Not gonna lie, as a believer in eastern orthodox christianity these videos give me more and more respect for protestants. These videos are very interesting and show how rich protestantism's and calvinism's history and theology actually are.
Not necessarily sure I would consider the liberal Churches protestant so much as just... spiritual. There's no religion it's just "Jesus loves regardless of what Jesus said"
0:06 That isn't an exageration, the United Church of Canada unironically supported an atheist female pastor who said belief in a transcendent God is harmful
Not as stupid as sola scriptura. Yes let's completely change how Christianity worked after 1500 years and copy Islam and worship a book Jesus never reviewed nor approved.
I'm not a Calvinist, but I really appreciate these videos and the way you explain the history of the Reformed tradition. Thank you for helping me to become more educated about this topic!
I suspect he could face some resistance in the fact it's a more politically nuanced movement, not completely rejecting liberalism's belief in progress or civic virtue, but holding it in tension with a sense of humanity's sinfulness. Most Neo-Orthodox tended to support progressive political activism of some kind or another, albeit with more realistic expectations. Bonhoeffer worked as a spy during WWII, and Niebuhr supported the labor union movement.
@@Apinetree123 If you like betraying all the progress of modernity, sure. Like throwing gays under the bus or giving up on the idea of democracy and the worth and dignity of every person.
Neo-Orthodoxy really benefited my understanding of faith. Karl Barth is one of my favorite theologians to read. I am also very inspired by the Biblical principles and core values of the Presbyterian Confession of 1967. Thank you for your pursuit of truth and the work that you do on this channel.
@@jdotoz That's called condescension. The infinite Logos took on finite flesh. More or less the opposite of the finite achieving the infinite (ascension/transcendence). We cannot achieve the latter (except in Christ because he first condescended to us). People have certainly tried to ascend to heaven before: the Tower of Babel attests to that, and so does its modern spiritual equivalent, Hegelian Idealism. We cannot attain the mind of God through transcendence; that can only lead to madness (hence the confusion among the humans who built Babel).
As a Lutheran, I'm happy to be part of a Lutheran church that is united, so we're in full communion with the Reformed tradition as well and I feel we took the best of both worlds. And here I mean especially Barth. Great video, really! You did a great job to sum it up!
As a Democratic-Socialist, i disagree with conservatives on a lot of controversial issues. That being said, I am fundamentally an evangelical Christian that believes in following morales as the Bible lays them out, and not some liberal theological degeneracy that completely throws out the book at the core of Christianity. So glad that there are fellow young people out there like you who explain true Christian faith in a fun and engaging way :) God bless you!
He has said before that he doesn’t like that phrase on multiple occasions. Calvinists do still believe even the precondemned can express a temporary saving faith in Jesus.
once believing doesn't mean always believing. the bible says work out your own salvation in fear and trembling. this is kind of why i like the orthodox view, "I am saved, im being saved, and I hope to be saved tomorrow and for eternity."
@@ehhhhhhhhhhk any good resource? i wont be listening to some old fart, entertaining is good, i just want to listen to a guy talking about god in the most easy to digest, useful, non-cringe way possible
@@jdotoz My bad. I thought you meant that those who do not accept Jesus will be saved. If you meant that non-Christians can convert to Christ, then absolutely.
I mean, I feel like Liberal Theology as you’ve presented seems to make a lot more sense than anything else, Kant was pretty thorough in his examination of the faculties of human reason. You can always reject reason and embrace faith which seems to be the solution RZ posits here, but then you can’t claim to have an objective truth because you’ve just arbitrarily decided Christianity and a specific version of Christianity must be correct without any criterion for even understanding what truth means. So essentially the point of this video seems to be that any non-Liberal Theologian must necessarily reject the concepts of truth, reason, and logic for their positions to cohere.
Great and interesting video. My only complaint is the treatment of the Enlightenment. Opinions were more diverse on religion. There was the radical wing like Voltaire and Hume who were very critical of religion, but on the other side there were those like Francis Hutcheson and Thomas Reid who were extremely favorable towards religion.
Reading the Bible, especially the New Testament, I find simple commandments, not very heavy theological principles,and I realise that salvation and having a relationship with God is so simple, a simplicity lost under covers of time and doctrines....
The reason why i dont like denominations, is because there is one logical true interpretation of scripture, where it is 100% correct, which means all these different denominations saying different things about what the Bible says and all insisting they are correct, is clearly wrong; likely, none of them are entirely right, and the correct, true interpretation of scripture has bits of truth scattered about the denominations, mixed with a lot of misinterpreted things.
It's kind of funny how whenever a Calvinist comes in the joyous beautiful music comes in like a Disney movie when the protagonist is introduced... almost like you're a Calvinist, Very Subtle Redeemed Zoomer
Sorry for the terrible English, I'm not native and I'm using Google Translate. But I have a question, there is a verse that says that only the father God knows when the son God will come, but doesn't this say that the son God does not know something and therefore is not omniscient and therefore cannot be God? And the Holy Spirit too, as said, he is only God the Father?
Jesus has two natures ; a human nature and a Godly nature. It's his Godly nature that's in equality with the father and is Omniscient. Jesus before his incarnation was always the Eternal Word of God who always existed with Him, we can't separate God from His eternal Word so Jesus is God so when he incarnated he didn't stop being God he just gained a human nature to fulfill prophecies stated in the old testament about our salvation. Now think of his human and Godly nature existing the way our finite body and immaterial spirit co-exist to be human.
I'm a Muslim and I believe that Christianity should stick to as to how it was revealed earlier rather than reforming the religion we can focus much more advocating the earlier beliefs of Christianity the way it was revealed. (Also I love your content bro)
@@jeffkardosjr.3825Well the Catholic Church at the time was corrupt at the time but the reformer tuck it a step further than it should of been in the first place
and this historical mess within protestant world is exactly why I could never give up apostolic succession. protestantism fractures, and fractures, and fractures until no one can know for certain their theology has any truth in it.
The more I watching these videos the more I get and understanding of other denominations and warm up to them jd accept them as my fellow followers of Christ, and how bat shit insane some of these new age and liberal churches ate
Great vid. Your last two videos (this and the previous) are not currently in the playlist though. Would be good to have them added so it’s back to being up to date. Cheers
Could you make some videos explaining how neo-orthodoxy works out differently from modernist style fundamentalism on different issues? Some modernist type apologists will get way into the weeds to explain why some super detailed Bible contradiction isn't actually a Bible contradiction because they think the whole Bible will fall apart if they can't explain it. Some accessible resources about neo-orthodoxy would be super helpful. Accessible resources are hard to find.
This is great stuff - ass a reformed believer I have been very drawn to Neo-Orthodox theology for a very long time. I had to turn down an elder position in a reformed (OPC) church because I believe that the Westminster Confession of faith has errors in it - I think the whole Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Works structure is hopelessly flawed. My favorite Neo Orthodox writes is Emil Brunner... Anyway.. awesome video. I am so glad to see how many views and subs you have..
We don’t speak a huge amount about sin because everyone sins and we give it to God, we don’t obsess over judging people and casting them out because their sin somehow is worse then ours. The fundamentalists tend to lack empathy it seems. This is why so many are leaving the church.
In some ways I'm a modernist, but I still believe in the resurrection, and that God is in control Is there a middle or narrow path where I belong? Should have watched the entire video first
I'm not sure how well you're aware of Karl Barth's theology is, but it certainly isn't classical Calvinist. You're right in what you say about his views on the Bible and election. But what he means is the Bible isn't inherently the Word of God, but only becomes the Word of God. Also, his doctrine ends up being equivalent to universalism, although he does deny universalism, it does seem to be the only logical conclusion of his doctrines. While Barth is far more evangelical than Schleiermacher, he is still quite liberal in his thought and would deny a lot of what is found on the Westminster Confession.
Agree ! Here in Germany there is simetimes a Barth quote in internet discussions, not sure it is authentic, but anyway: „Ich lehre Allversöhnung nicht, aber ich lehre sie auch nicht nicht.“ (I don‘t teach universalism which doesn’ mean that universalism is wrong.“) And someone else told me: Barth separated mankind in two groups: The group that know that they are already redeemed through Christ and the group that doesn‘t know (yet) that they are already redeemed through Christ. ( not sure if this quote is authentic or just a strawman against Barth)
RZ stated that he agrees with Barth only when he does not contradict Westminster. For example, although Barth's view of predestination is not exactly what is in Wesminster, it does not contradicts It, since we are elected in Christ. But Wesminster clearly affirms natural revelation and Barth denies It. So we need to be careful with his ideas.
He talked about 1689 Federalism in the last video of Mastering Reformed Theology, about Covenant Theology. He also has a Kingdom Craft video about this subject.
As an atheist I think that the issue began when the basics of christianity were deleted. Because I frequently watch this channel and from my experience starting as a christian, I think that some of the ideas can be kept and up healed as a religion. With the whole miracles deal, In my very personal opinion, definitive examples of miracles would help like more apostles or chosen outside of the bible because the scientific method is about definitive repeatable results.
What are your thoughts on neo Orthodox preaching where a pastor will say "look for the word of God", rather than "this is the word of God" before reading scripture?
That’s not neo orthodox that’s just liberalism. That’s saying that the Word of God is just whatever part of the Bible subjectively inspires you to be or feel good
Does 2Timothy 3:15 ("...the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ") mean that reading scripture can lead to salvation for an unbeliever that reads them?
It is not entirely true that Barth thought the Bible is only the Word of God for believers. He thought it is the Word od God when God choses to reveal himself through it. Of course, in practice that means that basically only christians recieve it as the word of God, but not even all the time. His theology was revelation centered, because God is completely different and only knowable if he reveals himself. That is why Jesus, the ultimate revelation, is in the middle.
Just my observation but it feels that there is a big surge of growth in the old Orthodox in response to what i would call the neo liberal movement that we are seeing especially on college campus. Its almost like a what Dostoevsky was trying to convey in his novels
Have Sean Luke from Anglican Aesthetics on your channel! I think you’d have some great conversations on apostolic succession related to fundamentalism and neo orthodoxy in the Reformed strand
I have a couple questions. Why do some denominations baptize babies when the sacraments is for those who believe not knowing if the baby does believe or not? Also how often am I supposed to be baptized and take communion and can I do communion at home or does it have to be at a church? Thank you and I’m sorry I am still unsure
Some denominations see baptism as a substitute for circumcision that was performed in the old testament and infant baptism is seen as spreading the God's kingdom on earth. As a catholic I can only tell you that you should (and can) only be baptized once and that communion is taken in the church at least on sunday.
Non denominational. Never been baptized. Ngl it worries me to wonder if I'll burn for not being baptized. But I want to find a church that I believe is TRULY Christian. So I'm at an impass on what to do.
Because the idea that it is a declaration of faith is a very new idea. The traditional Christian view is that baptism is a means through which God bestows grace, and enter the church. If we had to understand grace to receive, we'd all be damned. If a child is born to Christian parents, they will, ideally, be a full participant in the church as far as they are capable
@@spiffygonzales5160Evangelical Friends (theologically conservative Quakers) don't practice baptism or communion. And they're truly Christian. Some Evangelical Friends Churches have been "infiltrated" by other denominations, and some congregations, like mine, will have rare baptismals down at the river (once every several years, perhaps) and Communion/Lord's supper on special days, like a Good Friday service and Christmas Eve.
9:47 we Cant blame him he survived horrors of war so its natural for person to support and be atracted to apsolute opossite of things he went through war
Barth’s view of the Bible makes sense to me but I also makes me puzzled about how to evangelize. Apologetics about the Bible then would seem to be primarily geared toward doubting believers. And attempts to convince unbelievers with Jesus’ words would not be effective…?
I'm more blown away by how many historical manuscripts we have found that are hundreds or thousands of years old, through different cultures and scribes that are extremely close to what we read today for the majority of the bible (Old and New testament). That in itself is a miracle.
In the bible, especially the Hebrew, does not "sons of..." or "children of..." refer to those of a specific kind, not necessarily literal born descendants? I think of Genesis 6:1-4, and Psalm 115:16, and also in the NT John 8:44, 1 John 3:10.
No way. The act of Preaching doesn't make it the word of God. What if the preacher is saying, "God says he can lie."? God actually said that he cannot lie. So if someone preaches that God can lie, that's NOOOTTTTTT God's word.
5:48 faith comes by hearing, you Can't be saved whitout beliving in Jesus reaveald in gospel, and if you Can't read gospel and get its meaning you Cant even be saved, so this part of philisophy is false
The most important commandment is to love God with all your being. If you love God, you'll naturally obey Him, so naturally you'll follow His morals and laws. There's an ocean of a difference between His commandments and His laws for the Hebrew people. His commandments are for all mankind, the Law was specifically made for the Hebrew people to set them apart from the world as His people. If you aren't a Hebrew, the Law was never intended for you, however God's commandments would apply to you regardless.
@@chrismdb5686 yeah, I agree with that sense, but I'm asking technically why RZ believes that the 10 commandments specifically applies to us. I mean, the list of the 10 commandments were given to Moses for the Hebrew people as well, there's no distinction in the bible between the 10 and the rest of the law, right? There's nothing like "those 10 are for the whole world and the rest are for Israel". In my understanding, as Christians we must follow what the NT tells us to do, and not some specific list of laws given to ancient Israel.
@@MateusArruda-dd6ng Commandments are not laws, they're commands given by God to the world. Think of it this way, laws apply to a nation, commands to a family. If you're not a citizen of Japan or in the nation of Japan, their laws mean nothing to you. If your father (you being a child) commands you to do something, you do it. God, our heavenly father, gave the world a list of commandments. We (His children), are to follow them and be obedient.
@@chrismdb5686 I disagree with you, the 10 commandments are laws for Israel. There's no distinction between commandments and laws. "Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them." - Deuteronomy 5:1 And then after this verse Moses says the 10 commandments for Israel. In Exodus 20 God gives Moses the 10 commandments and in the same chapter He gives the people more laws.
@@MateusArruda-dd6ng Turn to Mark 12:28. Jesus teaches that by following the greatest commandment; "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength" (Mark 12:30), and the second greatest; "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:31) that you will not be far from the kingdom of God (Mark 12:34). By naturally following these two commandments, you will naturally already be following all of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments steer people away from sin. If you actively go against any of them you aren't keeping the most important commandments and are in rebellion against the Lord our God. Jesus then goes on to warn explicitly about "Teachers of the Law" in subsequent verses (Mark 12:38-44), and the differences between those that adhere out of tradition or as a means of boasting as opposed to those who love the Lord, our God, and do it out of genuine love and faith. The Mosaic Law was not abolished by Jesus, rather it was fulfilled. Hebrews are still expected to follow the laws of their nation as handed down to them by Moses from God on Mount Sinai. Christians, if they are Gentiles rather than Hebrews, are instead under the law of Faith. We Gentiles are not subject to the Hebrew dress code unless we feel convicted to subject ourselves to such a thing, because we aren't Hebrews. Us Gentiles are not subject to Kosher laws unless we feel convicted to subject ourselves to such a thing, because we aren't Hebrews. God explicitly told His people - the people of the tribes of Israel (the Hebrews) - that they must set themselves apart from the world with His Mosaic Laws. The whole book of Matthew is a great read on this subject. I think I may be starting to talk in circles a bit and ramble, so I an effort to make things more concise I'll say that Hebrews and Gentile Christians are two peoples grafted into the same tree of life by God. We're not Hebrews, they're not Gentiles. Their rules aren't meant for us, nor are they allowed to pretend they're Gentiles. So long as both sides love the Lord our God they will act accordingly based on how the Lord has commanded.
I think Calvinism makes sense because God already has a plan for everybody and knows what you're going to do before you even think it. But I think it opens people up to a lot of nihilism because they think there's nothing they can do because it's already set in stone.
@@Yoran87935 That's how it is perceived though. I don't think people should separate theology from its consequences. This is why there are warnings against teachings that cause others to sin. I think predestination as a general concept makes sin look silly as it reduces humans to mere puppets of God, so why should God get mad for the puppet slapping him if he is the one pulling the strings? Predestination only makes sense if it is Satan pulling our strings to slap God and God getting mad because we did not cut our strings by utilizing the knife who is Christ. Belief in freewill isn't without its faults either as it diminishes the omnipotence of God at its logical conclusion. Theology is a lot like math where everything is built on axioms the matter of predestination might just be an axiom rather than something proved rigorously.
@@randus7053Calvinism is a lot more than predestination. Predestination doesnt mean we are puppets, Humans have responsibility for their actions. We should look at the whole theology of calvinism. Not only predestination
Matthew 10:33 says, "But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven". John 15:18-20 says, "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."
Bonhoeffer was a bit more liberal than Barth. Also, he critiqued Barth's view of revelation as positivistic, focusing on the Bible rather than the finality of Christ, which for Bonhoeffer, being a Lutheran, is ultimately about the Cross and divine hiddenness or dialectic.
@@timboland7767 Similar to Barth. He respected critical readings of the Bible, so he is indebted to liberals on that point (and doesn't take Fundamentalist seriously), but ultimately he has a catholic view of the Christian tradition and that is the religious hermeneutic he uses.
As far as I know, Bonhoeffer wrote about Bultmann: „He let the cat out of the back.“ Doesn‘t sound to me that he thought that Bultmann was totally wrong with his whole demystification / existentialism interpretation thing… So Redeemed Zoomer should be carefull to use Bonhoeffer as an „advocat“ against modern tendencies referring to Bultmann‘s theology…🧐
Isn't the whole "the Bible doesnt seem divine to you because you aren't saved" circular? Because you'd have to be saved to believe the Bible is divine, which you'd need to be saved to believe, etc.
@@Panzerjäger_23 Oh. Does it mean something different from what it says? Or does that only work when the bible says something that goes against your preexisting morals?
@@Astromancerguy it’s saying that women shouldn’t speak in the Church as a pastor, read the context, it’s not saying that women should be completely silent and shouldn’t speak
@@Panzerjäger_23 Where does it say "as a pastor"? It says they should be silent in church. period. the end. Why are you adding meaning to the bible? Does it fail to meet your moral code?
@@Astromancerguy Ok well I interpret the passage in the way I mentioned earlier, you can interpret it the way like. I’m not sure why you even care since your not a Christian
Not gonna lie, as a believer in eastern orthodox christianity these videos give me more and more respect for protestants. These videos are very interesting and show how rich protestantism's and calvinism's history and theology actually are.
And it's all just meaningless man made nonsense anyway
Not necessarily sure I would consider the liberal Churches protestant so much as just... spiritual. There's no religion it's just "Jesus loves regardless of what Jesus said"
same
@@spiffygonzales5160he means this channel's content about protestantism in general.
@@spiffygonzales5160He is talking about orthodox protestant christianity not its liberal factions.
“A little historical whoopsie-daisy called WW1” 💀bro
The west is still filling the heat from those wars...people forget how wars cause generational damage even for the winners
Don't forget another small historical event call WW2 💀☠️☠️
I hate it when I receive notifications when my comment is removed
@@us3rG Damn bro you too?? I suffered from the same thing, i always thought its because i said something offensive therefore my comment got removed.
@@mike.mentzer_enjoyer once they start, it just gets worse.
I only asked a question but it was removed
0:06
That isn't an exageration, the United Church of Canada unironically supported an atheist female pastor who said belief in a transcendent God is harmful
Wat
Why are they still called a church
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Blasphemy much?
A Christian church with an *atheist* pastor claiming that belief in God is harmful? *That* doesn’t contradict *at all* .
Not as stupid as sola scriptura. Yes let's completely change how Christianity worked after 1500 years and copy Islam and worship a book Jesus never reviewed nor approved.
This is probably the best video you’ve ever done Zoomer. Thank you
I just came home and I get hit with the "a lot of churches don't even believe in god. . ." :)))
I'm not a Calvinist, but I really appreciate these videos and the way you explain the history of the Reformed tradition. Thank you for helping me to become more educated about this topic!
Basically:
The gospel of liberal theology: “be good”
The actual gospel: “you can’t be good”
But you should still ATTEMPT to be :)
@@spiffygonzales5160He is not denying it, but it is God grace that makes us good.
@@spiffygonzales5160But what's the point of reaching an unattainable end?
The actual gospel: "You must be perfect, as you Father in Heaven is perfect."
@@jdotoz and how can that happen?
Jordan Peterson needs to learn about Neo Orthodoxy. It seems this is the piece of the puzzle he needs to actually be a true Christian.
I suspect he could face some resistance in the fact it's a more politically nuanced movement, not completely rejecting liberalism's belief in progress or civic virtue, but holding it in tension with a sense of humanity's sinfulness. Most Neo-Orthodox tended to support progressive political activism of some kind or another, albeit with more realistic expectations. Bonhoeffer worked as a spy during WWII, and Niebuhr supported the labor union movement.
Neo orthodoxy is not good.
He's said some times to have trouble understanding the Ressurection and its effects.
he just needs Orthodoxy
@@Apinetree123 If you like betraying all the progress of modernity, sure. Like throwing gays under the bus or giving up on the idea of democracy and the worth and dignity of every person.
We are leaving liberal theology with this one ! 🔥🔥🔥🔥🗣🗣🗣🗣
"This may sound ridiculous but..."
No no, it certainly does sound ridiculous.
disregard my lack of logic
This isn’t kingdom craft 🤨
how are you verified with 3k subs
These vids better
@@butterkan3584I run a CZcams automation network and so I have a representative at CZcams.
@@Frazier16Ik but it was originally in tittle
@@butterkan3584lol he’s full of shit and a scammer
Came here for the punchy title, got the best summary of Barthian theology I've ever heard
These theology nerd videos are 🔥🔥🔥
Glad to see you on pvk
My favorite philosophical result of the enlightenment was when Sarte labeled all of so-called rationality cope.
I am Orthodox so not reformed but definitely appreciate these videos ❤️
Your not Orthodox, your a Larper
Neo-Orthodoxy really benefited my understanding of faith. Karl Barth is one of my favorite theologians to read. I am also very inspired by the Biblical principles and core values of the Presbyterian Confession of 1967. Thank you for your pursuit of truth and the work that you do on this channel.
"Finite is not capable of the infinite" believers when they find out the eucharist (finite bread) is Christ (contains the infinite Lord)
"Finite is not capable of the infinite" believers when they see photographic evidence of a black hole:
"Must be a shadow"
Heck, even the Incarnation does that.
@@jdotozThe infinite is capable of the finite.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Christ's human body was just as finite as yours, but it contained God.
@@jdotoz That's called condescension. The infinite Logos took on finite flesh. More or less the opposite of the finite achieving the infinite (ascension/transcendence). We cannot achieve the latter (except in Christ because he first condescended to us).
People have certainly tried to ascend to heaven before: the Tower of Babel attests to that, and so does its modern spiritual equivalent, Hegelian Idealism. We cannot attain the mind of God through transcendence; that can only lead to madness (hence the confusion among the humans who built Babel).
As a Lutheran, I'm happy to be part of a Lutheran church that is united, so we're in full communion with the Reformed tradition as well and I feel we took the best of both worlds. And here I mean especially Barth. Great video, really! You did a great job to sum it up!
I laughed. I cried (only because I was laughing so hard). 😂
This was the best quick introduction to neo-orthodoxy I have ever seen.
As a Democratic-Socialist, i disagree with conservatives on a lot of controversial issues. That being said, I am fundamentally an evangelical Christian that believes in following morales as the Bible lays them out, and not some liberal theological degeneracy that completely throws out the book at the core of Christianity. So glad that there are fellow young people out there like you who explain true Christian faith in a fun and engaging way :) God bless you!
So you’re a national socialist? Well at least it’s not the worst ideology, better than communism.
@@eggheadusa9900 national socialist is like the complete opposite of democratic socialist
@@eggheadusa9900 he’s a democratic socialist, did you not read his comment???
You should do a vid on “once saved always saved” I’d love to hear your opinion!
He has said before that he doesn’t like that phrase on multiple occasions. Calvinists do still believe even the precondemned can express a temporary saving faith in Jesus.
@@paulnash6944Like who? I’ve never heard a calvinist say that
He’s a calvinist so be believes that TULIP is true. The P is perseverance of the saints which can be summed up as eternal security.
@@ogloc6308 Redeemed Zoomer has said it multiple times.
once believing doesn't mean always believing. the bible says work out your own salvation in fear and trembling. this is kind of why i like the orthodox view, "I am saved, im being saved, and I hope to be saved tomorrow and for eternity."
i really dont believe/care about god, but i might give this channel the chance to convert me
@@ehhhhhhhhhhk any good resource? i wont be listening to some old fart, entertaining is good, i just want to listen to a guy talking about god in the most easy to digest, useful, non-cringe way possible
@@valentinkrajzelman4649
H
@@birb349 erm...ackshually Orthodoxy the Church that split from Catholics 🤓☝
@@valentinkrajzelman4649Best way to seek the truth is to ask God yourself
@@valentinkrajzelman4649 Jay Dyer, David Erhan are good to start with
"Dude, that's because you're not saved" literally sent me 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Very informative. Enjoyed learning more about Barth and Bonhoeffer’s theology. Thanks so much for this!
The idea that non-Christians can (not necessarily will) be saved is ancient, going back to at least Justin Martyr.
John 14:6, “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.””
@@reedfrombigisland Yes, this idea still holds that salvation comes through Jesus in all cases.
@@jdotoz to say otherwise would mean that most humans will go to hell because they are of another religion
@@reedfrombigisland yeah, Jesus can still save unbelievers like from among those that never heard the word, for one generally accepted example.
@@jdotoz My bad. I thought you meant that those who do not accept Jesus will be saved. If you meant that non-Christians can convert to Christ, then absolutely.
I am excited for eschatology video next..
Bro, I love the Classical music as a soundtrack!
I mean, I feel like Liberal Theology as you’ve presented seems to make a lot more sense than anything else, Kant was pretty thorough in his examination of the faculties of human reason.
You can always reject reason and embrace faith which seems to be the solution RZ posits here, but then you can’t claim to have an objective truth because you’ve just arbitrarily decided Christianity and a specific version of Christianity must be correct without any criterion for even understanding what truth means.
So essentially the point of this video seems to be that any non-Liberal Theologian must necessarily reject the concepts of truth, reason, and logic for their positions to cohere.
Great and interesting video. My only complaint is the treatment of the Enlightenment. Opinions were more diverse on religion. There was the radical wing like Voltaire and Hume who were very critical of religion, but on the other side there were those like Francis Hutcheson and Thomas Reid who were extremely favorable towards religion.
Reading the Bible, especially the New Testament, I find simple commandments, not very heavy theological principles,and I realise that salvation and having a relationship with God is so simple, a simplicity lost under covers of time and doctrines....
Man that logic about the bible being the word of god only to believers is the most circular thing I've heard
The reason why i dont like denominations, is because there is one logical true interpretation of scripture, where it is 100% correct, which means all these different denominations saying different things about what the Bible says and all insisting they are correct, is clearly wrong; likely, none of them are entirely right, and the correct, true interpretation of scripture has bits of truth scattered about the denominations, mixed with a lot of misinterpreted things.
This is the clearest explanation of Neo-orthodoxy I’ve ever heard, and I’m Neo-orthodox
Thank you for your videos. Its so nice go get a quick overview of the different topics.
It's kind of funny how whenever a Calvinist comes in the joyous beautiful music comes in like a Disney movie when the protagonist is introduced... almost like you're a Calvinist, Very Subtle Redeemed Zoomer
Sorry for the terrible English, I'm not native and I'm using Google Translate. But I have a question, there is a verse that says that only the father God knows when the son God will come, but doesn't this say that the son God does not know something and therefore is not omniscient and therefore cannot be God? And the Holy Spirit too, as said, he is only God the Father?
Jesus has two natures ; a human nature and a Godly nature. It's his Godly nature that's in equality with the father and is Omniscient. Jesus before his incarnation was always the Eternal Word of God who always existed with Him, we can't separate God from His eternal Word so Jesus is God so when he incarnated he didn't stop being God he just gained a human nature to fulfill prophecies stated in the old testament about our salvation. Now think of his human and Godly nature existing the way our finite body and immaterial spirit co-exist to be human.
I'm a Muslim and I believe that Christianity should stick to as to how it was revealed earlier rather than reforming the religion we can focus much more advocating the earlier beliefs of Christianity the way it was revealed.
(Also I love your content bro)
The reformation was necessary precisely because the early believes were being lost.
Re-forming means bringing it back to what it should be.
Well The Catholic church at the time was corrupt but the reformers to it a step further then it should of been in the first place
@@jeffkardosjr.3825Well the Catholic Church at the time was corrupt at the time but the reformer tuck it a step further than it should of been in the first place
@@DavidelCientificoLocoThe church is not corrupt. It’s the people who is corrupt. 😊
Some dewds were like "what if miracles don't happen" and RZ was like "but they dew".
I love this video, this is your best work yet!
Another awesome video
Time travel theology sounds awesome
and this historical mess within protestant world is exactly why I could never give up apostolic succession. protestantism fractures, and fractures, and fractures until no one can know for certain their theology has any truth in it.
The meme at 5:50 is gold 😂
The more I watching these videos the more I get and understanding of other denominations and warm up to them jd accept them as my fellow followers of Christ, and how bat shit insane some of these new age and liberal churches ate
Great vid. Your last two videos (this and the previous) are not currently in the playlist though. Would be good to have them added so it’s back to being up to date. Cheers
“This may sound ridiculous but there’s a theology that goes behind this that goes back hundreds of years” *cuts to Reformed Theology logo*
vatican II is sorta neo-orthodox
Could you make some videos explaining how neo-orthodoxy works out differently from modernist style fundamentalism on different issues?
Some modernist type apologists will get way into the weeds to explain why some super detailed Bible contradiction isn't actually a Bible contradiction because they think the whole Bible will fall apart if they can't explain it.
Some accessible resources about neo-orthodoxy would be super helpful. Accessible resources are hard to find.
As a Greek Orthodox Christian it is interesting how there are overlaps within the Protestant Neo Orthodox ideals especially with culture.
This is great stuff - ass a reformed believer I have been very drawn to Neo-Orthodox theology for a very long time. I had to turn down an elder position in a reformed (OPC) church because I believe that the Westminster Confession of faith has errors in it - I think the whole Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Works structure is hopelessly flawed. My favorite Neo Orthodox writes is Emil Brunner... Anyway.. awesome video. I am so glad to see how many views and subs you have..
We don’t speak a huge amount about sin because everyone sins and we give it to God, we don’t obsess over judging people and casting them out because their sin somehow is worse then ours. The fundamentalists tend to lack empathy it seems. This is why so many are leaving the church.
In some ways I'm a modernist, but I still believe in the resurrection, and that God is in control
Is there a middle or narrow path where I belong?
Should have watched the entire video first
This was super informative. Thanks so much!
I'm not sure how well you're aware of Karl Barth's theology is, but it certainly isn't classical Calvinist. You're right in what you say about his views on the Bible and election. But what he means is the Bible isn't inherently the Word of God, but only becomes the Word of God. Also, his doctrine ends up being equivalent to universalism, although he does deny universalism, it does seem to be the only logical conclusion of his doctrines. While Barth is far more evangelical than Schleiermacher, he is still quite liberal in his thought and would deny a lot of what is found on the Westminster Confession.
Agree !
Here in Germany there is simetimes a Barth quote in internet discussions, not sure it is authentic, but anyway:
„Ich lehre Allversöhnung nicht, aber ich lehre sie auch nicht nicht.“
(I don‘t teach universalism which doesn’ mean that universalism is wrong.“)
And someone else told me:
Barth separated mankind in two groups:
The group that know that they are already redeemed through Christ and the group that doesn‘t know (yet) that they are already redeemed through Christ.
( not sure if this quote is authentic or just a strawman against Barth)
RZ stated that he agrees with Barth only when he does not contradict Westminster. For example, although Barth's view of predestination is not exactly what is in Wesminster, it does not contradicts It, since we are elected in Christ. But Wesminster clearly affirms natural revelation and Barth denies It. So we need to be careful with his ideas.
Have you talked about Molinism and/or 1689 Federalism vs Calvinistic soteriology yet?
He talked about 1689 Federalism in the last video of Mastering Reformed Theology, about Covenant Theology. He also has a Kingdom Craft video about this subject.
These videos are so spot on!! Really explains everything that's going on in our culture
As an atheist I think that the issue began when the basics of christianity were deleted. Because I frequently watch this channel and from my experience starting as a christian, I think that some of the ideas can be kept and up healed as a religion. With the whole miracles deal, In my very personal opinion, definitive examples of miracles would help like more apostles or chosen outside of the bible because the scientific method is about definitive repeatable results.
What are your thoughts on neo Orthodox preaching where a pastor will say "look for the word of God", rather than "this is the word of God" before reading scripture?
That’s not neo orthodox that’s just liberalism. That’s saying that the Word of God is just whatever part of the Bible subjectively inspires you to be or feel good
@@redeemedzoomer6053 sorry I must have been misinformed.
The first minute of this video is the funniest thing I've seen all day
1:55 He was about to say "What the sigma" 💀
Does 2Timothy 3:15 ("...the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
") mean that reading scripture can lead to salvation for an unbeliever that reads them?
It is not entirely true that Barth thought the Bible is only the Word of God for believers. He thought it is the Word od God when God choses to reveal himself through it. Of course, in practice that means that basically only christians recieve it as the word of God, but not even all the time. His theology was revelation centered, because God is completely different and only knowable if he reveals himself. That is why Jesus, the ultimate revelation, is in the middle.
He’s pumping these out
Thanks for this, GREAT video 😁
I would love to see your analysis of Calvin’s Institutes. I have given it an admittedly cursory reading, but need a guide to learn from.
Only thing i understood was more Christian atheists
great job!
Just my observation but it feels that there is a big surge of growth in the old Orthodox in response to what i would call the neo liberal movement that we are seeing especially on college campus. Its almost like a what Dostoevsky was trying to convey in his novels
What are Barth's personal moral failings?
Have Sean Luke from Anglican Aesthetics on your channel! I think you’d have some great conversations on apostolic succession related to fundamentalism and neo orthodoxy in the Reformed strand
Barthism is something i didn't know was hammered into my head for a good part of my childhood
What he said about the Bible made so much sense, although I'd never seen it articulated before
Barthian election is not really Calvinism at all.
I have a couple questions. Why do some denominations baptize babies when the sacraments is for those who believe not knowing if the baby does believe or not? Also how often am I supposed to be baptized and take communion and can I do communion at home or does it have to be at a church?
Thank you and I’m sorry I am still unsure
Some denominations see baptism as a substitute for circumcision that was performed in the old testament and infant baptism is seen as spreading the God's kingdom on earth. As a catholic I can only tell you that you should (and can) only be baptized once and that communion is taken in the church at least on sunday.
The above is true. I am Protestant but would also affirm only one baptism and weekly communion.
Non denominational. Never been baptized. Ngl it worries me to wonder if I'll burn for not being baptized. But I want to find a church that I believe is TRULY Christian. So I'm at an impass on what to do.
Because the idea that it is a declaration of faith is a very new idea. The traditional Christian view is that baptism is a means through which God bestows grace, and enter the church. If we had to understand grace to receive, we'd all be damned. If a child is born to Christian parents, they will, ideally, be a full participant in the church as far as they are capable
@@spiffygonzales5160Evangelical Friends (theologically conservative Quakers) don't practice baptism or communion. And they're truly Christian. Some Evangelical Friends Churches have been "infiltrated" by other denominations, and some congregations, like mine, will have rare baptismals down at the river (once every several years, perhaps) and Communion/Lord's supper on special days, like a Good Friday service and Christmas Eve.
9:47 we Cant blame him he survived horrors of war so its natural for person to support and be atracted to apsolute opossite of things he went through war
Come to Orthodoxy guys =D!
Keep your Larping to yourself
@@Panzerjäger_23 God bless you.
Excellent! I love Barth.
10:23 counting is hard
✝️👑
Barth’s view of the Bible makes sense to me but I also makes me puzzled about how to evangelize. Apologetics about the Bible then would seem to be primarily geared toward doubting believers. And attempts to convince unbelievers with Jesus’ words would not be effective…?
“ right minded readers, read rightly!”
Can you bring back the original emergency video I didn’t get to see it?
The Bible does have faults though. We know people have edited it over the centuries and we don’t have any original transcripts.
I'm more blown away by how many historical manuscripts we have found that are hundreds or thousands of years old, through different cultures and scribes that are extremely close to what we read today for the majority of the bible (Old and New testament). That in itself is a miracle.
Kjv doesn’t have any faults
In the bible, especially the Hebrew, does not "sons of..." or "children of..." refer to those of a specific kind, not necessarily literal born descendants? I think of Genesis 6:1-4, and Psalm 115:16, and also in the NT John 8:44, 1 John 3:10.
My view isn't here: "Christ establishes His Church, and if the Church is prevalent in its teaching it may be observed in the culture"
Most enlightenment thinkers where either Christian or unitarian, with the occasional deist or pantheist
You should talk about preaching, I have heard it said that preaching is the word of God. As in the Sermon?
No way. The act of Preaching doesn't make it the word of God. What if the preacher is saying, "God says he can lie."? God actually said that he cannot lie. So if someone preaches that God can lie, that's NOOOTTTTTT God's word.
5:48 faith comes by hearing, you Can't be saved whitout beliving in Jesus reaveald in gospel, and if you Can't read gospel and get its meaning you Cant even be saved, so this part of philisophy is false
Great video
if we're saved by faith alone, why the 10 commandments are still applied to us? And why only the 10 commandments but not all the law?
The most important commandment is to love God with all your being. If you love God, you'll naturally obey Him, so naturally you'll follow His morals and laws.
There's an ocean of a difference between His commandments and His laws for the Hebrew people. His commandments are for all mankind, the Law was specifically made for the Hebrew people to set them apart from the world as His people. If you aren't a Hebrew, the Law was never intended for you, however God's commandments would apply to you regardless.
@@chrismdb5686 yeah, I agree with that sense, but I'm asking technically why RZ believes that the 10 commandments specifically applies to us. I mean, the list of the 10 commandments were given to Moses for the Hebrew people as well, there's no distinction in the bible between the 10 and the rest of the law, right? There's nothing like "those 10 are for the whole world and the rest are for Israel".
In my understanding, as Christians we must follow what the NT tells us to do, and not some specific list of laws given to ancient Israel.
@@MateusArruda-dd6ng Commandments are not laws, they're commands given by God to the world.
Think of it this way, laws apply to a nation, commands to a family. If you're not a citizen of Japan or in the nation of Japan, their laws mean nothing to you. If your father (you being a child) commands you to do something, you do it.
God, our heavenly father, gave the world a list of commandments. We (His children), are to follow them and be obedient.
@@chrismdb5686 I disagree with you, the 10 commandments are laws for Israel. There's no distinction between commandments and laws.
"Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them." - Deuteronomy 5:1
And then after this verse Moses says the 10 commandments for Israel.
In Exodus 20 God gives Moses the 10 commandments and in the same chapter He gives the people more laws.
@@MateusArruda-dd6ng Turn to Mark 12:28. Jesus teaches that by following the greatest commandment; "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength" (Mark 12:30), and the second greatest; "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:31) that you will not be far from the kingdom of God (Mark 12:34). By naturally following these two commandments, you will naturally already be following all of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments steer people away from sin. If you actively go against any of them you aren't keeping the most important commandments and are in rebellion against the Lord our God.
Jesus then goes on to warn explicitly about "Teachers of the Law" in subsequent verses (Mark 12:38-44), and the differences between those that adhere out of tradition or as a means of boasting as opposed to those who love the Lord, our God, and do it out of genuine love and faith.
The Mosaic Law was not abolished by Jesus, rather it was fulfilled. Hebrews are still expected to follow the laws of their nation as handed down to them by Moses from God on Mount Sinai. Christians, if they are Gentiles rather than Hebrews, are instead under the law of Faith. We Gentiles are not subject to the Hebrew dress code unless we feel convicted to subject ourselves to such a thing, because we aren't Hebrews. Us Gentiles are not subject to Kosher laws unless we feel convicted to subject ourselves to such a thing, because we aren't Hebrews. God explicitly told His people - the people of the tribes of Israel (the Hebrews) - that they must set themselves apart from the world with His Mosaic Laws.
The whole book of Matthew is a great read on this subject. I think I may be starting to talk in circles a bit and ramble, so I an effort to make things more concise I'll say that Hebrews and Gentile Christians are two peoples grafted into the same tree of life by God. We're not Hebrews, they're not Gentiles. Their rules aren't meant for us, nor are they allowed to pretend they're Gentiles. So long as both sides love the Lord our God they will act accordingly based on how the Lord has commanded.
I think Calvinism makes sense because God already has a plan for everybody and knows what you're going to do before you even think it. But I think it opens people up to a lot of nihilism because they think there's nothing they can do because it's already set in stone.
Calvinism doesnt teach we are robots.
God is sovereign. We still have our human responsibility
The fundamental problem of Calvinism is that it fosters an attitude of why bother of your fate is already sealed.
@@randus7053thats not what Calvinism teaches.
+ paul talks about it in romans 6
@@Yoran87935 That's how it is perceived though. I don't think people should separate theology from its consequences. This is why there are warnings against teachings that cause others to sin. I think predestination as a general concept makes sin look silly as it reduces humans to mere puppets of God, so why should God get mad for the puppet slapping him if he is the one pulling the strings? Predestination only makes sense if it is Satan pulling our strings to slap God and God getting mad because we did not cut our strings by utilizing the knife who is Christ. Belief in freewill isn't without its faults either as it diminishes the omnipotence of God at its logical conclusion. Theology is a lot like math where everything is built on axioms the matter of predestination might just be an axiom rather than something proved rigorously.
@@randus7053Calvinism is a lot more than predestination. Predestination doesnt mean we are puppets, Humans have responsibility for their actions.
We should look at the whole theology of calvinism. Not only predestination
so is Neo Orthodoxy like a case for having Personal experiences with God?
Great vid btw
Matthew 10:33 says, "But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven".
John 15:18-20 says, "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."
5:50
-The bible doesnt seem like a word of God to me
-Thats because God doesnt love you lol
The Lord loves everybody
@@MSKofAlexandriaI agree, this is why calvinism is wrong
Bonhoeffer was a bit more liberal than Barth. Also, he critiqued Barth's view of revelation as positivistic, focusing on the Bible rather than the finality of Christ, which for Bonhoeffer, being a Lutheran, is ultimately about the Cross and divine hiddenness or dialectic.
Do you know what Bonhoeffer thought about Bultmann and demystification ?
@@timboland7767 Similar to Barth. He respected critical readings of the Bible, so he is indebted to liberals on that point (and doesn't take Fundamentalist seriously), but ultimately he has a catholic view of the Christian tradition and that is the religious hermeneutic he uses.
As far as I know, Bonhoeffer wrote about Bultmann:
„He let the cat out of the back.“
Doesn‘t sound to me that he thought that Bultmann was totally wrong with his whole demystification / existentialism interpretation thing…
So Redeemed Zoomer should be carefull to use Bonhoeffer as an „advocat“ against modern tendencies referring to Bultmann‘s theology…🧐
Isn't the whole "the Bible doesnt seem divine to you because you aren't saved" circular? Because you'd have to be saved to believe the Bible is divine, which you'd need to be saved to believe, etc.
For God so loved the world that he gave us his book…
LOVE how you used a soyjak in place of a swastika.
Barth has some good stuff, but he never made it back to Christian Orthodoxy.
What is his view of the incarnation? I don’t think it is biblical.
Are you familiar with Radical Orthodoxy by John Millbank?
Does reconquista advocate for churches to follow 1 Cor 14:34-35? Asking for a friend 😊
You don’t understand what that passage means
@@Panzerjäger_23 Oh. Does it mean something different from what it says? Or does that only work when the bible says something that goes against your preexisting morals?
@@Astromancerguy it’s saying that women shouldn’t speak in the Church as a pastor, read the context, it’s not saying that women should be completely silent and shouldn’t speak
@@Panzerjäger_23 Where does it say "as a pastor"? It says they should be silent in church. period. the end. Why are you adding meaning to the bible? Does it fail to meet your moral code?
@@Astromancerguy Ok well I interpret the passage in the way I mentioned earlier, you can interpret it the way like. I’m not sure why you even care since your not a Christian