Amy speaks so clearly about the cross and the great exchange that is salvation by grace alone through faith in who Jesus is and what he did for us. She nailed the doctrine of justification by faith alone so perfectly! A real champion. 👌

@crmcninch

Ай бұрын

Amy’s diatribe starting at 46:20 is simply fantastic! ❤

I'm 3 and a half episodes in to the series. I love the interconnective nature of my internet engagement!

Excellent conversation! I am currently binge watching some of the episodes that I missed. Keep up the good work.

This was incredibly informative and encouraging. I found myself watching it for educational purposes, and was surprised by a greater assurance of my salvation. Thank you all. I am inspired to delve into the life of Luther and history of the Reformation!

One additional note I'd add is that most of the references to "evangelicals" in The Rest Is History Luther series seemed anachronistic to me. I like that podcast, but I believe if you pay attention to those mentions of Luther's followers being evangelicals, it seems that they are just folding 16th c. believers into the modern theological/political term. Perhaps I misheard them, but that's what it sounded like to me. That is, in fact, "my truth."

As a catholic I cannot suppress a certain sense of bemusement when I hear Amy's statement that (paraphrasing) "protestants disagree about the interpretation of scripture, but they all agree that scripture is clear" (at 1:22:11)

Thanks for doing this. I was irked by the podcasts, which didn't really get the ideas /theology of Luther. Excellent to have a deeper account.

I don’t think I have ever heard a more distorted interpretation of Luther than The Rest Is History in this podcast. Talk about reading modern issues back into history, issues which Luther would not have recognised!

@christopherflux6254

Ай бұрын

Yeah. Tom Holland is a historian (and a great one at that), but not a theologian.

@tomasrocha6139

Ай бұрын

@@christopherflux6254 Tom Holland is a complete amateur

Stopped by here yesterday and left to first watch the 4 episodes publicly available... Fantastic conversation, thanks! I do think Mike's response to Timothy (Catholic) at 1:07:53 is insufficient, rather begging the question and dismissive of the broader hermeneutical challenge raised, Luther's own views aside. I'm Catholic too, but still all over the map on a lot of this stuff, and truly appreciate the dialogue here. God bless.

@jocresswell3864

Ай бұрын

I felt exactly the same. Timothy's question was an excellent one and I was disappointed that Mike did not engage with it.

Wow, what an excellent episode. Learnt so much from these guests. Lot's to think about. Thank you. ❤

Thank-you, as someone too that both listens to The Rest is History and Speak Life and have heard Mike Reeves' talks as well, good to be introduced to Amy.

Three minutes in and I've paused the video to buy one of Amy's books, even though I haven't previously heard of her.

I hope Tom & Dom see this podcast. Thanks.

The Rest Is History on Luther was pure TRIFLES. Luther would do somersaults were he in his grave. "Now, my good Erasmus, I entreat you for Christ's sake to keep your promise at last. You promised that you would yield to him who taught better than yourself. Lay aside respect of persons! I acknowledge that you are a great man, adorned with many of God's noblest gifts--wit, learning and an almost miraculous eloquence, to say nothing of the rest; whereas I have and am nothing, save that I would glory in being a Christian. Moreover, I give you hearty praise and commendation on this further account--that you alone, in contrast with all others, have attacked the real thing, that is, the essential issue. You have not wearied me with those extraneous issues about the Papacy, purgatory, indulgences and such like--trifles, rather than issues--in respect of which almost all to date have sought my blood (though without success); you, and you alone, have seen the hinge on which all turns, and aimed for the vital spot." Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will

Amen, hallelujah, and shalom comes with rejoicing! In front!' Remembering thy sincere conversations of "THY YOUTH"!

Oh, this is interesting.

@janetbaxter6358

Ай бұрын

My attention is grabbed again!

Christ said to St. Francis “Build up my Church” which he did bringing about a reformation of the Church from within. St. Teresa reformed her order and the Church with the help of St. John of the Cross. Neither saw a reason to leave but then neither had a desire for a non-celibate life or of giving up their vows.

@j.g.4942

Ай бұрын

Neither did Luther want to leave nor enter married life; in both he conceded and embraced them, but they weren't his will

@lafamigliabazzani499

Ай бұрын

Jan Hus didn’t “leave”, and arguably Luther didn’t either did he? He was excommunicated I thought (and almost certainly would have been killed like Hus if not for political protection)

Enjoyed this. Was glad to hear Taponie’s questions mentioned-he would have been a good guest as well. Or perhaps a Robert Rosin.

Great response. I hope Holland and Sandbrook listen and digest.

@predragdzambasevic3101

Ай бұрын

They are scientists, not theologians. They talk about reality

@paulgoodfellow6313

Ай бұрын

@@predragdzambasevic3101 actually historians.

@malcolmmartin3206

19 күн бұрын

Messrs Holland and Sandbrook have crossed over to being celebrity historians. As such they know only their truth.

53:37 Hey Glen, if you're going to state Catholic doctrine at least get it right (also stop calling it rome there are 23 eastern churches that are in communion with the bishop of rome and none of them are Latin rite), if you are going to criticize Catholicism be truthful. 1. Limbo isn't official church teaching. It's a popular view among catholic theologians and some Popes, but it has never been binding on the faithful to believe that, and is certainly not a dogma. 2. Catholics believe that technically anyone outside of Communion with church can go to heaven. What matters is if someone is in formal or material heresy. The orthodox were formal heretics since they refused to submit to the bishop of Rome even though they affirmed papal primacy in Constantinople III. Therefore, some of them would fall under lumen gentium no. 14. “Whosoever knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved” (Lumen Gentium, no. 14). "Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to his grace” (Lumen Gentium, no. 16). 3. Every person who has been baptized Trinitarian and believes the same things as we do about the trinity are considered Christian. Luther stole that view from the Catholic church not the other way around. This view on baptism has been around since Augustine, Catholic bishop of hippo, took on the donatist and affirmed that it was not needed for impeachable people to bestowe grace for a sacrement to work. That being said we don't believe that just because you are a Christian that automatically means you go to heaven, you must be obedient to God. Just like in order to be a jew one must be circumcised, and be obedient if they were to be freed from sheol.

@bobtaylor170

Ай бұрын

How obedient have you been? Did you lose your salvation when you sinned? Or did you do what 1John 1:9 tells us, confess your sins to God and be assured of the forgiveness which Christ bought you with his blood? The big Catholic error here is to conflate justification with sanctification. They are not the same, but the grace of God is so vast that He has indeed prepared good works for us to walk in. But ultimately, it's all of God.

@caffeinated_chesterton

Ай бұрын

@@bobtaylor170 Luther believed that you could lose your salvation too. That isn't a Catholic verses protestant issue, so did every Christian until the 1800s in America. There are several denominations who think you can and are protestant such as Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodist are they also wrong? I do confess my sins to God and receive forgiveness also I confess my sins to a priest and receive absolution because I believe they are the successors to the apostles and the apostles had this power given to them by God. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained. John 20:21-23.

@bobtaylor170

Ай бұрын

@@caffeinated_chesterton okay, I gave you too hard a time, and I am sorry.

@caffeinated_chesterton

Ай бұрын

@@bobtaylor170 I will accept your apology, but if you're going to try and disprove Catholicism come up with a better argument. Also, show why their beliefs are wrong and why it would put somebody's soul at risk to follow Catholicism. However, if you do that and I name a denomination that also follows those views be consistent and say they are going to hell too.

@bobtaylor170

Ай бұрын

@@caffeinated_chesterton the problem is that Catholics frequently fail to make the means of salvation clear. True story: Maybe fifteen years ago, I was watching a televised Mass. Here's what the priest said in his homily - "This past week, I went to visit Sister ( whoever ) in hospice. Many of you know her. She's now in her early nineties. She said to me, 'Oh, Father, I know I'm here to die, but I'm so scared. Please pray that against the odds, God will give me just two more years to live. I really think with two more years, I could become holy enough to live with God.'" The priest said, with real compassion, "I said to her, 'Sister! You can't possibly make yourself holy enough to live with God. Jesus did that when he died on the cross for you!'" Now, I was thrilled to hear the priest say that. But that he would have occasion to say it to a ninety year old nun, someone who had spent her entire life in selfless Church work, is what I find so disturbing about Catholicism. And it's what Protestants have always protested about Rome. That priest knew the Gospel, God bless him, and there have always been Catholics who have known and believed the Gospel, for which I praise God. The problem is that if I understand matters correctly, the catechism does not make this clear. We Protestants have our share of people who haven't really understood how a person is redeemed, either, but it seems more prominent a problem in Catholicism. Another problem I have with Catholicism is ecclesiological. It has a flawed understanding of what the Church is. It sees the Church as an institution on the Earth, the authority of which is vested in the Pope and the Cardinals. The Church is not that. It is a spiritual fellowship, not a bureaucracy. It answers to Jesus Christ, not to any man. And frankly, the Catholic assertion that we Protestants may be saved because God knows we were in "invincible ignorance" enrages me. I think the smugness - completely unwarranted - which is inherent in that term angers me more than anything else about Catholicism. Having said all of that, I enthusiastically acknowledge that in any generation, Catholics may number among the greatest Christians. I believe I was acquainted with a man like that, a fellow who, in his early forties, died of heart disease. I know he was a disappointed man. His heart problem was congenital. It had kept him out of the work force, unable to marry, and poor. Yet he had a cheerfulness and a gallantry which sometimes I muster in my best moments, but not often. And I have been enormously blessed by G.K. Chesterton and Ronald Knox, Flannery O'Connor and Walker Percy. J.F. Powers' "Morte d'Urban" is a perfect novel, both hilarious and serious, a beautiful book. If you haven't read it, you're missing a treasure. Luther was a mess. I've always believed that the madness of his later years was likely to have been exacerbated by his kidney disease, but he was still often an embarrassment. But he was a towering figure in the history of the Church. He, more than anyone else, rescued the Gospel. He had had forerunners, you know, men such as Hus and Wycliffe. That there was something rotten in Rome was a perception which had been an undercurrent throughout Europe for centuries; it didn't originate with Luther. If you believe in Jesus Christ as the Second Person of The Triune Godhead made Incarnate, who died for your sins and was raised from the dead, you're my sibling in Christ. Again, I'm sorry I got snotty earlier.

I get the slight sense that Tom is reading into Luther’s conversion what he himself expects to happen to ‘make him be a Christian’. His answer to the question at conferences ‘what will make you believe’ has tended to sound a lot like how he described Luther’s subjective experience.

@SpeakLifeMedia

Ай бұрын

1000%

I'm glad I am saved by the blood of Christ and not the accuracy of my doctrine. We do tend to interpret through our experience. I took a survey of philosophy course and the instructor stated we would use how the philosopher was interpreted at the time rather than later, because that is how other philosophers added or challenged the philosopher. I am a sinner; I will change objective truth to my truth, equality to equity, compassion to race to victimhood and conscience to anything, rather than leeway in what is good or gray area. Great conversation.

I don't think Luther is necessarily the first modern man. For that honor I would think Machiavelli would be in the running.

Indeed, I kept waiting for justification by faith to be mentioned. If it was, I must have missed it.

There was a really excellent video I watched by scholagladiatoria about essentially scripture vs. tradition, but in martial arts. His framing was living lineage vs. reconstructed martial arts, and the pros and cons of each. What he points out is that the living tradition offers much more nuance and precision when it comes to living out the practice than the texts. Maybe your foot is bent out a little too far to get the proper mobility for your stance: the text isn't going to help as much with that kind of thing. But living traditions will morph over time. It will look, as far as anyone can tell, the same as the past 5 generations of the art. But as one master passes the teachings onto his pupil, and he to his and so on, the tradition will get a tweak here and an adjustment there as to work for the practitioner, eventually becoming unrecognizable to the original. The younger iteration sometimes can become wholly unequipped to deal with the situations the martial art was designed for or more convoluted than it needs to be. To avoid this, practitioners can go back to the treatises and ask, "are our practices lining up with what the early practitioners wrote and taught?" Then they can adjust, or take what they have practiced and move back toward the function that was forgotten. Both the living tradition and the text are important, and I believe the same is true for us in Christianity. I think one difficulty with sola scriptura in our modern age is that we live post-Death of the Author. Most people don't believe that authorial intent matters anymore, which can lead people to play fast and loose or dismiss a text without putting in a proper effort to understand what it's really saying or why it's saying it. Apply that disregard to the Bible and it's no wonder why so many sola scriptura churches have gone way out of line. It's gone from scripture being the rule of law over our frameworks to us being the word of law over a vaguely scripture-shaped framework. Which ironically is the very thing sola scriptura was meant to ward against in the first place.

Conversations come here!

I haven't read all of the 151 comments so it may be that someone has already made this point...what I can't square is how in my view Martin Luther could have been so right and so wrong at the same time. So right in understanding that salvation is by grace and not by works, but so wrong in his pouring out of hatred for his enemies. His pamphlet against the Jews is utterly shocking. How could he claim to know the love of God and behave in such a vile way? When I have asked Luther devotees about this they will justify his horrible behaviour by saying "Luther was a man of his time". But he was anything but a man of his time in that he took on the church of the day. I was hoping that this podcast would address this, but it didn't really. Would love to know what Glen and the others think of this....

Tom and Dom are living their truth and doing some revisionist history. Can’t help but feel like there is more to these discussions when Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy are growing in their appeal to modern secular public intellectuals. Will we see these debates become more fiercely contended again, like in Reformation times?

Yes, "those seven minutes" are a train wreck. Amy and Mike get us back on track.

I started to really dislike Luther after I read the correspondence between him and Erasmus, although I had already read horrible things about the kind of man he was.

I have enjoyed reading Eric Mataxas book on Luther. He was a man of real conviction. In the book there is a story about Luther which brought a smile to my face when he did a daring rescue of Nuns from a Monastery. He did it himself because everyone else were frightened to help him. He then finds husbands for each of them and ended up marrying one himself.

@emeraldtier1750

Ай бұрын

Do you think breaking down an institution that was meant to give unmarried women an occupation with protection and status was ultimately a good thing? And isn't forcing women out of a pivotal role in the church? One that people thought needed to be fixed by progress. Female ministers. Luther also wouldn't have thought that theologically sound.

@jotink1

Ай бұрын

@@emeraldtier1750 I was simply commenting on some facts I had read about Luthers life. If you are really interested in knowing the facts surrounding what I said then please buy Eric Mataxas book about Luther,. He recused Nuns out of their misery it is they who wanted out an couldn't find any other way out except to escape and seek protection which Luther provided. I think there were about 10 altogether. They all found a new life and happiness with husbands and children from a life they were persuaded to follow as children.

@HearGodsWord

Ай бұрын

​@@jotink1good point

Students, what is attacking? For the "AM" before came for Thee! And unto all thy shared "i" AM. Shared "i" AM come forth!

How? Remember without the "i" AM! Even creation itself can't exist in front! Remember all THY shared "i" AM. Now asked creation itself? Who will glorify? Remember likewise what is life without conversations? Beloved I so thank thee! For thy conversations!

Agreed. They really did not understand Luther. But love the show, regardless.

The big problem was the nascent refutation of 'free will' by Calvin and Luther. Erasmus saw the problem, and shuddered at it's repercussions.

Voice from thee! Will bring the NEW SONG!

Students what is obnoxious? Nor for many exalted themselves above? Keep watch!

Belief in a literal Hell is a worse perversion than child rape.

I believe that the Jews don't read scripture but argue scripture. We are limited in our ability to fully understand the bible and dialogue will open us up to a variety of meanings

Students will say #'s do ye exist in front?

Beloved becareful for all my shared Feet has to dust off and hands! From visiting all my OWN. Upon all dry grounds. Offsprings and all our meeks hold fast!

Voice will say, for ye to prefer to hear!

Name nor names nor #'s come here! From here! Thy shared "i" AM.

Remember as a little Child born "i". The "AM" knows?

I do belive Luther's contribution was big and needed but I wouldn't call him the father of the Reformation.

They didn't answer the question from the Catholic. Perhaps I wasn't able to understand the point but it still seems that Luther did in fact just replace previous Christian Tradition with his own personal traditions. It's also interesting how the US Constitution was brought up since, as the great conservative Justice Antonin Scalia stated, you can not understand the Constitution without also reading the Federalist Papers, which is the collection of documents explaining what the framers meant by what they put in the Constitution. You also need to have a living body who can apply that understanding to new problems that arise(like does the right to privacy apply to tech data). So to draw an analogy, the US Constitution would be Scripture, the Federalist Papers(and other previous legal rulings) would be Tradition, and the Supreme Court would be the Magisterium(teaching office of the Church).

@toddthacker8258

Ай бұрын

The problem with that analogy is that the Supreme Court isn't infallible, so when they make a mistake future Courts can rectify it. Sola Scriptura doesn't mean Scripture is the ONLY authority--Protestants recognize church authority too! It's just that Scripture is the only INFALLIBLE authority.

@isaiahwhitehead777

Ай бұрын

@@toddthacker8258 I agree the Supreme Court isn't infallible but it also doesn't have a promise from Christ to never allow the gates of hell to prevail against it or that He would be with it always even unto the end of the age. A promise that the Church had always known(even going back to Ignatius) all the way up to the reformers who made a radical break(I am sympathetic to their reasons why) from historic Christian Tradition.

@toddthacker8258

Ай бұрын

@@isaiahwhitehead777 I just don't see that Jesus's statement can be reasonably interpreted to mean that one particular institution will never err theologically. Just looking at it, it seems to mean that the church will never be destroyed, not that it will never reach erroneous conclusions. The whole history of God-followers indicates that we love to add our own requirements atop of God's, and that He won't stop us from doing so. (See Mark 7:1-13, especially v.8).

@isaiahwhitehead777

Ай бұрын

@@toddthacker8258 Well let me ask a genuine question that piggybacks on the original question posed by the Catholic in the interview. Does that passage you cite(especially v8) apply to the tradition that Luther started? In other words, did Luther start a new tradition?

I'm not sure I'll listen to this very long talk, here is anyway the title of a probably shorter read with refutation of Dr. Jordan B Cooper, which is: Misconceptions Largely Not Misconceptions, Lutheranism Remains Wrong You can find it on a blog titled: Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

@hglundahl

6 күн бұрын

assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/05/misconceptions-largely-not.html

Students will say bring #'s in front!

Shared Feet visiting! Yes, the New Jerusalem, the New Pillar, nor the KINGDOM OF GOD OFFSPRINGS PRESERVE came unto thee!

I guess my questions are, was Luther really using abusive words on his opponents? Did he really grow fat and marry a nun just to defy the pope? Because that doesn't really sound like the pious reformer that they have alway painted luther to be. Asking as a Protestant myself

Voice why exist?

Knows HIS VOICE?

Well… they are Historians not Theologians! Of course there will be different takes on Luther. Look at all the Protestant demonstrations post Luther!

I’m a regular listener of TRIH and I found it incredibly patronizing towards Luther, saying that the next logical step is atheism after what Luther claimed when he would even at surface level have found that idea appalling. It was very disappointing though not surprising coming from two atheists.

@iphang-ishordavid2954

Ай бұрын

But it is the truth, when you think about it. And they didn't particularly say Luther's Doctrines were Atheistic, they ment that the Atheist coming after Luther, had his attitude. Just as Luther protested against the institutional Church, and emphasise the Scriptures alone as a source of freedom, so too did the Atheist protest against institutional religion and emphasised science as the freedom of man from the chains of religion. E.g look at Richard Dawkins, doesn't he have an attitude of an evangelical? You could call him an evangelical Atheist

@JeansiByxan

Ай бұрын

@@iphang-ishordavid2954 I see your point but it is still incorrect to say that religiosity be default leads to atheism. The early Christians went against the religion of the Roman Empire and were considered 'atheists' by them (yes, in that actual word). Ryrie himself points this out. The idea that free-thinking has to be divorced from religion is simply inaccurate.

Now voice without the "i" AM! Do ye exist in front? Voice will say, many who am I? Making many noises in front of thee! Don't even know why making noises in front of thee?

Regarding Luther and the Lutheran Reformation as conservatives there is a great book, "The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology," by Charles Porterfield Krauth.

It is not about the Bible it is about Christ’s words “Thou Art Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church.” Peter the original appointed and each successive Pope being a stand in for Peter in playing this role. Scripture may be a form of authority but everyone interpreting it according it their own opinion is not a solution. The Trinity, the three personhoods of God is God as transcendent, God as Christ consciousness or the Intelligence of God in creation, God as the Holy Ghost that structures and maintains creation.. Only the inner Church understood trans-substantiation it could not be literally explained to the laity so was symbolized in the Mass. The Church has tremendous wisdom people picking and choosing what these deep truths mean is not ideal.

@karlernstbuddenbrock371

Ай бұрын

And isn’t Pope Francis just the exemplary representation of this false successive authority narrative.

@bobtaylor170

Ай бұрын

It couldn't be explained to the laity? What you Catholics have never understood is that each Christian believer is to study the Word for himself, NOT apart from authority, but guided in our search of the Scriptures by pastors and teachers who have learning which the laity lacks. But every believer is commanded to rightly divide the Word of Truth. I'll let you do a Google search to discover where that is in the Bible. You're Catholic, so you wouldn't know.

@ALavin-en1kr

Ай бұрын

@@bobtaylor170 Sorry I struck a nerve. I have encountered too many Bible interpreters and their bizarre ideas not to be adverse to the notion. I do have a bible. I am happy you are guided by your clergy I have no quarrel with that It is good. Most clergy are good it is only the mega church charlatans I would be wary of.

@markwebb7576

Ай бұрын

Do Christ's words tell us that Peter's role as "Rock" is to be a successive office in the church and that the successor will be the bishop of Rome rather than of any other city?

@ALavin-en1kr

Ай бұрын

@@markwebb7576 It was a given that it be Rome as it was the center of the western world at the time; the center of the Empire. Jerusalem was not the center. As well the phrase ‘A new Jerusalem’ is metaphor for a new or higher level of human consciousness. It does not mean Jerusalem the physical place. Much of religion is metaphor which, unfortunately, is often given literal interpretations which confuses people as metaphor taken literally doesn’t make any sense.

1:01:44 Scripture is divinely inspired revelation. Catholics do not believe there is on going revelation. Catholics do believe the Pope and the bishops in union with the bishop of Rome are innerant within their authoritative interruptations of divinely inspired revelation. The way I like to think of it is the papacy and the bishops are like a thermometer, they are able to give accurate description of whether something is warm. However, that is completely different from making something in itself hot. When the apostles were living and writing the new testament they were essentially like a stove that could make things hot, but since their death Catholics don't believe god is giving divine inspiration to people. What this nice woman just did was equate catholics with Mormons. If catholics did think that we had ongoing revelation Catholicism would essentially be indistinguishable from Mormonism. Please if you are going to speak about catholicism use their authorative sources, like seriously it's not that hard, you just bore false witness to an entire religion.

@toddthacker8258

Ай бұрын

Please show me where the Assumption of Mary is located in the apostolic deposit. Because if the Magisterium can simply make doctrine such as the AoM and declare, fait accompli, that they are interpreting divine revelation, without any evidence at all to support that assertion, then there really isn't any difference between that and a belief in ongoing revelation.

@caffeinated_chesterton

Ай бұрын

@@toddthacker8258 The dogma of the Assumption teaches that at the end of her time on earth, Mary was taken up-body and soul-into heaven. There, she sits at her Son’s right hand, as Queen of Heaven and Earth. The foundation for the teaching is rooted in Scripture, specifically in John’s mysterious and apocalyptic vision recorded in Revelation 12. First and foremost, the woman of Revelation 12 is identified as Mary, the one “who brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron . . . [the one] caught up to God and his throne” (Rev 12:5). Revelation 12, however, also uses imagery that reveals the woman to be Daughter Zion, the Queen-Bride of Israel, and the Mother of the Church. In likening the woman to the Queen Bride of Israel, his description of her echoes Isaiah, who said that Israel would be arrayed like a radiant Queen Bride (Is 60:19-20, 62:3-5). Solomon’s bride in the Song of Solomon is similarly described (Songs 6:10). John drives this point home by telling us that the woman wears a crown of twelve stars, an obvious symbol of the twelve tribes of Israel. But, throughout Revelation, the twelve tribes are also reckoned as signs of the twelve Apostles, the representatives of the new Israel, the Church (Rev 7:4-8, 21:12-14). So, just as Daughter Zion was a symbol of the chosen people of God-Israel-the woman in Revelation is also a symbol of the new people of God, the Church. Paul, in language similar to that of Revelation, called the Church “the Jerusalem above . . . our mother.” He also spoke of the Church as the Bride of Christ (Gal 4:26; Eph 5:31-32). Likewise, John referred to the Church as a “Lady” (2 Jn, v. 5). The woman of Revelation, however, is more than a symbol for the Church. She is also its mother with “offspring” in addition to the one male child to whom she gives birth. And those children are described in Revelation as those who believe in Jesus. In Revelation 12 we see a great battle which is a dramatic portrayal of the fulfillment of God’s promise in the Garden of Eden. The serpent lies in wait beneath the woman, preparing to devour her offspring. The birth of her son becomes the occasion for mortal combat. During the battle, the woman flees into the desert-to a place especially prepared for her by God. Later, after the devil’s defeat, John sees the woman given an eagle’s wings to fly to a place in the desert where she would be nourished by God. John’s language recalls Jesus’ words to his Apostles in John 14:1-3. The language of preparing a place is also often used in the New Testament to describe the destiny God has planned for his children (Mt 20:23, 25:34; 1 Pet 1:5; 1 Cor 2:9). John’s words also evoke God’s care for Israel in the wilderness (Ex 19:4; Deut 1:31-33, 32:10-12, 8:2-3). The picture Revelation paints serves as the biblical outline for the Church’s dogma of Mary’s Assumption. Mary is Daughter Zion, the woman who gave birth to the world’s Savior. Because she is the New Eve, she is free from the shadow of sin and its consequences. This includes the long-term separation of soul and body that exists for the rest of us as we wait for the resurrection of the body at the end of time. Mary has been taken up into heaven by God to join her Son in the place He prepared for her. And in that place, as Christ the King’s mother, she sits at His right hand, wearing the crown of the Queen Mother. Additional scriptural evidence for Mary’s Assumption lies in the fact that there are at least two foreshadowings of it in the Old Testament as seen with Enoch and Elijah. Here is an early church father who also believed in the assumption: St. Epiphanius’ classic Panarion (“bread box”) or Refutation of All Heresies, written about AD 350, this early Church Father affirms belief in the Assumption: "Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was a virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up, but has not seen death" (Panarion 79). If you want explicit scripture like "Mary was taken up into heaven" that doesn't exist, but there is enough there implicitly to believe this doctrine. Secondly, if you are going to hold that standard for all doctrine good luck on Christology because I doubt, for example, that you can find an explicit scripture that says "Christ has two natures, one divine and one human" or that "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit aren't three aspects of one God, rather those are three distinct persons in one God." Or "Jesus Christ has two wills divine and human." If you think that all of these have clear scriptural support then I'm just going to say that history disagrees with you. Nearly all of the issues I have listed had some sort of council that defined all these doctrines because heretics were using scripture to support the idea that Christ only has a divine will or that Christ only has one nature. If you're not going to hold strict explicit readings of some of your doctrines don't expect others to as well. It's unfair and just shows that you are biased towards your tradition or worldview. Also, you would have to definitively prove that the woman in revelation 12 is not infact Mary to prove this theory wrong. Which you can't do conclusively from scripture because scripture doesn't decisively say that it is not her. You can doubt that interpretation all you want, however, you can't strictly rule it out.

@johnsalamito6212

Ай бұрын

@@toddthacker8258 You look at this differently to how I would. Revelation ceased about 100AD with John’s death. This does not mean we understood all that had been revealed or that it was documented as per how we naturally think to document things now. To take AoM … that happened before 100AD. It was a fact or not a fact then, and that fact or factoid has not changed since. I can envisage a new dogma being released whereby it is declared from the Chair of Peter that there are male and female. In 200 years time people will say “the Church just invented that, nobody before 2024 believed that, it was just made up and imposed as an artificial man made revelation”. 🤔😊

@HiHoSilvey

Ай бұрын

You may be assuming too much (no pun intended!). What do you make of this excerpt from an article I just found? "The Catholic church is cautious about ascribing to Mary the application of the 'heavenly woman' of chapter 12. To quote: "It is difficult to say whether Mary is meant by the woman of the Book of Revelation. The woman probably stands primarily for Israel and then for the Church itself." Encyclopedia of Theology Edited by Karl Rahner, p. 896, article 'Mariology' by Michael Schmaus, Burns & Oates, London, 1981 One reason why it might be tricky for the Catholic church to say Mary is that woman of Revelation chapter 12, is that verse 17 goes on to say that she has 'offspring' (seed) further to the male child born to her in heaven and snatched away to God's throne. If Christ was literally her 'seed', then how come she bore others, as 'the rest of her seed'?

@caffeinated_chesterton

Ай бұрын

@@HiHoSilvey Very funny pun even if it wasn't intended. :) However, I think that you're unfamiliar with Catholic theology because your objection and article wouldn't work based on our tradition. First, Catholics don't believe that Revelation 12 is just talking about Mary we believe multiple symbols are being presented through the Woman in Revelation 12. We don't believe that one symbol automatically excludes all other symbols. Even protestants will agree that biblical symbols can have multiple meanings. Protestant author Gregory Beale writes “Most of Revelation’s symbols have multiple associations or meanings and … the interpreter can never be sure that all the multiple meanings of a symbol have been discovered.” This is common in Biblical imagery and is a point Protestant critics often miss when they critique Catholic arguments. Secondly, I don't believe that it's tricky to reconcile the multiple offspring in verse 17, because Catholics see Mary as the new Eve because through Eve's disobedience and 'no' to God she brought damnation and eternal death. However, through Mary's 'yes' to the birth of the Savior she brings life back to all of humanity. Therefore, she is the mother to all of the living fulfilling the prophecy of Jesus in Genesis 3:15. We should also note that in John’s gospel, Jesus’ mother is never called “Mary.” Jesus never even calls her “mother,” but refers instead to her as “woman” (John 2:4, 19:27). The Church fathers saw in this language a reference to Mary being the New Eve who is also called “woman” (Hebrew: Ishah) in Genesis until after the Fall when Adam names her “Eve". In a sense, Mary is the mother of us all in the body of Christ. Thirdly, this is one opinion of a scholar, and it certainly isn't the vast view among Catholic theologians (if a Catholic theologian believes in the material sufficiency of scripture then there is a 98% chance that they will affirm Mary as the woman in Revelation 12). However, it also isn't the conclusion of all protestants because we have saints in the fifth century seeing the woman in Revelation 12 as Mary. In 430 A.D., Quodvultedus, a disciple and friend of St. Augustine of Hippo made the first overtly Marian identification of the woman in Revelation 12: “None of you is ignorant of the fact that the dragon was the devil. The woman signified the Virgin Mary.” I will say that 430 is a little late for commentary on biblical text. Especially considering earlier writers like St. Methodius and St. Hippolytus commented on this passage without mentioning the Virgin Mary. But this isn’t surprising given that the early Church disagreed about whether Revelation was even a Christian text! The Council of Laodicea and Cyril of Jerusalem did not include Revelation in their canonical lists. In A.D. 330 the Church historian Eusebius said of it “Among the rejected writings must be reckoned, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seems proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.” If the early Church viewed Revelation as a Jewish text, then it makes sense they would not see Mary in it as vividly as they might see other Old Testament motifs until the text was more widely accepted in the early Church. This echoes the conclusion of the 1978 work Mary in the New Testament, which documents the results of a joint study on Mary carried out by a group of Protestant and Catholic scholars. It concluded that John’s “symbol of the woman who is the mother of the Messiah might well lend itself to Marian interpretation” and admitted that “Revelation was a relatively late comer into the canon of some sections of the Eastern churches so that this ‘canonical Marian symbolism would not be equally ancient in all areas.” In Mary for Evangelicals Protestant author Tim Perry reaches a similar conclusion: “It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Marian's interpretation of Revelation 12 begins in the fifth century, after the New Testament canon is fixed.” It makes sense that later Christians saw how concepts like “Israel” or “the Church,” (which Methodius identifies with terms like “mother”, “virgin,” “Temple,” and “tabernacle of God”) are perfectly symbolized in the person of Mary, or as protestant scholar Larry R. Helyer puts it, “the Virgin Mary typifies or embodies the true people of God.”Mary is the ever-virgin, mother of God, mother of all believers, and the Ark of the New Covenant who stands in contrast with the Ark of the Old Covenant and is also depicted as being in heaven in the preceding verse (Rev. 11:19). Even Perry, an Evangelical Christian, admits “As part of the New Testament canon, Revelation’s depiction of the heavenly woman completes the biblical Marian material.” If this woman symbolizes Mary or, as we’ve seen can be plausibly claimed, this woman is Mary, then the belief that Jesus took his mother into heaven to reign with him becomes even more reasonable and the testimony of Scripture would serve as an implicit corroboration of this sublime mystery of the Catholic Faith. Now, again burden of proof would be on the protestants to definitively prove that this isn't Mary in Revelation. Which I think as I have presented can't be done, because even protestant scholars admit that this is a plausible interpretation of the text. It also doesn't help the protestant case that we have fourth and fifth-century Christians affirming the assumption. Finally, why do we not have archeological evidence of Mary's tomb or body? The protoevangelium of James while gnostic, at least shows that early Christians were obsessed with her. We also know from Martyrdom of Polycarp that Christians would take the bones of saints to venerate. Why don't we have records of Christians going to her tomb, or taking up her bones? I know that this is technically an argument from silence, and so it is my weakest argument (I typically don't like to mention it), but it just seems out of place given what we know about early Christian behavior.

The biblical doctrine of salvation by faith alone? Really? James disagrees.

@SpeakLifeMedia

Ай бұрын

Here's Mike addressing that in 5 minutes: kzread.info/dash/bejne/p5iXzqWCdqatopc.htmlsi=Q3BOMG9QJkcXBhGi

@TheMOV13

Ай бұрын

@@SpeakLifeMedia Thank you...

@TheMOV13

Ай бұрын

@@SpeakLifeMedia Well at least he didn't misrepresent the Catholic position, which is relatively rare, sadly.

Luther was neurotic narcissist who destroyed Christianity.

Name nor names do ye exist in front?

Tom Holland totally masked the real Luther. Read the Packer/Johnston translation of Luther’s BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

Schisms are always caused by women, Adam and Eve, Henry and his infertile wife, Luther and his nun. If there was no nun involved would Luther have stayed, not having any reason to leave.

@j.g.4942

Ай бұрын

What a miraculous woman Katie was, to make Luther burn the papal bull of excommunication 3 years before she met him.

@28102650

Ай бұрын

Schisms are always caused by people. People are always sinful, meaning that they want to rule their own lives in their own way. In other words, they simply want to ignore God.

@BruisedReedofTas

Ай бұрын

Please elaborate your thesis with the example of the Great Schism - who was the woman, or who were the women, responsible for that and what did they do?

@ALavin-en1kr

Ай бұрын

@@BruisedReedofTas Don't ask me just Google it. It is all there.

@ALavin-en1kr

Ай бұрын

@@BruisedReedofTas Again it is not my thesis just Google it. Luther was instrumental in the nun leaving her convent. It is a fact. Men who do not want to remain celebrate do leave their religious order or even the Church but do not set up another church. It has happened also in yoga circles where a monastic left for a woman and attempted to attract followers of his own. It has not turned out well for the new self appointed guru or for his followers as he has no dispensation from God, only from his own ego.

This is very disappointing. I was hoping for some serious engagement, but the two guests preformed very poorly. Just to say that their knowledge of Catholic theology is extremely poor.

@HearGodsWord

Ай бұрын

Such as?

Such a great reformer that now we have over 45,000 protestant denominations as a fruit of his existence. He couldn't just remain as a Catholic priest and save us all the agony could he? Do a series on his mental illness and physical maladies! The man was cursed alright.

@DrakonPhD

Ай бұрын

You do realize he only wanted to reform the church, and the Catholic chruch kicked him out/tired to burn him alive right? Besides, there were dozens of pre-Luther movements saying the same thing as him. He's just the first one that got a state to protect him and the chruch was no longer organized enough to crusade him.

@Nicole-kc1vx

Ай бұрын

​​@@DrakonPhD maybe it's cause he was crazy, and they could recognise it. Like you said, there were many movements prior to Luther, not everyone got excommunicated, and the church wasn't static, it had changed and could continue to change. Luther had many demons, and his statement of hating the righteous God who punishes sinners is a sentiment shared by atheist, humanists and new age types all over the western world (showing how its very much downstream of protestantism). The schism he championed resulted in denominations that can't even be recognised as Christian cause they reject basic ideologies that had been around since the beginning of the church. I wonder what he would have thought about Joel Osteen, and the prosperity preacher types. He thought the corruption in the church was bad, if only he could witness how sola scriptura ideology has multiplied the wolves in sheeps clothing "holymen" throughout the world by the hundreds...

@stephengray1344

Ай бұрын

The methods used to reach a figure anywhere in the region of 45,000 protestant denominations involve a huge amount of double-counting. This methodology counts the Church of England, the Church in Wales, the Episcopal Church of Scotland, and the Church of Ireland as four entirely different denominations. Even though they are simply different regions of a single denomination within the British Isles. On this methodology there are a couple of hundred denominations of Roman Catholicism. There are only really a couple of dozen identifiable Protestant traditions, and less than a couple of thousand Protestant denominations (most of which are only a few decades old, coming from the explosion of "non-denominational" groups since the 1960s).

@paulthiele3102

Ай бұрын

He couldn’t remain a catholic priest? The Catholic Church said no. Such a pity.

@renesmit6774

Ай бұрын

The answer to your question depends on whether you’re a virtue signalling elite or a surf. 😳 The Peasants Revolt was the revolution Marx dreamed of and every Marxist revolution is driven by the elites so they can claim moral virtue by forcing their self claimed moral superiority over others 🤬