Is it HERESY? Tom Holland and Louise Perry Discuss the New Religion
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 05. 2024
- Do the 321 course now, it's completely free. Sign up at 321course.com/
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @speaklifemedia
LINKS//
Subscribe to this channel for videos that see all of life with Jesus at the centre:
czcams.com/users/SpeakLifeMedi...
Subscribe to our other CZcams channel, Reformed Mythologist, to explore how the stories we love point to the greatest story of all:
/ @reformedmythologist
The Speak Life Podcast is available wherever you get your podcasts:
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/6RTY21m...
Amazon: music.amazon.com/podcasts/e03...
Speak Life is a UK based charity that resources the church to reach the world.
Learn more about us here: speaklife.org.uk/
CONNECT//
Are you a creative Christian? Would you like to join us for a day, a week or 10 months? Find out more here:
speaklife.org.uk/foundry
Discord is an online platform where you can interact with the Speak Life team and other Speak Life supporters. There’s bonus content and creative/theological discussion. You can join our Discord here:
speaklife.org.uk/give/
Social Media:
/ speaklifeuk
/ speaklifeuk
/ speaklifeuk
/ speaklifeuk
I’m with you on this one - a heresy masking paganism. Tom’s wrong.
I agree with you. But he's "on the outside looking in" so-to-speak, and his perspective is valuable, even if part of the value lies in deconstructing his points from an "inside the club" viewpoint.
Thank you, Glen, I was really disturbed when I watched it after it came out and I feel you have addressed it soundly. I would love to see you discuss this directly with Tom.
That would be good
Was waiting with baited breath for your breakdown of this!
Outstanding analysis. Thanks Glen
Fascinating stuff. I came to God through a quite unexpected mystical revelation, and have been struggling to relate the metaphysical aspects of the faith to the sociological/cultural/political landscape ever since. Tom and Louise (and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Jordan Peterson et. al) appear to be coming from a different direction, finding the Christian claim sociologically attractive and now grappling with the issue of its actual truth. I did watch the original discussion on Louise's channel, and jumped at the chance to listen to the commentary here, as I find this all of this fantastically interesting and believe it to be of profound importance. Thanks!
Glad you stopped by. Feel free to check out 321course.com as a way of further exploring all of life according to Jesus.
Really enjoying your insightful content lately
Marcion is heretical because he brought his idea to the bishops and they listened but couldn’t agree that the God of the OT was a different God to the NT. He was heretical because he then “took himself out of fellowship” and started his own church. The early church allowed different interpretations, in fact sought them. It also had a “canon” which was the gospel of Christ as proclaimed by Scripture but there was breadth of interpretation and has always been.
“Pressing beneath the vibes” is a great phrase and so true - that’s exactly what needs to be done in so many areas.
Vibes....a hold over from hermticism that was smuggled in the new age movements....and certain occult organizations promoted it all the way back to before the 1900s
So true the statement, " Choice eats love for breakfast."
Thank youn for giving us a great discussion about truth.
Fantastic analysis, Glen! Loved your conclusion of digging under the "Christian-ish vibe" to the dystopian paganism beneath the current ideological rhetoric. The Love rhetoric vs The Choice imperative, and "choice eats love for breakfast". Brilliant!! As a little tangent, when you discussed the Reformation the second time (35:15), you mentioned the clearing away of "Marian idolatry , transubstantiation and papal infallibility": Two quick questions for you as a Protestant - 1. do you think the Catholic church has continued these traditions until today, and 2. do you consider this heretical?
Tom Holland's scholarship is excellent. He's looking at Christianity as a social movement, not as orthodoxy. Take that in consideration.
Lest this sound unjustifiable, many Christian traditions/churches themselves do not hold to a rigid idea of orthodoxy, such as Baptists, Quakers, Congregationalists, etc. Even churches disagree among themselves just what exactly constitutes orthodoxy.
This much is true, hence why we should be gracious to those we consider outside of orthodoxy. :)
A great example I heard was Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin (I believe) discussing Mormonism and talking about how they charitably treat them and use terms that are gracious, especially on the colloquially mocked things like the single piece undergarment they ware. It’s a great reminder of how we can bless them and, through this, all get a bit more sanctified. :)
Worth exploring.
Even so, there must be a line where some set of beliefs is no longer "Christian". Atheism isn't Christian, neither is Hinduism or Islam. So at some point people stop being Christian. Orthodox believers of a faith may draw the line in a different place from non orthodox believers, and different again those in a different faith. But there is a line where something is no longer a Christian set of beliefs. Tom is I think saying that in a country that had a Christian culture, but now most people no longer believe, is still Christian, a new type post "reformation". Glen and Louise say it has stepped outside Christianity now.
@@user-tc8yj7zd7k Tom's whole point is that Christianity was, in its origins, primarily a social movement. The concept of "religion" was imposed on it by the Roman empire.
Thanks for this video. God Bless you
My comment on the Substack -
A fascinating discussion. I finished wanting to listen again, but also disturbed in that while much of his thesis is sound there is a feeling that he has missed the point of Christianity which is it’s truth. The extraction of a set of values which shaped and shape our culture such that they become the axioms within which we think is to some degree simple. But it misses some truth which is the objective reality of this narrative. There is a man in heaven, a resurrected Son of God who will return to rule on this earth.
Holland does what Constantine and later Augustine did in seeing Christianity as a set of values and earthly Christendom. Biblically the church is called out from this world always separate. The values of the world are not and should not be the values of the church. The reformers didn’t get back to the bible they continued state churches etc. there were always true believers separate from all that in the world but not of it. The church is not Christendom
He needs to read Matthew 13.
Thanks for this, very helpful. I thought Tom H was being particularly contrarian in this discussion. Not killing people = Christian, but also killing people = Christian. Hmmm ...
That's so fn' simplified. Not Killing people under wide X conditions & justifications = Christian, Killing people under narrow Y condition & justifications = Christian
39:27 to plead Tom's case here: ok maybe not abolish itself, but give rise to the movements that abolish it from the outside, which amounts to the same thing, maybe? And it might be that the western world is just further down that road than the rest of the world.
Yes, perhaps it unleashes 'the individual' and 'choice' and 'the valorisation of the victim' on the world and the world combines it into an all-devouring monster... There's some truth to that. But I'd say that this particular monster devours *everything*, not just Christianity. And our best chance of overcoming it, is to integrate the individual/choice/victimhood back into the context in which it belongs.
@SpeakLifeMedia plausible enough. I might say there is a fourth thing unleashed, that enables those three. Tom describes a skepticism about other faiths that comes back to roost. Could also be described as a gradual general recession of the spiritual from everyday experience. Could be one or both of those are a symptom of something else. But it definitely seems like a thing.
Christianity can and does somehow implode …the entire Middle East Afghanistan to Albania Sri Lanka China Nubia in Africa and beyond had a huge thriving Christian population and then it disappeared, check out the book The Lost History of Christianity by the scholar Philip Jenkins (Penn State) people forget this history! What God‘s purposes are remain a mystery.
All humans are ruled by evil entities, unless Christ is their King. All governments are evil
Agree the new movement is paganism using Christian sympathies against Christianity.
That was fascinating. Thank you
It is absolutely heresy if he was saying that the ‘new religion’ is proper Christianity but I agree with him that many of the freedom of expression stuff finds it origin in Christian worldview that allows for free will and compassion. He didn’t say that our society was in any absolute way traditionally Christian in a doctrinal way now! Just that cultural Christianity ultimately leads to a more open and tolerant society than other cultures. I tend to agree.
23:00 In the discussion of body autonomy and ownership of God, Im struck by the emergence of a trinity concept as we balance the "powers" between, sovereignty of self, power of society (government), and ownership of God. Society has the responsibility to protect the innocent, but we (by divine design) have sovereignty of self (body autonomy), however, both are subject to ownership of God. Such a good thought! Narrow is the path......
Holy moly, that’s a thoughtful comment!
Truly, the path is narrow. God bless you sir!
Spot on as always! I like how you ended with "love" vs "choice" as two competing moral injunctions. I wonder if you have given Jonathan Haidt's 6 moral foundations in The Righteous Mind much thought? In his schema it would be "care" vs "liberty"...
I follow your argument, that at a certain point, something is not christian. BUT: you have to apply the same principle on the proces of enlightenment and human rights and secularity.. With Tom Holland all Christans cheer that this is all Christian, claiming the sucess of it is for them. But this is maybe also not Christian but just a christian heresy.
Yes the distortions have come in long before 'trans rights'. ('Human rights' are a pretty ancient concept though... 12th century as regards their articulation).
Human rights, should not be confused with common law or natural law, as it is unclear who grants human rights.
Our formalisation of human rights, by UN and expressed by Ellinor Rosewelt in the human rights charter, only states the rights, and not who grants them.
UN cannot grant anything, apart from what the governments granting them to the UN will grant. Most of these nations are not and will not anytime soon be governed by the people of these states.
This is contrary to the origin of natural law, originating from “people” and insisting it also relates to the king or leader of the state. This is surprisingly much like the concept of morality John the Baptist tried to impose on King Herod. Seems this gave someone an idea.
Did not suit the fashionable hedonism of the day though. And still today this Christian idea has the power to provoke.
It is far more plausible that John Lennon (given his interest and study of Eastern mysticism - just listen to the rest of the song which refers to these things) was using the word "love" and the idea "all you need is love" from Hinduism's use and understanding of love and the role this love plays in uniting all back into one amorphous Nothing, eradicating all differentiation, which is totally at odds with the biblical concept of love.
You actually pointed out the flaw in his thinking, he doesnt have a clear methodology when adressing what ideas, peoples and cultures are "Christians", its cherry picking, selectoon bias and overgeneralizations most of the time.
If he had a clear methodology he would be able to destinguish between a person born into a Christian culture taking inspiration from another culture, a person from another culture taking inspiration from a Christian culture, and a person from another culture Not taking any inspiration from a Christian culture.
And a plain Christian.
I havent seen him being able to make those destinctions
How is it that destroying individuality and turn humanity into nothing could be considered as love? Shouldn't we love the differences, each individual and even the enemies?
This reminds me of the "One and the Many" kinds of problems in philosophy.
Hinduistic and Christian conceptions (plural, because there is not only One understanding in each tradition, they are pluralistic and have different schools of thought within each system) should not be seen as contradictory or incompatible. A Christian and a Hindu can agree on things regarding the concept of love.
The ultimate question is "What is love?", and "How should we love?".
Yea your just wrong with that take or just conflating two different things that need not be. I also think your assuming what christians say and what is Gods truth (meaning absolute truth in my use) are the same thing. What your saying is like saying the non jewish flood narratives are completely different from the jewish one when they aren't really It's the same event from a different vantage point and interpersonal interpretation. Listen to that pete holmes joke about how people think we came from nothing and we go back to nothing. You could call that merging with your creator... we call it God and the Most High God says we will keep our individuality but still be with him. I doubt many people will be able to understand what the heck that means until it happens but i choose to look forward to it and trust I don't have the luxury of all of space and time being my vantage point.
Biblical love is to love God with all your heart, soul, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself....the Ten Commandments distilled in one compound sentence, in order to achieve Theosis: unification with the Divine essence of Creation (existence).
I’d like to know whether that specific framing comes from the orthodox, mystical, colonized or popularized version of any particular Eastern tradition. Lol
The COMFORTER to bring to remembrance and comes with comfort!
And a good book for this concept is Hitler's Monsters.
They despised and overtly rejected Christianity, but also pursued and reinvented their German paganism....
The whole population of Germany was Christian in WWII....except the 6m Jews they murdered. Yeah, a Christian genocide, committed by Protestants and Catholics. The Waffen SS , with around 40% RC, even had Gott mitt uns (God is with us) on their belts as they led the Jews to the gas chambers. It was a genocide committed ENTIRELY by Jeesus believers
@@zhengfuukusheng9238 once again you're here lying.
Tom mentions this explicitly
@sarawoods1450 yes, but ita pretty wild how extremely the nazis did that and how much they pursued the occult.
I felt he only in passing mentions it.
When, the reality, was more synchotistic than anything
Do we see two perspectives on display? Tom is a historian and evaluates the culture created and influenced by Christianity, there isn't heresy as such because he's trying to understand the dynamics which move the cultural values and norms. Whereas Louise is more prescciptive than descriptive, she sees problems and is looking for the root cause, and seeking solutions. Loiuse sees faithful Christianity as a possible solution, whereas Tom holds it in a slightly different category. I sometimes wonder if we need to be clearer about the distinction between Christianity, and the culture that Christianity creates, not sure.
Well put
I think this distinction is crucial.
Consider Jesus words, "and if I be lifted up, I will draw ALL men to myself".
They call the events of the 16th Century The Protestant Reformation but The Gospels and writings of St Paul are actually The Original Reformation of the ancient world.
As usual excellent analysis. Question for Glen… one of the reasons for abortion is the idea of compassion both for the mother and even the child (when it is born into a desperate situation). Of course the answer isn’t killing somebody if they’re going to have a bad life…however, the Church from Augustine on has had a contradictory stance in relation to war. Augustine justified war some modern Christians justify abortion. If one is to be 100%consistent and for life (with all the implications to be consistent) one would need to be 100% anti-war (Pascifist) because nothing takes lives like war. We have put our greatest Christian minds to justify war however nobody would say that we didn’t have to defeat the Nazis. So… We live in a fallen world …we have to in some cases choose between the lesser of two evils, which is why the idea of abortion being safe legal and rare isn’t as horrific as it may sound as a stance to take. The counter argument could be what if during 1930s killing Jews was ‘safe legal and rare’. Well, it would be pretty horrific… however we would probably have 5 million more Jews in Europe. Sometimes it strikes me this side of heaven things are horribly are complicated and might have to be nuanced.
A pro-life ethic is definitely very messy in the /consequences/ it calls for. We will need to be a community of sacrificial love - fostering, adopting, supporting families of all shapes and sizes, and at great cost to all of us. But I would say that there’s a clear moral difference between taking up a just war against willing combatants and doing violence only to defenceless children.
@@SpeakLifeMedia Yes, being pro-life is a costly stand. There has been too much talk and not enough action and yes, there is a difference between killing the innocent unborn and killing a soldier. However, many a soldier has been conscripted and killed against their will even today. Think boy soldiers etc. War is a a pretty ugly killing machine. I am not officially pacifist, but I can’t see how it contradicts any of Jesus’s teaching to be a pacifist. However, very few Christians are pacifist.
@@sarawoods1450 I don't think Jesus was a pacifist. When he talks with some soldiers he doesn't say to stop being a soldier, but to be a soldier in service of the good, to be moral. Sometimes you don't have a choice but to fight a war, or you can be in a situation where you have to take down an evil person or a psychopath in order to save many more people whom you have the duty to protect. But of course he would never say to go full Gengis Khan mode and kill and conquer and rejoice in brutality, that's another religion.
@@ferreirap. Actually you are confusing Jesus with John the Baptist Luke 3:10 to (14 specifically )who tells them to be satisfied with their pay and not extort money or make false accusations. That’s a lot of specific instructions to one occupation! Jesus says no such thing as you claim! He heals the centurions daughter and likens himself to having similar authority. Paul does talk about the use of the sword or government and its authority, namely obey it (remember this was a tyrannical military regime but it was bringing order. Paul was not going to start a revolution …right away at least, that is why he remains coy on slavery as well.
@@sarawoods1450 I had posted an answer to you, but it got deleted. I don't know who is moderating the chat here, but I don't think I said anything out of the line.
Yes our framework has been replaced with do not suffer. The presumption is there needs to be relief. Feeling safe is a closer form of love to people now. But is there any happiness in those people? I think this is an important reason for rebelliousness, how the demand for something cannot be questioned.
Now people see there is no joy in avoiding all the horrors of the world, and constantly demanding everybody simply respect your own autonomy. People dabble in self-love, manifestation. They are terrified of what other people think of them. They feel separated from joy and live in a state of hyper awareness, of sin and misery. It is an injustice to suggest you cannot get the relief you deserve, and this has been extended to who cares what they do or look at to get it?
We know it isn't love to encourage people to live in a place where they say they are okay. Women deeply desire a knight of faith, but then quickly eat him up in search of the next one, while avoiding having offspring.
In politics it is the crusher of truth who is cheered for. It is the one who avoids the hard to answer questions because it makes everybody anxious and that's dangerous to your franework and the way you experienced love.
We put suffering as the lowest virtue, it is something to be actively avoided. And wherever society goes it shouldn't look back because history is terror. People love to hear how things are so much better now, and how the latest thing is the big threat which will shatter the dream.
Beloved do not forbid these little ones upon all DRY GROUNDS to come forth unto Me! My rays!
Amen
A Christian is nothing more, nothing less, than a person caught in Jesus' net, a person who relates to God through Jesus. There is no single way to be so caught, no single way to so relate to God. Indeed, dig deep enough and you realize that every Christian has his or her unique individual ways to do both.
A Christian is a person who believes in the man-made deity of a religion the Romans created
@@zhengfuukusheng9238 one day, you'll post something that's true, but that day hasn't happened yet.
Jesus is the only true way. ❤
It is not reformation of Christianity,it is going back to Christ and practicing Christ and his teachings.Christ gave his teachings in simple and unmistakable terms.we have to follow that .instead,we threw away Christ and so the rot came in.now we have to correct it and go back to practicing Christ.others consider crusifixion and cross as a symbol of defeat and humiliation,but for us they are symbols of hope,redemption and glory.what the communists want to achieve through bloody revolution,Christ can achieve by voluntary ,peaceful and bloodless revolution.
35:14 There has never been "Marian idolatry" in the Church.
I'm not a Roman Catholic, but I understand what Protestants misrepresent as idolatry is in fact veneration. All the Reformers understood this, by the way.
If Mary had no sin, just as Jesus had no sin, then she is in a very special group.
@@johnstewart7025 As all of Christianity for the first thousand years after Christ, I don't believe in Rome's "immaculate conception" innovation.
If it looks like idolatry…. Also prayers to Mary, prayers to the dead? Is that necromancy or veneration?
@@ChrisGraeme It looks like idolatry to us because of our Westerner/Protestant mindset, that has been growing more and more detached from the historical Church practices (which come from an ancient Oriental culture, so foreign to us nowadays).
What's really going on is veneration, not idolatry. Examples of modern veneration practices would be saluting our flag, standing for the national anthem, paying respect to official dignitaries or authorities, etc. None of those practices constitute worship or idolatry, of course, just like bowing before an icon of a saint or kissing it isn't either.
The problem here is Protestants (and I was one for 40 years) don't understand what veneration is, thus confuse it for something that is not.
The "prayers to the dead" issue is another misconception: all Christians have always believed that the saints are in the presence of God after death, that they intercede for us before Him, and that we can ask those saints for their prayers (just like we would do with a friend/family member who is still alive).
Maybe a little research on these topics will bring clarity. Take care!
@andres.e. Can you show me in scripture where we are told to ask saints for their prayers, just for my research?
In research I’ve found clear problems with necromancy or trying to communicate with the dead.
Also for my research can you show me in scripture - not “what Christian’s have always believed” - where there is support for bowing to a statue? In Hebrew the word worship is the same word as bow down. So maybe I need more research.
Exodus 20:4-5
[4] “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. [5] You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me…
שָׁחָה
shâchâh
shaw-khaw'
A primitive root; to depress, that is, prostrate (especially reflexively in homage to royalty or God): - bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence, make to stoop, worship.
But maybe I need to look at the original culture…. Like you know Exodus or second Temple Judaism.
IF Hitler and the Nazis have become the modern secularist yardstick for measuring evil, as distinct fr9m from good, a kind of inversion of Christian morality, permit me to ask this question. What other ethnic and religious group, mirrors Hitler's aryan racist sense of superiority, of being destiny's chosen people, of ruling eventually the whole world, of rejecting Christ as Messiah to this day? Worth pondering upon.
Choice doesn't seem to me to be the problem. The problem is with the chooser. The chooser can use choice how he desires. God gives everyone that ability to choose. The problem is that choice outside of Christianity rarely is done for the benefit of the "other." The problem, it would seem is who the arbiter of that choice is. For Christians, good is defined by God. In what Tom was sharing it seems the arbiter is man and what man deems to be good or merciful or compassionate. Also, if what he shared is some new found reformation of Christianity, then I'm out. And, how does he think it will even work? If I was an unbeliever and he presented me with his hypothesis I wouldn't join up. He'd have to answer to me, "why should I care? why should I do anything at all that benefits others rather than myself." He seems to be talking about a Christianity without the Scriptures and without God. That isn't Christianity.
Perhaps not, but it’s Christendom which has shaped our western world for the last 2000 years so it’s hard to delineate which is which
I don't think stretching the meaning of the word "heresy" is the right response to Tom's hypergonflation of the word "christian". I am an orthodox christian and for me heretics are still christians. As long as you follow God you are a christian.
Calling woke people who clearly are following demons "heretics" for me is a demeaning of the true heretics who still search for Christ.
Newsflash: Demons don't exist. That was mumbo jumbo, religious woo woo created to control our primitive ancestors, who had little access to logic science or technology
@@zhengfuukusheng9238 seems like you have little access to logic.
The communism witnessed in Russia and China skipped a stage hence these countries ended up with dictatorship. Marx argued that communism came after capitalism both these countries skipped this stage, going from Feudalism to Communism. That circumvention led to the version of communism we saw in these countries and not what Karl Marx intended.
Oh look, we've found the dirty commie lads
Really? A new religion? Remember, God has a vote and the Toronto Blessing was a shot across our collective bow of exactly how this vote might happen.
I think Tom just overlooks the theological heretical philosophy that emerged strong in the enlightenment.
To be honest these people all seem weird and new age
I think the first five and a half minutes or so of this video really demonstrate the very nature of what's presented in this channel generally. It starts with the the assumption that the New Testament story is true and then proceeds to show what the world looks llike from that perspective. It is a valid and fair approach, but biased. In all fairness Glen acknoledges this bias. My issue is that this is not the only valid and fair view of the world. If you study European history closely you will find that Chrsitianity spread across the west largely by force and/or wealth. If you want to know what most see as the where the gift of scence comes from read an excellent little book called "A little History of Science" by W. Bynum. If you want to see a powerful development of ethical and moral values then study the teachings of the Buddha, which developed entirely separately from Christianity. Of course one will see Christianity as the giver of important gifts if you start with the the assumption that the Jesus story is true. I maintain that those that find a convincing argument here for Christianity are already predisposed to wanting it to be so.
Hmm, the historical Jesus did exist though you could reject all the miracles claim, but the Historicity of a wise Jewish Rabbi that was considered the Messiah is documented in Josephus Flavius (even without the interpolation)
And the teachings of Buddha are less documented so It's not even apple to apple!
The Gospels are written around 100y max after Jesus's death, but Buddha's teachings were transmitted way later than Jesus's!
It's a little something called Chinese whisper or in this case Buddhist whisper...
@@user-jy6hd9uw8h We could debate the documentation, but that's not really the point. The point is that an effective system of ethics based on human value arose independently of Christianity, refuting the Christian claim that human values came from their beliefs.
No. It’s Greek and Roman also.
You say "heresy" and orthodoxy", but as a convert to Catholicism, it's a bit hard for me to accept that Protestantism is not itself a heresy. To claim "orthodoxy" broadly speaking is perhaps true in some sense, since there are lots of agreements between Protestantism and Catholicism. Still, I fear it downplays the major revolution (not reformation) that occurred from 1520 and forward. This lays the groundwork for all kinds of more outrageous heresies we see today. To sum up: I see a continuity in the rebellion against the Church, there is so much going on "outside" the Church starting from 1520. In the 1960s people kind of drew the logical conclusion to the radical independence that reformation provides (here I stand...I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen - Martin Luther)
Having said that, you have excellent points against Tom H! The secular people of today are no longer Christian in any meaningful way (while most Protestants are - I have to exclude liberal Christians and some sects). The points about abortion and euthanasia are very good. But what about contraception and marriage? I see the continuity from contraception to transgender. Protestants have failed massively on these issues, and no longer understand the nature of human sexuality. I recommend looking into John Paul II's "Love and Responsibility" and "Humane Vitae to understand the Catholic view of these things - it makes much more sense.
I hear those arguments but here's another way of seeing it... Tom Holland seems to express the view here that the church simply evolves and there is no norm above it to judge whether it is 'orthodox' or 'heretical'. But that is the basic error which Protestants see in Catholicism. Unless there is a Word that is above the church, it can morph/distort/evolve in many directions - and the Protestant claim is that it already did, and well before 1520, (hence the indulgences controversy which provoked it in the first place).
@@SpeakLifeMedia This is a good story if it is true. I think it is not true. I even think it is selfcontradictory. There is a core issue here of what it is to remain «the same» (orthodoxy) and what it is to corrupt (heresy). This is not easy to answer (am I the same *identity* today as yesterday?). This is where Newman shines in my opinion, because I always struggled with how we should reject homosexuality on biblical grounds, but slavery is not explicitly condemned on the same biblical exegesis.
This is an extremely shortened version of thoughts around what it is to remain «orthodox». And I expect therefore that you - as articulate as you are - can explain what kind of Protestantism is the real orthodox Christianity or exactly how you draw the line between «inside» and «outside» based on which principles.
I don’t claim to know which denomination has it 100% right. But I find it far more plausible to believe that none of them are infallible (RCs, Orthodox or Protestants) and that what’s actually infallible is God’s Word standing above his church (which includes (and also judges) RCs, Orthodox and Protestants).
The Catholic Church does not claim to be above the word of God (see Vatican II’s decree on revelation); the Church receives and guards the word, and is judged by the word; but the Word is ultimately Christ himself, not just the written words of the Gospel. There is a reciprocal relationship between the Church and the Word, for the word remains alive in the tradition of the Church, which is why the Church at key moments had to determine which books of the bible truly expressed the Church’s faith in the Word, Jesus Christ, and why subsequently at moments of crisis (often provoked by heretical views) the Church had to “define”its faith in Christ in the words of the Decrees of Church Councils. I’m sure Glen accepts the infallibility of those early Councils. Keep up the good work. I think you are a very insightful evangelist.
The outcome of the Flood proved that Noah and his family were the only ones who had the right religion. History shows that Jesus and his disciples were the only ones in their day practicing right religion. And a study of the Bible will prove the same about Jehovah's witnesses today.
What is Christianity? Christianity is Jesus
That Tom Holland geezer is full of utter BS
He interprets Christianity like an atheist
Zheng, give the number fallacies you've posted on here, it doesn't seem like Tom is the one full of BS.
Very insulting and denigrating remark. Tom has a lot to offer us in this season of turmoil.
@@fromthewrath2come Tom wants you to buy his stuff (i.e. books) and take your money. You're the loser
@@HearGodsWord Name one
Tom is brilliant but he cannot know the things of God because they are Spiritually discerned and he has not even taken the step of accepting Christ as his Lord. This can easily become heresy.
No - everything isn't Christian because, as a historical fact, Christianity is far from Christian. Though, on a more positive note, need not always and forever be the case!
Elaborate?
@@user-jy6hd9uw8h It is self- evidently true that paedophilia is rampant in tee RC Church. We know this to be true because we have the evidence. We know that "prosperity gospel evangelists" are more interested in accumulating cash for themselves than saving souls. This is not because Christian leaders are unusually wicked, but merely that they are normal human beings for this age and generation - that is almost irredeemably wicked and ungodly. Personally I find such examples of hypocrisy rather more fascinating than something that has me pulling my own teeth out in anquish. That's because this is normal! This is what human beings are like - including you and me. Though not the last pastor I spoke to, of course, he said categorically "I'm not a sinner". I'd love to elaborate more and at almost I interminable length, but sense I may have already stretched your tolerance way beyond breaking. Have a nice day, ya all!
@@user-jy6hd9uw8h (2nd attempted reply) We know paedophilia is rampant amongst the priesthood of the RC Church. We know this because we have the evidence. We know that "prosperity gospel evangelists" are more interested in accumulating cash for themselves than saving souls. The last pastor I spoke to at any length was perfectly convinced that he personally was not a sinner and took it as a personal affront to even be associated with that possibility. The church, generally speaking, is pretty much convinced what it does is what God requires. Those who suggest otherwise are simply ignored or discredited. Christian leaders are not unusually wicked. They simply reflect the values and characteristics of the age in which they live, and breathe, and have their being. And so I repeat: the Christian church, in this or any other age (including the first), contains Christians (people) but is not necessarily Chrisitian in itself. Only people can be Christians: not groups of people and certainly not nation states.
@@user-jy6hd9uw8h czcams.com/video/JXa7tL89k7k/video.htmlsi=kHprqBqDmCfX-Bup
But it really hasn’t. In both the old and new testaments there’s zero philosophy - there’s commandments but not one true philosophical discussion about the nature of the Good or the Just. Nothing about democracy or political science. Nothing about aesthetics. Lots of useless prophecy though. Without the Greeks we’d still be living under Old Testament Kings and monarchs. Without the pagan Greeks we’d have no Logic, math or philosophy. Mid-Atlantic slave traders schooled in the Bible since their youth jumped right into the slave trade. Orthodox Christians joyfully supported the Czar and serfdom. Jesus, Paul, the Apostles all happily thought the Apocalypse was imminent. What did they care about civilization and high culture?
Tell me you’ve never understood the Bible without telling me you’ve never understood the Bible
Belief that the early church was ‘apocalyptic’ is a 19th century invention. And Paul is clearly very well versed in platonism and Epicureanism
The Bible was never meant to be a philosophical treatise or a social-political manifesto. So what is your point?What makes you think that you know what made Jesus or the Apostles happy? How do you know that the Orthodox priests were joyous about the serfdom in Russia? You heard something, you read something but you never immersed yourself in the lives of the people you so glibly comment upon.....
@@michaelhart1072You’re not too good at this. Jesus’ ministry WAS an Apocalyptic ministry - he specifically told his disciples it would come in their lifetime. Paul thought the same.
@@kbeetleshuh? The entire clip above was informed by Holland’s idea that Christianity essentially IS Western civilization and everything good in it. How do I know what the Orthodox Church felt about the Czar and serfdom? Because they vociferously supported it and fought against attempts to fight the Czar on the issue.
@@michaelhart1072 "Belief that the early church was ‘apocalyptic’ is a 19th century invention"
Meanwhile Jesus: There are some of you standing here who will not pass away before the Kingdom of God arrives with full power.
Paul: Time is short.
Its pretty hard to see any evidence that christianity has been as infuential as the opening comments of the video claim, at least definitely not in a positive way. And history points to divergence from Christian thinking as the 'most successful mode of thought ever devised.
Whjat might be said legitimately is that christianity seeks to appropriate cultural trends it cant erradicate. Which, in conjunction with its monotheistic stance, is what creates its internal fragility so that when it is directly challenged on its assertions its morality is revealed as corrupt and duplicitous, and its moral claims crumbles pretty quickly. Very little is as destructive as christian 'love'. And human rights are a divergence from christian thought.
For example the attempt to appropriate 'love' as if that notion did not exist before christianity... which is non-sensical... We might also point to christian appropriationb of pretty universal notions, lik 'sin', or 'blessing' or 'holiness' and even 'evil', all of which are pre-christian germanic concepts. If this is 'christian waters' we are supposedly swimming in... then dirty puddle might be a better description.
I am currently 3 minutes into this video and its pretty hard to find reasons to continue.
Even in the first three minutes of the video, I mention Tom Holland's immense work, Dominion. If you're not familiar with it, we've done a number of interviews with him where he elaborates his claims: czcams.com/play/PL4zD5797LHdfuwEIuCxpVz7BBnoU3CTiO.html
Tom Holland is a fraud who appeals to Christians by telling them sweet lies about how wonderful Christianity is
@zhengfuukusheng9238 seeing you lie in comments on CZcams its quite funny to see your hypocrisy in accusing others.
@@SpeakLifeMedia Why on earth would anyone take Tom Holland at all seriously?
All I see in him is someone who has bought into past christian appropriation of culture. The kind of fantasy nonsense I was raised in. I'm not seeing a reason to devote any time to 'Dominion'. And no-one seems able to give me one.
@@HearGodsWord Why are you tagging @zhengfuukusheng9238 on this thread?
The bible is the proof and evidence that Jesus was a failed messiah. Deuteronomy 18:20-22 warn us against people like Jesus. People are reading the bible and waking up. Can’t encourage enough people to actually read whats verifiably written in it!
Sir, this is Wendy's 😅