5 (verses that say that the heart of man is deceitful don’t speak to the specific truth that our sinful nature starts from birth). Psalm 51:5 is the only verse which goes even close to being able to prove the idea that we are inclined towards sin from birth due to being born descendants of Adam. However this verse has a range of possible interpretations (one is that the verse is saying what Romans 5:12 tells us - that being that we all come to sin due to the presence of sin in the world leading us each to freely choose to sin). Romans 1 is consistent only with that view - not with original sin. It says that we beginning life in right relationship with God - we then each make a free, knowing, and wilful choice to rebel against God - with God then judging us in two ways - he allows us to become ignorant - and he allows us to become inclined towards sin (so the inclination is the result of a free choice to sin - not what causes us to first sin). At 17:43 the preacher does helpfully relate sin to the goodness of God (the thing I said mattered above) - he makes it clear that sin is not just doing something wrong - but contravening the truth of God’s goodness. I like the fact that the preacher at 21:40 makes clear that God remains good despite human sin - he doesn’t change in his character in response to human sin. This is very important in revealing that God is still sovereign - still God - still good. At 22:54 the preacher again hammers away consistent with his belief in original sin without ever saying a word in the name of establishing it from scripture - he says that " it is true of us all BY NATURE to deny responsibility” without proving when and how we came to be this way. He behaves as if he feels entitled to believe truths for no reason other their having been handed down by the church. No - he must ESTABLISH truths from scripture. The implications of his beliefs are enormous. He allows God - who had the chance to create one of possibly an infinite number of possible worlds - to be a God who chooses to create one in which all people are declared guilty (worthy of hell according to the preacher) before they ever had the freedom, awareness, and willingness to be guilty.
