The name Method Ministries finds its inspiration from the life and theology of John Wesley. The name “Methodism” was originally a derogatory term. Men criticized the strict method of John and his brother, Charles, along with their fellow Christians for their faithful “method” of study and practice of the Christian faith. This name was then adapted by Wesley to describe the revival in America by the Methodist churches who were in pursuit of true Scriptural Christianity. These were the people called Methodist.
Method Ministries puts out content that is focused on teaching the Biblical Method of God's Word, to spread Scriptural holiness throughout the land, and to teach Scriptural Christianity. If you're looking for an online ministry that can help you with this path then subscribe to the channel!
Also subscribe on Spotify and Apple!
Follow on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter.
⚠️ DISCLAIMER:
Interviews of guests do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of Method Ministries.
Пікірлер
I dont care you are conservative or progressive, religion should stay in its lane and not get involved in politics whatsoever. If you want to get involved with politics and legislation, then those religious institutions must pay taxes, if not, then STFU.
When speaking about generation he doesn't say which generation
Jonha gets more aggressive because he has everything to lose if wrong. Lucas more relaxed
Could jonah being Catholic take this position because for Rome not to be the women riding the beast has to be in the past. If in the future Rome a bad guy
There is something about this that just do not line up with the Word of God. God doesn't want us to be just the best versions of what we can be .....Jesus said " Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect." He didn't call us to be half baked Christians we are to be baptized by water and fire and perfected and led by ministry of the Holy Spirit and adopted as sons and daughters of God. Everything I just said is in the Word of God and vindicated by scriptures. But it is time now for people who call themselves Christians to accept the FULL word of God there is no time for half baked Christians. I know this might sound harsh for some but the kid gloves have got to come off because the devil and his demons are ready and we still have christians that don't know their front from their back still talking about simple things we should be beyond by now.
Do you all call yourselves Christians? I don't know much about you.
Christian Idealism needs to face severe consequences. Third way propaganda is evil.
I would consider myself an abolitionist but I’m throwing my vote for trump. At this point with the murder of children is by state I’d never put my vote for trump for senator because of his view. Congress makes laws and so Congress candidates need to advocate abolition not regulation of abolition
Amen
I’m completely apolitical (despite holding a lifetime political appointment). If I were political, I couldn’t vote for either Trump or Biden. I don’t think Christians refuse to vote for Trump because he isn’t spotless or perfect. They likely see his history of infidelity and think, “if he will betray his own family - violating oaths to God in doing so - then what will he do to me?” And, that’s a valid question.
The UMC is trying to normalize homosexuality in the church and it’s wrong
If someone’s conscious doesn’t let them vote for Trump, I get it. But if that same person uses all of their energy attacking Trump and ridiculing Christians for supporting him, participating in the smear campaigns against him and his supporters, and not saying anything about the other side, Then maybe that person just isn’t sincere. I’ve been following politics long enough to know that whoever the Republican candidate is will be branded as unacceptable by the Democrats and most of the media. The age of social media has amplified this smear to levels we hadn’t seen before. But if George W. Bush was president in 2024, The smear against him would be just as strong as it is against Trump.
Excellent job Lucas. I’m amil myself but I think you did a great job and your cross examination was pretty strong.
Thank you very much!
"don't be so holy"... Sounds a bit liberal to me. Christians are to be holy because our sovereign God is Holy. We don't need to go to high places to save this country. We don't need to go to "help" God by conceiving with our wifes maid and we don't need to go to a false God to cure our illness. Perhaps we should have more faith in the power of our God rather than the kings of men. Just a thought.
By that I mean, don’t be so self-righteous that you miss an opportunity to vote for a candidate who’ll help America.
To assume desiring God's Righteousness is equivalent to self- Righteousness perhaps doesn't allow enough categories for the Christian who is tired of voting for the candidate who is slightly less evil than the other candidate. If more Christians would stand for righteousness (Godly, not self), perhaps God would reward us with a worthy leader. As long as we are content with dog vomit I guess He will allow us to return to it. In my humble opinion.
Btw, I really enjoyed the debate referenced here. I respect the healthy nature between the two participants. I will confess that Christian Bale was my favorite, but again I appreciate the disposition. God bless
“The only proof of apostolic succession is apostolic success.”
Not charitable at all, I really appreciate Protestants that actually disagree with Orthodox without using strawman’s and ad-hominems, for example Gavin Ortlund is very respectable figure and charitable when it comes to these types of dialogues.
This is an awesome and much needed discussion IMO. Thanks!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I appreciate you two discussing this even if I may disagree. However, I think to say in one sentence that choosing the president is not a moral decision, and in another that you’re sinning to vote democrat is contradictory. I appreciate your desire for the truth and godliness, but I wish more humility would be shown here. I pray God be with you both.
Without lies Protestantism dies.
God damn, you guys make me sick when you repeat Trump's lies.
Do you consider yourself Christian?
No blasphemy 👎🏼
Clean up ur language dude
Having just voted in South Africa, First Past the Post voting system looks like an awful Hegelian dialectic.
Trump for prison 2024
👎
@@costaangelos9723 I guess your alright with felons not be prosecuted?
👎🏼
How is Trump getting rid of democracy and establishing an theocratic regime going to make for a better tomorrow? Remember: there is no guarantee that a theocracy will respect _your_ specific brand of Christianity.
Whose's Democracy is he getting rid of? We're a Republic. But even then, Trump isn't removing that.
@@methodministries I never understood that argument. The USA is both a republic _and_ a democracy. You know, people voting and all that? And yes, Trump is set out to do eradicate democracy, or at least hollow it out to the point of non-functioning. Look up Project 2025 if you want to know what I mean. You should realize that the government going after groups you dislike doesn't mean they won't one day put the crosshairs on _you._ If history has taught us anything it's _this._ The best way to avoid this is to have a separation between religion and the state.
@methodministries True that Trump told over 30 blatant lies, but believe him when he tells you his plans. He wants to tear it all down and replace it with a fascist state. He is an evil, lying, maligant narcissist and would-be strongman, who is showing clear signs of accelerating dementia.
@@methodministriesHis plan is to replace all civil service posts with sycophants.
@@methodministries The USA is both a republic _and_ a democracy.The latter will no longer be true if Trump regains power.
Hit the Like Button! 👇 Subscribe! 👇 Share! 👇 Comment Your Thoughts! 👊
Problem number 1 with future eschatology. They’re all seeking earthly and material things on this earth. Exactly like the Pharisees but the kingdom comes without observation and you have to be able to discern spiritual things. Not earthly man made things.
A lot of the comments are like "this is Protestant propaganda" like duh, genius, this is Protestant apologetics. Would you call Orthodox apologetics "propaganda" too?
Haha. You truly can't win with them.
This isn’t Protestant propaganda, it’s Orthodox misrepresentation and slander.
@@Rooted_In_Christos He grew up Orthodoxy. There was no misrepresentation.
@@methodministries my comment wasn’t towards him, rather you, who slander orthodoxy every video you post about them. Also I’m not Orthodox, before you come at me and say I’m biased.
Thanks Guys. The Holy Spirit will guide us. In the name of Jesus let's pray and stay united.
I think it's so relevant that you point out at minute 23:00 that the arguments used to defend icons are identical to those that pagans used in "worshiping" their idols. This is often overlooked.
Also, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr believed that some scripture applied distinctly to the Jews ("But we do not trust through Moses or through the Law; for then we would do the same as yourselves" Dialogues with Trypho, ch. XI). They also separated the Church from Israel (Justin, at one time, calls the Church the true Israel, Dialogues with Trypho the Jew, ch. CXXIII, but he still distinguishes between the ethnic Jewish nation that shall be saved, Dialogues with Trypho, ch. CXXXIV, and also references Hosea, Zechariah and Daniel for proof, Dialogues with Trypho, ch. xiv). Irenaeus says that the Church shall be saved from the descriptions of the Olivet Discourse (Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter xxix, Section 1), he also believes that the 144000 saints described in Revelation are ethnic Jews: And Jeremiah does not merely point out his sudden coming, but he even indicates the tribe from which he shall come, where he says, “We shall hear the voice of his swift horses from Dan; the whole earth shall be moved by the voice of the neighing of his galloping horses: he shall also come and devour the earth, and the fulness thereof, the city also, and they that dwell therein.” (Jer_8:16) This, too, is the reason that this tribe is not reckoned in the Apocalypse along with those which are saved. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, ch. xxx, s. 2 Irenaeus also believes in a separation of the Church and Israel, and uses Jacob's marriages of Leah and Rachel to paint a picture of it, in Against heresies, book iv, ch. xxi, section 3. He also believed that the present dispensation was distinctly one of more grace (against heresies book iv, ch. 11, sections 3-4).
In 7:05, you state that historic premillennialism is different from dispensational premillennialism, yet, there is not much difference between the early Church doctrine and dispensational premillennialism. See the following irenaeus quote for example: And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, 'There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.' (Mat 24:21) For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption." Irenaueus, Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter xxix, Section 1 The whole chapter is very pre-trib.
Brilliant conversation/debate! As an amil/postmil, and this Jonah is great in his arguments. One thing though:at 40:48, I find it hard to believe in a double fulfillment, due to Matt 24:21. It is a unique event.
Glad you enjoyed it! Yes, Jonah is a phenomenal debater!
When the time statements that sandwich revelation get brought up Jonah says that all prophecy in the book meet their starting point, not necessarily their end point so to avoid full preterism, however I'm curious how this works with the great white throne judgement? was 70ad the starting point of this judgement and the second coming judgement the end point? I don't understand this, and what's to stop someone simply taking this as 70ad and only 70ad?
The Great White Throne judgment is said to be "after the thousand years are finished." This is another time-marked event. One of the only ones marked as after a long period of time. That's why we believe it is still in the future. The thousand-year period necessitates it.
As Michael Heiser said, both camps cheat. The Futurists re-interpret the dating passages to mean something none of the target audience would have thought they meant. The Preterists re-interpret the descriptions of Jesus' return (with the thousands of angels and saints, and the judgment of the nations that happens at that time, and the resurrection, etc.) in a way none of the target audience would have thought they meant. The real truth is a "both and neither" interpretation. There are two distinct timelines that branch off from a single timeline in ~AD 66. One timeline lasts ~7 years long, while the other timeline lasts ~2000 years. At the end of each of those timelines the Lord Jesus returns and the two timelines merge together as one again to form a single Millennial age timeline.
@@tomragsdale6547 What’s the 7-year long you’re referring to?
Good conversation. Too bad the Ortho bros have to use the common pathetic rebuttals: -Terrible representation of Orthodoxy -You don't understand Orthodoxy -Protestants cherry pick the Father's -I'm still Orthodox Yadayadayada....on it goes.
Preterism wins. Futurism is a lie and makes Jesus a liar.
@@royalpriest89 Ha. No need to say one side makes Jesus a liar. I’m fine with you saying Preterism wins. But no need to say Futurism makes Jesus a liar.
35 "Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming-- in the evening, at midnight, at the crowing of the rooster, or in the morning-- 36 "lest, coming suddenly, he find you sleeping. 37 "And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch!" (Mk. 13:35-37 NKJ)
Amen. Speaking directly to the apostles.
Futurist claim Jesus lied. Jesus promised to come in the generation of the disciples. If he didn’t, he lied. That’s what futurists claim. Along with skeptics, Muslims and Jews.
@@royalpriest89 "To all." ALL.
Free labor of singles? Perhaps this may be somewhat easier when they are rather young but this might not be so much easier then an older single. I agree everyone has to do work in the church but to think it is only singles (or ones without children) that have a bunch of free time might be very misguided thinking. A single person may have to work two or three jobs to just survive. Actually, it can cost much more to the single (tax rate is higher and if they own a home or even just responsible for their own rent and this is all very hard on a single person’s income. They also have to take care of their home all by themselves, may have to take care of a sick parent or other relative (since they are single the family may expect it will be easier for them).
I actually like G3 they take a good stand in my opinion on many things including music and soteriology. In actually the protestant reformation started in the 1100's so it wasnt that recent. No mention of the waldensians who many were killed for the faith.
Just found the channel. This was a great debate! I wish there were more calvinist like austin brown. A balenced view no extremes and polite about it. Look forward to more of these
Great to have you!
I miss him. I still listen to his music.❤
The authoritarian globalists goal is to remove traditional western faith and families to remove all possible allegiances that would conflict with one world government
An awful lot of words to say not very much.
God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they were homosexuals. Why do you now bless homosexuals?
Using a St. Ireneus quote to try and refute the Papacy and saying middle of the road anglicanism is the truest expression of Christianty is wild. Just because you angli-can doesn't mean you angli-should.
It would be much better if you spoke to someone Catholic on what the Church teaches. I could be wrong but I haven't seen you talk to any catholics. I think you have great intentions and do the best job compared all the others on youtube; however, the fact of the matter is a protestant will nearly always misrepresent Catholicism,even with the best intentions. Additonally, many of the accusations your guest levied against the Chuch are pretty offensive, especially considering that no one was there to defend the Church. I am a convert from protestantism to Catholicism and the reasons you give for conversion are (unintentionally) shallow and not really the basis of conversion. I would be happy to discuss these with you so that you have a more accurate view of what catholics believe instead of the frankly propogandized arguments that are sadly the standard in the protestant world and which were common in this video. I just think if you want to make the best argument against catholicism, then argue against what we actually believe. God bless brother, praying y'all come home.
I am Historic Pre-Mill. However, my understanding is that Post/A-Mill believes that Revelation 19 precedes Revelation 20. They believe that Jesus on a white horse was a Spiritual event that destroyed the old covenant system on 70ad
While I agree that we should call out these practices as being against the word of God, I think the methods you want us to do are going to be non affective evangelism at best and damaging to the faith at worst. While making our stance against these things clear, I think it would be best to be in these areas and offer to spread the gospel for all those who are willing to hear. Maybe offering water to all and telling them that Jesus loves them and died to atone for the sins of all and that all they need to do is give their hearts to Him.🙏 We must use the approach of Jesus, to approach them with love and show them that they should change their ways in a loving way. Assuring them that we are all not worthy of salvation but God gives us it as a gift. And that we must turn from our old ways🙏❤️
If you’re going to argue for premillennialism (more properly called “chiliasm”) based on the witness of the early Church fathers, then you need to be consistent and also accept the other doctrines they taught such as supersessionism, baptismal regeneration, real presence, monepiscopacy, eternal subordinationism, etc. If you don’t accept these as well then you are guilty of cherry-picking!
pure propaganda
Refuting The Historical Claims of The Pope | With The Other Paul. Part Six - Thomas Cranmer: The Pope, the Bishop of Rome = The Antichrist 1. All of the 16th century Reformers taught that the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, is the Antichrist. Semper Reformanda's online article "Documents. Various quotes on Who is the Antichrist" includes Thomas Cranmer (1489 - 1556): “Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of Antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons.” (Works by Cranmer, vol.1, pp.6-7) 2. The other major 16th century Reformers that are quoted in Semper Reformanda's article include Martin Luther, John Calvin and Calvin's student John Knox, who founded the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Also included are the 18th century Anglican and founder of Methodism John Wesley and the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith that became the subordinate doctrine of the Church of Scotland. [Semper Reformanda Com /creeds/the-reformers-on-who-is-the-antichrist/] 3. Martin Luther's teaching on the Pope as Antichrist became authoritative in his 1537 Smalcald Articles, The Second Part, Article IV - On the Papacy when they were added to the Lutheran Book of Concord in 1580. Martin Luther's final work Against The Papacy, An Institution Of The Devil was published in 1545, one year before his death. Much earlier, Martin Luther in his Prelude On The Babylonian Captivity Of The Church, accused Rome of holding the church in captivity. 4. John Calvin composed Book IV of his Institutes of the Christian Religion as an exposition on the Pope as the Roman Antichrist that includes the following in its Chapter 7, Nos. 24 & 25: “Rome, indeed, was once the mother of all the churches, but since she began to be the seat of Antichrist she ceased to be what she was. To some we seem slanderous and petulant, when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who think so perceive not that they are bringing a charge of intemperance against Paul, after whom we speak, nay, in whose very words we speak. But lest any one object that Paul’s words have a different meaning, and are wrested by us against the Roman Pontiff, I will briefly show that they can only be understood of the Papacy. Paul says that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4)." [Beveridge Translation, p. 700; NTS Library Com, Institutes of the Christian Religion, pdf 708 of 944] 5. Therefore, since Luther and Calvin acknowledge a time when Rome did have legitimacy as a Christian church, the question becomes: At what point in history did the Church of Rome depart from the Gospel according to Thomas Cranmer's interpretation and which pope was the first Antichrist? This is important because as it was unanimous among all of the 16th century Reformers that the Pope was the Antichrist, so also should the Pope be identified as "that man of sin ...the son of perdition ... whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8 (KJV): "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." By this linking of the Pope as Antichrist with 2 Th 2:3-8, it was understood by all of the 16th century Reformers that the Papacy would persist as a permanent institution which was to be destroyed only by Jesus Christ at His Second Coming. And if the King James Bible was good enough for St. Paul and as one of the Anglican formularies for The Other Paul, then that's good enough for me. In Part Seven, Thomas Cranmer appears to indicate that point in history when the Pope became the Antichrist and, by deduction, which Pope it was.
Refuting The Historical Claims of The Pope | With The Other Paul. Part Four - Thomas Cranmer's 39 Articles are anti-Roman + (continued) Article 25 - Of the Sacraments: "There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord." "Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." Response: Thomas Cranmer's Article 25 is not only anti-Roman, but also anti-Orthodox (Eastern & Oriental) and anti-Assyrian Church of the East, since all of these churches celebrate seven sacraments. Article 28 - Of the Lord's Supper: "Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." Response: In his published writings, Thomas Cranmer amplifies the anti-Roman nature of his Article 28 by linking transubstantiation to the papacy: "But what availeth it to take away beads, pardons, pilgrimages and such other like popery, so long as the two chief roots remain unpulled up? Whereof, so long as they remain, will spring again all former impediments of the Lord's harvest, and corruption of his flock. The rest is but branches and leaves, the cutting away whereof is but like topping and lopping of a tree, or cutting down of weeds, leaving the body standing and the roots in the ground, but the very body of the tree, or rather the roots of the weeds, is the popish doctrine of transubstantiation, or the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the sacrament of the altar (as they call it) and of the sacrifice and oblation of Christ made by the priest, for the salvation of the quick and the dead." [Thomas Cranmer, Works, Volume I, Writings on the Lord's Supper; Parker Society: Cambridge, 1844, p. 6] Article 30 - Of Both Kinds "The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike." Response: Obviously anti-Roman, but its full import best can be explained by the mistranslation of 1 Corinthians 11:27 in the later 1568 Bishops Bible and the 1611 King James Bible (one of the Anglican formularies) that were published after Cranmer's death. A full explanation for the KJV's mistranslation 1 Cor 11:27 in support of Thomas Cranmer's Article 30 and Article 28 is available upon request.
I am fed up! with anti-catholic hate mongers who have nothing better to do than attack the Church founded by Jesus Christ which stands virtually alone in opposing same-sex "marriage" , runaway fornication, transgenderism, euthanasia, etc.