Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
What is the Evangelical Covenant Church?
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 08. 2024
- The Evangelical Covenant Church teaches "Covenant Freedom" and allows diversity on views in some areas that many evangelicals do not. Let's discuss what they believe.
Chapters:
00:00 Pietist Background & Freedom
04:42 Theological Commitments
07:00 Sacraments
09:13 Scripture
11:16 Creation & Evolution
11:26 Salvation & Conversion
13:49 Penal Substitutionary Atonement
15:30 Arminian/Calvinist View
15:41 Entire Sanctification
15:57 Charismatic Theology / Spirit Baptism
18:51 Eschatology
21:16 Marriage & Gender
26:11 Divorce & Remarriage
26:58 Life Issues
27:49 Worship Style
28:05 Substance Abuse and Alcohol
28:22 Tithing
28:35 Doctrine of Discovery
29:44 Love Mercy Do Justice Social Programs
30:16 Church Polity & Government
31:31 Church Offices & Leadership
32:13 Women in Ministry
33:44 Statistics and Affiliations
An ordained Covenant minister, I'm grateful for such a succinct and warm-hearted synopsis of my tradition!
I was involved in an ECC congregation in my mid-20's. I later went back to the LCMS and have remained LCMS to this day. Some things about this denomination were attractive to me at the time. Some things about it make me cringe now, nearly 20 years later. However, I will always have fond memories of that congregation. I have never met such kind people. I formed close relationships and felt supported by the pastor and the laity of that church. They were all amazing people.
I grew up in a Covenant Church in Colorado that was started in 1923 by my Swedish ancestors and their friends and relatives. It was a very loving, grace-filled, and joyful experience for all of which I am very grateful. It gave me a very healthy view of God and Jesus. Loved it.
Thank you for making this video on the ECC. We're a relatively small denomination, but as a former president once said, we "punch above our weight class." The ECC is disproportionately influential in areas like church planting and racial righteousness.
"racial righteousness". You mean the one-way game where Blacks demand and Whites accomodate?
@@polemeros sounds bitter and snarky. peace.
It does sound like a clear-eyed emphasis on a few major topics while not arguing about the rest.
My old denomination before entering the Catholic church. No one knows it exists, and I still have a lot of fondness for it. Thank you for showing it some historical love.
I also heard "where is it written" all the time in that denomination, and I had no idea that it was specific to us. I still use it as a Catholic now.
Same! My confirmation sponsor was also former ECC and we met when he was evanglizing for the Newman Center on our college campus. Had some questions about Catholicism and he invited me to a bible study since he was a former member of my denomination. I'll be Catholic for 1 year this Easter.
1st Timothy 2:5 says Jesus is the only mediator, not Mary. Jesus wasn't baptized as a baby. According to Matthew 1:25, Mary's virginity was temporary. Jesus had siblings. My confession is in Heaven, Jesus is my pope.
@@patrickmccarthy7877 Jesus literally made Peter his Pope. Jesus>Pope. Don’t put them on the same level.
@@jzealog Nope. In the Greek text, Jesus was using a play on words. Peter is the little rock, Jesus is the big Rock. Peter's trust in Jesus as the Messiah is what Jesus founded the church upon, Himself, not Peter. The first Christians were Jews.
@@patrickmccarthy7877 Peter being the rock that the Church would be built on. Jesus didn’t give the Bible, he gave us a Church. That Church was the vehicle for the New Testament. That church still exists today with Peter being the rock of it, the first among the apostles. And the gates of hell shall never prevail over it
Thanks, it's great to see a video about the ECC and it touched on several things I learned when looking into it (and a few I missed!)
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you for this! Just started attending a Covenant church and this video answered almost every question I had:)
Such an exhaustive overview! Congratulations on your rigor, mate.
Thank you for your patience, thorough research, and intellect! Could you please consider making the next video about Moravians and their approach to apostolic succession?
Gaius, lay organized religion, Christian culture, and even politics aside. Someone who truly loves you is reaching out to you not willing that you should perish (2 Peter3), but that you be saved from price of your sins.
With that said, how do you deal with your sin? Yes you. How many times have you lied, lusted, or stolen? I'm guilty, what about you? I hope you feel convicted.
But if you're going to reject the free gift of salvation, you ought to think about where you are going after death.
Is this your mindset?
Luke 12:19
19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
Hebrews 9:27
“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:”
But what can you do?
This what you must first realize:
Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
That's you. You must realize that you have personally sinned against God.
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Romans 6
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Acts 3:19 - Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
You have to believe it from the heart.
Romans 10
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved
Here is the gospel straight and simple:
1. Truly acknowledge that you have sinned against a perfect God and you are worthy of hell that can only be saved by the blood of Jesus Christ
2. Believe that Jesus died for and covered all of your sins and rose again.
3. Say to God that Jesus Christ he is your saviour.
Please let me know. I am praying for you, today is the day of salvation.
I was raised in the Covenant denomination and was the pastor of a Covenant church for ten years. As much as they tout "Where is it written?" it is just slogan. When I was questioned by denominational leaders who were fielding complaints against me for teaching that God was sovereign in his electing grace, I showed them "where it is written" in Romans 9 Ephesians 1 and elsewhere. One of my interrogators said "You seem to be quoting the Apostle Paul a lot." (Implying what? That Paul's writings were not on par with the words of Jesus.) I responded by saying "Jesus taught this doctrine as well. Would you like me to show you where?" I knew I had him in a corner. If he said "Yes show me where Jesus taught this doctrine." I would have turned to John 6 or Matthew 11:25-29 to show that our Lord did indeed teach the sovereign grace of God in election in which case it would have been clear that I was faithfully teaching the Scriptures. On the other hand, if he answered "No, don't show me." it would have been clear to everyone in the room, that they had no intention of submitting themselves to the word of God whether it came from the Apostle Paul or even Jesus the very Son of God. What actually occurred was that there was an awkward silence by the man who asked me the question until the district superintendent interjected by saying. "I think you are missing the point here." and then changed the direction of their inquiry. I hadn't missed the point at all. For these Covenant leaders, they had their own ideas and they had no intention of submitting to the authority of the word of God. Later I had my preaching license pulled for not being "theologically broad enough."
Good for you for being faithful to the Lord and the scriptures. Without penal substitution and with female preachers, they are headed down the same road that led to the ELCA and PCUSA. It’s sad.
So, you were teaching Calvinistic theology in a non-Calvinistic church?
This has been a very interesting video on a denomination I didn't realize was related to the EFCA. Thank you for all your hard work! 💜
Praise Jesus!
I spoke too soon. Good to see a video on the ECC, and a very thorough one at that!
Thank you for this video. I learned something new about a group I didn’t know existed. Have been reading a book called Creeds confessions and catechisms. Covers Anglican, Lutherans, presbyterian and Baptist. Reading the Belgic confession now and your video was perfect timing. I mention you and Ready to Harvest in my comments on other sites. You really give a clear understanding of the difference among the churches without being judgmental, critical or attacking.
So it sounds like Pietism was basically Methodism for Lutherans.
Sort of a blend of Methodism and Puritanism. John Wesley was deeply influenced by Lutheran Pietism via Nicolas von Zinzendorf and the Moravians.
The impression from the video is that Pietism is inherently a 'low church' movement, but like Methodism, it's more accurate to say that it was a renewal movement with both high church and low church wings (especially the Pietism from Scandinavia).
Methodism/Pietism in the USA has been extremely low church, whereas their Continental counterparts have retained the family traits of their parent churches (Anglicanism and Lutheranism).
@@vngelicath1580 After John Wesley's conversion at the Moravian meeting, he hung out with them. However, he was concerned about preaching and making mistakes on biblical and doctrinal type issues. So he traveled to Germany and spent two years maybe three attending and having deep discussions with Lutheran professors/leaders in a number of different locations.
I don't recall what points he confirmed or changed his views. I suspect some of what he heard was similar to the Moravians in England as some locations in Germanry were close to Morovian strongholds. So it'd be logical he may have picked up a Lutheran flavor in some of his positions.
Methodism originated from Pietism, really - Pietism fused with Anglicanism.
@@vngelicath1580 I dunno, I'm a high-church Methodist 😜
Other way around ;)
This guy is a walking encyclopedia of Christianity. I can trust what he says.
He definitely does his research
Sounds amazing, where do I sign up?
This sounds like sound thinking and worth investigating. Thank you!
Thanx, Joshua 🌹🌹🌹
This is a really interesting group. It’s like they have a set of values guiding how they approach faith rather than a doctrine. It’s also wild that one of the most quoted documents in this video is a guide for camp counselors.
Speaking of Pietists, you should do a video on the Association of Free Lutheran Congregations (AFLC)
Excellent work!
Can you please make videos about different missions organizations?
I go to Trinity Bible Church. I'm just a big sinner who thinks Jesus is fantastic.
Interesting! My home church was called Evangelical Covenant Church before renaming itself when I was around 10-12 years old. My pastor has Swedish heritage, and it was his family that founded the church many decades ago.
why is a devil your icon..
Well done
I'm surprised JPUSA still exists. (I had many _Rez Band_ albums in the 1980s.)
THERE IS POWER IN COMMUNION OR I WOULDN'T BE SAVED TODAY !
You have to love it when they say that it could mean X, Y or Z but it can't be PSA. Rofl
Honestly, I think I am missing something here regarding the pietist movement at the root of the ECC. It is positioned as they have a hesitancy to enforce 'minor points of doctrine', but they allow (at least some) congregations to have females as pastors and in positions of leadership -- while at the same time defrocking and removing from fellowship congregations that allow LGBTQ+ individuals become pastors and enter into positions of leadership. I am not sure how they arrive at drawing this hard line position from where they started. At first, I thought that they were only a few steps behind Unitarian Universalists, and the immediate question I had: 'How do they deal with individuals who are Unitarian instead of Trinitarian?' Then when the discussion around LGBTQ+ folks in the church came up, I was actually thrown for a total loop.
I mean, there is more scriptural support for a openly gay man, especially an openly gay man who is celibate, to be a pastor than a female. 1 Timothy 2:12-14: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
Since the common refrain in the ECC is "where is it written?" -- well there is just a sample of where it is written. I just don't see how when you open the door for one, that you don't open the door for all. You would have an easier time defending openly gay men (especially if they are celibate and unmarried) as pastors than you would a woman, at least in accordance with scripture. The entire point of the pietist movement seemed to be trying to avoid exactly what took place, so it seems strange and hypocritical (at least internal to their own beliefs) that it happened. Alternatively, I could just be misunderstanding what the pietist movement was all about, but I would have expected them to handle the issue exactly as they handled the issue for women -- some congregations agree while others disagree, but they maintain respectful fellowship and continue to work on issues where they agree.
Without meaning to get into the weeds here, I think you are forgetting that serious work has been done on the issue of women in ministry. Yes, Paul’s exhortations may at first seem to preclude women in leadership positions, but the context of his writings suggest to some that his prohibitions are addressed to a particular social setting, namely a disorderly assembly. Not everyone agrees with that, but there is an actual account of Paul working with a woman in what seems to be a leadership position (Priscilla) and the overwhelming example of Jesus himself engaging women with respect and welcoming them into his closest company. There is also the example of women witnessing the empty tomb. And there are other things we could point to that suggest we should not jump too quickly to conclusions on the issue of women in ministry. So, it’s understandable that the Covenant Church allows some latitude in this area.
As for self-identifying LGBTQ+ individuals in church leadership, there is no comparable support for this in the scriptures or the church’s understanding historically. Celibate individuals who understand themselves in this way might be a grey area, but the scriptural record from beginning to end is negative regarding homosexual behavior. From our creation as male and female to the blessing of the wedding in Cana, the scriptures speak with one voice. In fact, regarding this, the scriptures often speak in ways that offend or embarrass modern sensibilities. The Covenant Church has listened to the scriptures on this and made a courageous choice given the social pressure to conform to prevailing ideologies.
As for the issue of the Trinity, no Christian would seriously suggest that this is a minor point of doctrine. Unitarians take an entirely different theological approach that sets them apart from the historic church.
In my view, the Covenant Church has a clear hierarchy for what constitutes a major or minor issue. The main point of Pietism was not about allowing a variety of positions on every issue. Rather, as the video explains, they want to preserve core doctrine and allow a variety of views on lesser matters, or at least those matters which are less clear. They exhibit more latitude than I would, but I respect their intention to maintain unity around core doctrine and allow greater diversity on less clear points.
@@mj6493 Part of what makes the discussion interesting is getting into the weeds!
I think you are correct that the ECC has a way of making a determination of what they consider a "major" vs a "minor" doctrinal issue. I am not sure how they draw that distinction, though. That is why (in part) I highlight the shift in the ECC position regarding women in leadership vs LGBTQ+ individuals.
You are also correct to say a great deal of work has been done to justify the issue of women in ministry and positions of Church leadership. The problem is that is not the historical position of any mainstream branch of Christianity, and is entirely modern (ignoring smaller splinter sects that would have been regarded as heretical). That is not to say, of course, that women have not historically always been part of the Church, but the same could be said for LGBTQ+ individuals.
An equal amount of serious work is being done on the issue of LGBTQ+ individuals in ministry and in positions of Church leadership. Equally, as with women, that has never been the historical position of any mainstream branch of Christianity. There are three basic core arguments against LGBTQ+ individuals in positions of leadership and ministry within the Church:
- The Levitical passages. These are the weakest arguments and the easiest to dismiss theologically. They are the most clear, at least when it comes to gay men, but the problem is as Christians, who believe in the New Covenant, no one upholds the other Levitical codes. This leads to discussions of blended fabrics and shellfish, and it makes those who site these passage appear -- at best -- inconsistent and at worst hypocritical.
- Paul's condemnations. These are the next most clear denunciations of LGBTQ+ individuals. Paul's personal feelings toward LGBTQ+ people is clear, but was he being prescriptive or descriptive in the passages? If he is being prescriptive are there similar theological moves that can be made just as were done for females in the ministry? Obviously, just like with females serving in positions of leadership and ministry, some would argue yes while others would argue no.
- The Commandment to be Fruitful and Multiply. All throughout the Bible this commandment pops up, often linked with the assumptions about heterosexual marriage. This is also the strongest, at least I believe, argument against LGBTQ+ people serving in positions of leadership and ministry. However, there are still strong arguments that undermine the position theologically. Is the commandment to be fruitful and multiply for all humans or is it specific to Jews (it mostly comes from the Old Testament)? Obviously, this commandment is not specific to LGBTQ+ people, so this brings up entire questions around those who swear vows of celibacy or choose to not get married or actively seek to avoid having children -- for whatever reason. Obviously, if there is a general command to be fruitful and multiply it applies to everyone, so not actively getting married and seeking to have children is problematic, and could potentially exclude all such individuals not actively trying to do that from positions of leadership and ministry. Equally obvious is that this is not the historical position of Christianity, but if it is such a fundamental position that it is being used against some members of the faith to exclude them from leadership and ministry, it forces us to reconsider and reexamine the position. Similar discussions were obviously had in the past as well, regarding whether priests should be celibate or if they could have families, so this entire debate and discussion is not alien to Christianity -- it just finds a new context.
None of this, obviously, touches onto how historical views of marriage have shifted in modern times. The idea that people would romantically fall in love, go on dates, and then ultimately get married simply for romantic reasons is radically modern. That definitely is not the historical view of marriage in the Bible. The fact that our contemporary world has shifted the definition of marriage to be centered around romantic love is what has made the argument for same sex marriage even possible in the first place. None of this is to say that romantic love was an alien concept in pre-modern times, it obviously was not, but it was not the basis for marriage. To read a modern conception of marriage into the Bible is to actually distort the historical conception of marriage that is represented in the text.
Then, just as you point out, there are folks who lean on various passages involving Jesus to justify that Jesus was totally fine with same sex relationships and love. For example, there is Luke 7:1-10, involving the Roman centurion and his servant / slave (depending on the translation of δοῦλος (doulos)). There is a strong debate over the exact meaning of the term ἔντιμος (entimos) in Luke 7:2, which is often translated either as "highly regarded" or "highly valued" -- the problem being that neither of those translations (in English) actually carries the same weight as the original term. Highly valued makes it sound like there was a monetary consideration involved (i.e. 'a highly valued slave'), and that is why that translation (even though it is most common) is usually the worst translation, but "highly regarded" lacks the emotional weight implied in the term ἔντιμος (entimos). Something more like "dearly beloved" might be more appropriate, but really the fundamental problem is that doesn't really capture it either -- as there is an implied romantic connotation. That is why people latch onto it, because, after all, if it could be argued that Jesus did not find it objectionable to heal a Roman centurion's same sex lover, and even praise the centurion while doing it, then clearly Jesus was totally fine with same sex relationships and love.
The next most often cited passage in Matthew 19:10-12, which involves "eunuchs", and what people latch onto there is the distinction Jesus is drawing between different types of eunuchs -- particularly "eunuchs who were that way from birth". This is an important Biblical passage because if you believe that sexual orientation is innate and largely determined in the womb (as modern science argues), then this becomes an effective rebuttal to the Commandment to be Fruitful and Multiply. More dubiously there are some who would argue that it specifically refers to people who have exclusive same sex attraction.
There are many other verses that support these arguments, there are even folks who would quote Paul against Paul, such as using Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female-for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” And if this argument is true from Paul, it works to defend both women as well as LGBTQ+ folk in leadership and the ministry.
Is any of this based in the traditional and historical interpretations of the Bible? Nope. However, the point that I am trying to make is that the "serious work" being done to justify women in leadership and ministry is equally being done to justify LGBTQ+ folks in leadership and ministry, and once you open the door to one, it becomes difficult to shut it on the other. After all, the biggest and strongest defense for these positions is the fact that they are the traditional and historical understanding of the Biblical text, and embracing a counter position is a break with that traditional and historical understanding of the Bible -- which is difficult to refute.
Heck, the moment you even touch a modern scientific understanding of human sexuality, rather than a traditional Biblical understanding, the argument is already lost. Why? Because obviously, the modern understanding of human sexuality is radically different than the traditional Biblical understanding, just as the traditional Biblical understanding of marriage is radically different than a modern conception of marriage based around romantic love. Immediately all sorts of naturalist arguments get marshaled, such as LGBTQ+ folks are made in God's image (Genesis 1:26), and basically it comes a situation where the Biblical text isn't even coherently discussing the issue any longer because the starting premises and built in assumptions of both positions are so radically different.
To be clear, I am not arguing for or against any of these positions. People can read scripture for themselves and draw their own conclusions. That is what has been happening for thousands of years. What I am arguing is that once we open the door to abandoning tradition and history there is no easy or clear way to shut the door again. I believe it is important for everyone to be honest with ourselves (even if no one else) on that point. It could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective, but once the door is open, there is no easy or clear way to shut it again.
@@AldrickTanith I’m not going to go that far into the weeds with you, but I would like to comment.
Even though there are passages that scholars have looked at like the centurion and his boy, or eunuchs, these passages are a far cry from being a convincing case for approving same-sex relationships. If anything, these passages illustrate how weak an argument there is for such relationships. They are almost entirely speculative and try to make a case out of silence in my view.
Also, I think you and many others exaggerate the discontinuity between modern marriage and that exhibited in the bible. To say they are “radically different” is an overreach. I’m not saying the world hasn’t changed, just that there is a basic continuity (male and female, made in God’s image) that takes priority over any changes.
The argument for women in ministry, in my reading, has a far more substantial case in its favor. We see overt biblical accounts of women being used of God in powerful ways. We see Jesus engaging women in ways that are outside the norm of that day. We see women at work in the early church. It’s not just that we’ve decided to “open the door to abandoning tradition and history”. No, the biblical text itself gives us plenty of examples of women in prominent roles. We don’t see anything remotely similar in reference to same-sex relationships.
So, no, I don’t see a shift in the ECC’s position regarding women in leadership versus LGBTQ+ individuals. I think they are weighing the scriptural passages responsibly and enacting policies that have integrity.
What is the view of the ECC on repentance? Surely praying to the Holy Spirit is a must in understanding Scripture.
Absolutely, repentance is a must and we do pray to all 3 persons of the Trinity.
You've got to admit, they have a point.
Thank you!
I'm really curious as to what the ECC believes the atonement covers if they don't believe in penal substitution. If you are saved, what are you saved from? I'm only coming up with possible answers of "our sins" - in which case, why do you need to be saved from your sins - or "the consequences of sins" - which could mean just in this life, in which case, to what end, since we still experience consequences of sins until, and including, our last breath? Not trying to debate; I'm genuinely interested in the ECC answer.
The ECC doesn’t reject PSA. It rejects the idea that PSA is the only way to understand atonement. This is the majority posture for most of Christianity.
I believe there are several views out there. 1 Ransom - Gregory 2 substitute-to satisfy Gods justice Anselm 3 PSA Reformed Calvin 4. Christ as Victor 1930 Swedish theologian Gustafson Allen published Christus Victor a reinterpretation of the Ransom view.
We are saved from going to hell if we accept Jesus in our lives. That’s what at least my ecc church believes. We also believe that god died on the cross to save us from our sins. I hope this answers your questions
Another group I had never heard of, they seem to have started with good intentions but are now pretty progressive
As long as people stick to scripture and not allow societal values to pollute their message. But seeing what has happened to most pious denominations, it has likely embraced CRT and the alphabet people.
Sometimes, you have to make your own answers. Fake it till you make it.
There’s a Evangelical Covenant Church in New Sweden Maine. FYI.
Does anyone know if Frontline Church OK is part of or an off-shoot of the ECC?
How can a church say they follow the Augsburg Confession and then talk about infant dedication? According to the Augsburg Confession there are three sacraments: Holy Communion (Abendmahl), Baptism and Confession with Absolution. These groups might be sincere, but they are so far off the mark that it makes me wonder about the state of their brains.
When the ECC formed, they decided to not hold the Augsburg confession as a confessional document. The denominations that came before them did hold to it. They may reference to it (as they do once in this video) but they don't necessarily agree with all of it.
Does this denomination accept the traditional Lutheran view of the Real Presence (physical) in Communion? It seems like they’d be more like Anglicans and accept varying views. Only celebrating quarterly sounds more like a Memorial view.
The document Covenant Affirmations makes reference to "the biblical instruction of the Lutheran Church of Sweden" and the Augsburg Confession. At several points it quotes Martin Luther favorably. But it never seems to articulate a view on the Real Presence.
Tbf, Anglicans don't "accept varying views." They affirm the Real Presence (no Zwingli) and reject Transubstantiation (no Rome) -- meaning they allow for two variations on the Real Presence: Luther and Calvin.
It's broader than we would tolerate as Lutherans (though we do allow some wiggle room; consecrationism vs receptionism), but it's far from anything goes.
@@vngelicath1580
By “varying views,” I didn’t mean anything goes. I meant, they aren’t stuck to one view. To me, allowing both Luther and Calvin seems like… “welp, may as well allow for all the others, too.”
@@zarnoffa Article 28 of the Anglican 39 Articles....The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.... So, not so much Lutheran.
I grew up ECC. They do not believe in real physical presence. It is a memorial and usually done monthly.
Reminds me of Cowboy Church in some respects but with much more order.
A study of how big-tent doctrine ends up with liberalism.
Sounds somewhat like a non-denominational church.
Sounds like the Disciples of Christ and their "Freedom of Belief." Those churches usually end up losing members and closing down their churches.
Stand for something or fall for anything?
Bell is a heretic. that response speaks volumes.
My ears perked up at Bell's name being mentioned.
Many in the Covenant Church would agree wholeheartedly with you; a smaller group might take exception. The Covenant position is that the Bible is the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine, and conduct, with many still asking, "Where is it written?" Therein is the vigorous discussion. Regardless, the high regard for Scripture and orthodoxy is an essential characteristic of the denomination.
Abelard should not even be mentioned in a church.
You say that about Abelard, others say it about Calvin, etc.
@@garrettordner8524 The two are not comparable. Calvin believed in propitiation, Romans 3:25, Abelard was a rationalist a precursor to Socinus.
These pietists are anti-creedal. What happens is someone comes along who slyly inserts into the vacuum created by their refusal to use creeds his own creed. The best example of that is Alex. Campbell [1788-1866] whose Christian System amounts to a lengthy creed; and quite possibly the worst book ever published since the invention of movable type.
Creeds and catechisms are good. I have asked my wife to bury me with a copy of the Heidelberg Catechism---but not right away of course.
Now have a good week Sir. We live in strange times do we not, when a Calvin would do a lot more for the world than a Peter Abelard who did not understand the cross and was all-over Socinianized.
That was a bit... odd.
I understand objections to penal substitution, but more so in terms of more Eastern options of christus victor, etc moral influence is just liberal nonsense.
@@vngelicath1580 I see penal substitution as essential...but not necessarily the only thing to be gleaned from it.
Apostolic 😂 instead of trying to be the orthodox church just join them
I think you should limit your videos to groups with a substantial and wide membership. These tiny splinter groups are getting too much of you and our time. Or start picking a topic (say lords supper) and give various groups views on them…like you did with Baptism. Or pick other topics like presenting facts on early church figures and history.
i agree
I also agree.
I disagree. This church is part of the Lutheran State churches splintering over pietism, creating an “ in non essential beliefs freedom” theology and now ,apparently, slipping into mainstream progressivism. It is also interesting comparing their fellow sibling of the state churches, the EFCA and see how their path has differed. This is an interesting part of church history and a detailed look at how this can happen to a confessional church. I think anyone interested in American church history would find this as fascinating as I do.
I understand the interest in the larger groups, but I think it can lead to underestimating some denominations that really are major players, and also that people want to know about. There's no end to videos on the Catholic Church or Southern Baptist Convention on CZcams, but not many on the groups I cover. I'm trying to fill a hole and provide a resource. And people do want to know about these churches in their communities. My video on Calvary Chapel, which has fewer than 2,000 churches, is my most viewed video on any one denomination.
I don't plan to make videos on Church figures or Church history, once again there are already dozens of channels that do that. Not everyone will be interested in the videos that I do make, but that's what I am willing to face as I make a channel on the topic of denominations. Some videos will interest certain people more than others.
Hard disagree, and in this case your point isn't even relevant because this church has over 100 thousand members. That's more than respectable for a church founded out of such an obscure tradition.
Keep in mind also that a lot of this channel's subscribers probably found the channel because they looked up their own denomination or ex-denomination one day and found a RTH video on it.