In this last video, I survey where we’ve come in the discussion on the Canon and how we can know that the books of the New Testament we currently possess are the correct books.
In canonical studies the question inevitably comes up about “if” or “when” the New Testament Canon was actually closed. Depending on how you view the Canon theologically, will often determine how you answer that question. In the eigth video in our New Testament Canon series, I address what it means to have a “closed” canon and when that occurred.
Part 7 of this series continues the discussion on the corporate reception of the New Testament books in the early church.
In Part 5 of the series discussing the development of the New Testament Canon I briefly cover what it meant for the books to have “Apostolic Origins”. Many discussions on canonicity present this feature of the books as the most important. While I do feel it was vital to the development of the New Testament, it was only one of several factors that demonstrated the authority of the books themselves.
The majority opinion in academic circles is that the Christian Church didn’t have an offical “Bible”, or at least a NT canon until the fourth century. There’s a real difficulty with making this claim however, as it too narrowly defines what the “Bible” actually is. What’s more, the narrow definition that is regularly assumed actually defeats the argument for a 4th century, or later, Bible.
This video is a brief presentation (audio track added) I delivered at the Cross-Examined Instructor’s Academy this year addressing what I find to be, a bad apologetic in defense of the Bible and what the text of the NT actually reveals to us, about the Scriptures during the first century.
In part 4 of this series on Canonical models I discuss the first of three attributes of canonicity that were acknowledged by the second and third century church when examining Scripture and those texts that were rejected.
This is easily the most uncomfortable subject for most evidentialists, but it must be remembered that we do nothing less when pointing to the divine “fingerprint” on the universe when arguing for its design.
In part 3 of this installment on canonical studies, I discuss the Self-Authenticating Model of canon. This model originates with the 2nd and 3rd century church and was re-introduced during the Protestant Reformation. In recent years it has found renewed interest largely due to the work of Dr. Michael Kruger.
In part 2 of this video series I discuss the second prevalent model used in canonical studies. The historical model believes primarily that what is most important in the 27 books of the New testament is not the books themselves, but the core truth that can be found in each one. However, this truth can only be discovered by stripping away the excess material in each text.
This is not unlike the quest for the historical Jesus, and while it has certain positive qualities, I again point out why this methodology is deficient for the Christian apologist, or serious student of Scripture.
In the first video of this series, I discuss what a “Canonical Model” is and how our method of defining the New Testament depends largely on how we understand the Canon theologically. The first canonical model discussed is known as the Community Driven Model, and I discuss its main features and why I feel it’s not the best approach to defending or defining the canon of the New Testament.
When witnessing to Jehovah’s Witnesses we often try to object to their particular Bible translation, known as the New World translation, or the NWT. While there are serious problems with this particular translation, the fact is, the deity of Christ still bleeds from the pages of Scripture, even theirs.
In this video, I demonstrate how you can discuss the deity of Jesus from the NWT rendering of John 1:3.
How do you know that the Christian faith of today is the actual Christianity of the first church? Weren’t there multiple different forms of Christianity competing for the title of Orthodoxy? Isn’t it true that your faith is only Orthodox because your team won?
Actually no, and in this video I defend an odd position, but it’s one that sees the existence of heresies in the early church as a very good thing.
Is there any truth to the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the oldest church, becasue the earliest church fathers wrote of the Catholic Church? Not exactly. In this short video I address the origin of the term “catholic” and why it doesn’t mean what Rome suggests it means.
This October marks the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. Popular articles are being released regularly claiming that the Reformation is over. The Vatican is calling for the “Separated Brethren” to come back to Rome. But what does it mean for a Protestant to “come back to Rome?” In this video I cover the decision of the Vatican Councils regarding papal authority and why the Protestant Reformation is clearly not “over.”
In the blog section of the website I have an article written under the same name. This video is just a few thoughts I had regarding my discussion with a Roman Catholic on social media and covers much of the same information.
I recently delivered a lecture on the Reality of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ at a church in Godfrey, Il. While I wasn’t able to video record the event, I was able to obtain the audio and have synced that with the powerpoint I use for the talk.
Recently I was featured on Ratio Christi TV and their show “Truth Matters” with my friend Tony Gurule discussing the reliability of the New Testament. There are three separate segments to this broadcast, and I recommend visiting their You Tube channel here to see the rest.
Have you ever asked yourself why some translations of the Bible use different words in the same passage? In this video I try to give you a little insight into why that happens.
I often get asked which Bible translation I recommend, so to answer the question I made this short video to help anyone wondering.
If only Matthew and Luke record the birth narrative, does that mean that it wasn’t important to Mark or John? Do the other two Gospels mention the virgin birth at all?
Lately, there’s been a meme circulating that claims Christians should support mass migration of refugees becasue Jesus was himself a refugee. In this video I address botht he claim that Jesus was a refugee and the issue of supporting refugee resettlement.
This is a lecture I gave at Lapeer Community Church in Lapeer, Michigan in 2016. It’s a little hard to see the screen but the information is very helpful.
Was blessed to share the show with Reasons to Believe’s Ken Samples and Eric Chabot, exposing a lot of the myths related to the events of the Council of Nicaea and what it means for the message of the New Testament.
A persistent claim on the internet chat rooms and blog sites is that the story of Jesus is nothing more than a retelling of ancient pagan myths. This is patently false, and I explain why in this video.
Another political maneuver that shows up in this country frequently is to claim that Jesus and His disciples practiced socialism. Here’s why I don’t think the claim holds water.
If you type “Why are Christians. . .” into a search engine, one of the first results is “arrogant”. Is it true that the claims of Christianity are nothing more than arrogance?
When I was pastoring a local church, I lost track of how many times I was asked if a believer could be demon possessed. Sometimes I was even regailed with stories about them. If you’re unsure how to answer this question I recommend seeing what the Scripture has to say. And watching this video of course!
How do we blaspheme the Holy Spirit? Is this the “unforgivable sin”? Christians be afraid that they committed this sin?!
This is a touchy subject, and I’m not seeking to make a political or cultural case here, but I do want to give everyone some food for thought before hitting this subject head on.
This is one of several lectures I used to give on the nature of God. Everyone wants to believe in a God of Love, but do we really understand what that means in Scripture? I would say we don’t. Which is why I wrote the lecture.