Johnathan Brown

"Christ became a man for you; be a man for Christ." - Charles Spurgeon

@FredMagnate01 @BibleInContext1 Because of the countless lives that have been lost because of a false theology that requires Christians to support the modern nation-state of Israel.

@Man4Christ89 @BibleInContext1 That's his view and belief, i find it hard why christian are even debating over someone opinion.

Disclose.tv shares a clipped video of Netanyahu, that’s now going viral, completely misrepresenting what Netanyahu actually said. Netanyahu was paraphrasing a statement from the historian Will Durant. He actually says this in original video! The actual quote says this; “…and the universe has no prejudice in favor of Christ as against Genghis Khan.” from The Lessons of History (1968) In that quote, Durant is not attacking Christ, but making a philosophical argument. He’s making a naturalistic observation about history, not a theological conclusion about truth! Context is always important.

The sacraments are more than mere signs. @VeritasReformed sermonaudio.com/sermons/320262…

That's like saying the devil's way is better than the Lord's. Actually, considering the source...

Roll tide! Roll Ruler!

@TheRealLogosT Yes, but I'm no heretic.

@Man4Christ89 You are literally a protestant

Yes

@TheRealLogosT I don't hold to any such thing. My beliefs are thoroughly orthodox.

@Man4Christ89 Leave the protestant heresy

@zacharyhunt90 You shouldn't talk about the Apostle Paul that way.

The church is not the "new Israel." Christians are not the "new Jews." There are Gentile believers in Jesus, and there are Jewish believers in Jesus. This is the church. Israel remains a literal nation of ethnic people who God made an unconditional covenant with, and no man's twisting of scripture will change that. This is the truth.

Roman Catholics never seem to understand the doctrine of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is not the belief that Holy Scripture is the only authority, nor that an individual can infallibly interpret the Scriptures. Rather, it is the doctrine that Holy Scripture is the only infallible authority and therefore has supreme authority over the church. It is not the only authority. The church has real authority, along with other forms of authority in the Christian life. Those who hold to sola scriptura also maintain that Scripture is to be understood within the life of the church. It was given to the church. It guards and defines the boundaries of the church. It shapes the life of the church. The church receives it, interprets it, and works through it, not as a single infallible institution, but as a body that is accountable to the Word. A central problem in Roman Catholic argumentation is their equivocation on the word infallible. They blur the distinction between infallible and inerrant, and then build an entire doctrine on that confusion. Infallible means unable to err by nature. It is not merely that something happens to be correct in a given instance. It means it cannot be wrong. Holy Scripture is infallible because it is the very Word of God. God cannot err, and therefore His Word cannot err. Everything Scripture says carries full authority because it is true without any possibility of error. Human beings, however, can make inerrant statements without being infallible. “Jesus Christ is the Messiah” is an inerrant statement. “My name is Joseph Spurgeon” is an inerrant statement. Even something like the table of contents of Scripture can be correct. The church can recognize the canon without error. But none of that makes the church infallible. It simply means that, at times, it has spoken truly. Infallibility is not something that comes and goes. It is not something that appears in rare moments and then disappears. If a person or institution is infallible, that is a property of what they are, not a temporary condition they enter into under certain circumstances. That is exactly where the Roman doctrine of papal infallibility breaks down. It claims the Pope is infallible only in specific moments, under carefully defined conditions. That is not infallibility. That is a redefinition of the term to protect a doctrine that cannot stand on its own. And historically, this was not some universally held belief quietly passed down from the apostles. In the Middle Ages, the Franciscans, particularly in their disputes over poverty, began pressing arguments that would effectively bind the Pope to prior authoritative statements. They were attempting to lock in earlier papal rulings so that a later pope could not overturn them. In response, Pope John XXII rejected those claims outright. He saw exactly what was happening. To grant that kind of infallibility would place the pope in submission to prior declarations in a way that undermined his own authority. He resisted it, and the idea was not accepted as settled doctrine at the time. Only much later, under very different pressures, was papal infallibility formally defined at the First Vatican Council in 1870. It was not the clear, consistent teaching of the church through the ages. It was a deformation, argued for, resisted, and finally imposed. Sola scriptura cuts through all of this confusion. It locates infallibility where it actually belongs, in the Word of God. Scripture alone cannot err. Scripture alone carries absolute authority. The church has real authority, but it is always a derived and accountable authority. It can speak truly, but it is never incapable of error. Everything must be judged by the Word of God, because only the Word of God is infallible.

Many evangelicals, particularly in the South, identify dispensationalism with Christianity. They are not aware of the novelty of their own view, nor are they are aware of theological alternatives (covenant theology, postmillennianialism, partial preterism, etc.) within historic orthodoxy. They often don't even know they are "dispensationalists," they just think the dispensational way of reading the Bible is the only option for "born again Christians." Ignorance of church history feeds parochialism on this issue. Dispensationalism has been so popular and pervasive for 100+ years, it's often just assumed and anything else readily dismissed as liberal. Because theologians in more covenantal traditions, including some conservative Presbyterian denominations, don't have much to say about eschatology from the pulpit (especially amillennialists), dispensationalism largely goes unchallenged. I've known quite a few dispensational Baptists who joined conservative Presbyterian churches and yet held on to their dispensational eschatology for years without ever hearing anything from the pulpit that challenged it.

We must reform worship!

Hey, the topic of my most recent sermon.

It's that time of year again, Patrick. youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw?si…

@BillArnoldTeach You realize most confessional Protestants believe in real presence, right?

The Mass is not symbolic. It is the sacrifice of Calvary made present again. That is what Protestants abandoned.

This is great! 😆

Prior to Nate Oats, Alabama basketball achieved a No. 4 seed or better in the NCAA Tournament 4 times ('82, '87, '91, '02). With a 4 seed tomorrow, Bama will achieve that mark in 4 STRAIGHT YEARS and 5 of the last 6 under Nate Oats. A lot to be proud of as a Bama hoops fan.

@DecampDave As I understand it, Wilson believes in real presence but not transubstantiation. In other words, he believes the Bible.

Hegseth’s pal might not like it but this is literally God in the flesh