🎸 Matt 🎸
@ChristandGuitar • 1,579 subscribers
Reformed Baptist | Christ is Lord | Sola Scriptura
Videos
Praying to the saints is solving a problem that does not exist. Jesus does not need Mary or anyone else to placate Him so we can get through to Him. His work at the cross is sufficient, and He Himself is the one interceding for us right now. (Rom 8:34) This practice has historically slid Mary and others into the role that belongs to Christ alone: 1 John 2:1b We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, Jesus isn't our reluctant Savior who just needs some convincing. Gavin Ortlund’s full video on this is excellent. Link in comments.
🎸 Matt 🎸113,458 görüntüleme • 15 gün önce
Can we get a Protestant on Tucker who actually represents us accurately without the strawmen? Jay Dyer (Orthodox) reduces the Calvinistic/Reformed view of salvation to "mere mental assent" — with the only change being God's disposition toward a person. That's not what any Protestant teaches, other than the hyper free-grace OSAS antinomian fringe. We teach justification by faith alone in Christ: a sinner goes from hating God to repenting and trusting Him. This is a real spiritual regeneration by God's grace alone, not just rubber-stamping an individual as "saved" and sending him on his way. Yes, we are legally declared righteous at the moment of faith: Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. But Scripture also teaches sanctification — not as a means to achieve salvation, but as a byproduct of becoming a new creation in Christ: 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. Those whom God justifies in Christ, He will also glorify: Romans 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
🎸 Matt 🎸222,516 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce
Gavin Ortlund made a strong case for Protestantism at the end of his recent discussion on The Transfigured Life, which I've clipped here. Eastern Orthodoxy claims apostolic authority, proven by an unchanging structure that still resembles the church of the first 1,000 years. But history doesn’t support that. For instance, the Council of Nicaea (325) was called and directed by a Roman emperor. We don’t have emperors calling councils today. If that kind of feature was essential, then nobody today is the church of the first millennium. If it was accidental, then “it doesn’t look the same” is not the test to see who has the "one true church." What makes the Church the Church is the Gospel. The Church is not defined by who has a bishop who had hands laid on him by a previous bishop, and so on back to AD 33. That kind of institution can be part of the true church, but it is not the exclusive "one true church." The Church is where Christ is doing what He did in Acts 2: pouring out the Spirit to the fruit of the Gospel. Gavin is completely correct that we can see that happening outside Eastern Orthodoxy. The full video (link in comments) was a rough watch. Gavin was interrupted and misrepresented more than once, to the point he had to stop Justin and tell him to knock it off. I don’t think this was meant to be a debate, but it became one very quickly. Gavin still held his ground with great patience in a 2-on-1 and had the better case by the end.
🎸 Matt 🎸19,135 görüntüleme • 18 gün önce
The Samuel Sey vs. Dale Partridge debate on the Curse of Ham was... interesting, to say the least. Samuel did extremely well. While Dale spent most of his time eisegeting the text and leaning on broad "federal" claims when the Bible didn’t support his framework, Samuel stuck with Scripture, drew the conclusions the text actually gives, and called out Dale's errors multiple times. It really wasn't close. Samuel's closing was excellent as well.
🎸 Matt 🎸26,104 görüntüleme • 27 gün önce
I watch John MacArthur sermons often. He was a titan of clear, unwavering exposition, and I find his insight very helpful. But for me, his dispensational eschatology has always felt like a system imposed on the text rather than drawn from it. It claims pure literalism while practicing selective literalism. While watching this clip today, I cringed when he said amillennialism comes from antisemitism — right in the middle of teaching Romans 11 on not being arrogant toward the natural branches. That jab undermines the very warning he’s preaching. JMac is with the Lord now, so I’m not looking to pile on. This clip just rubbed me the wrong way. Do other dispensationalists share this same view of amillennialism?
🎸 Matt 🎸26,871 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce
Man does not have a neutral libertarian free will. We have a will, but that will is in bondage to sin. In our natural state we are free to choose what we want — but what we want is to sin. 1 Cor 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Other than Jesus, no one has ever freely chosen not to sin. It is not possible, because man wants to sin — and we always choose according to our strongest desire. Only a sovereign act of God can set a person free from sin's bondage. Rom 6:17-18 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. RC Sproul nails it here: “(Your will) is free from coercion, but what it’s not free from is you.” We sin because we want to sin — not because we are forced to.
🎸 Matt 🎸12,007 görüntüleme • 21 gün önce
It’s disheartening watching people pile on Jeff Durbin for criticizing John MacArthur. MacArthur was no stranger to criticizing strawman views of his opposition, especially amillennialism. Kim Riddlebarger famously had an ongoing back-and-forth with John over the years. Here’s a short clip of MacArthur railing against the amil position pretty hard. He argues it creates this dilemma: if the King has come and this is the Kingdom, then the visible promises of peace, protection, and the Davidic throne are unfulfilled. He says the logical end of that line is that either the covenants were cancelled or Jesus is not the Messiah. I’m a huge fan of JMac. That doesn’t mean every one of his critiques was charitable or that the eschatology debate has only ever run one direction in terms of tone. A little self-awareness goes a long way from all of us.
🎸 Matt 🎸12,295 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce
Daha fazla içerik yok.