The Case for Liberal Protestantism | Dr. Steven Nemes

[@harrygarris6921]

Whats the point of calling yourself a Christian if you don’t believe in a God that can raise us from the dead? Without the hope in the resurrection this is all just an intellectual curiosity, isn’t it?

[@limoncellosmith7594]

Exactly what St. Paul tells us!

[@faithalonesaves]

I agree with Dr. Nemes and I believe God will raise believers from the dead. where is the issue?

[@JohnVander70]

@@limoncellosmith7594yeah but that is “just testimony”.

[@harrygarris6921]

@@faithalonesaves Why just believers? The testimony of the Scriptures is that God will raise everyone.

[@blamtasticful]

It makes as much sense as saying if the dead aren't raise why experience love, enjoy food, or enjoy comic books.

[@david6ravy]

I was brought up in a liberal Protestant congregation, and his explanation actually helps me understand why I left Christianity in the first place, and how my life became a disaster. Thank God for the Orthodox Church.

[@blamtasticful]

Sounds like a textbook case of believing because of your feelings not because of an objective analysis.

[@david6ravy]

@@blamtasticful objective analysis of what?

[@blamtasticful]

@davidgravy2007 What Christian views if any are most likely to be true? Kinda what the channel talks about.

[@MomJeansReads]

What is an example of a liberal Protestant church, I’m not sure I know. I looked up the term and google listed Presbyterian and Reformed, but I don’t think that’s right.

[@david6ravy]

@@MomJeansReads United Methodist is a good example, and the one with which I'm the most familiar. I think you can find liberal versions of many of the Protestant denominations, such as Episcopalian and Lutheran, but the UMC and the UCC are pretty much entirely liberal by now.

[@SC-vd4ry]

This hurt to watch, but I did watch all of it. We can only pray for this man, that God might have mercy upon him and those who follow his teachings.

[@faithalonesaves]

I think the problem is nobody ever proves him wrong, they just make empty statements like yours. If someone would ever actually refute the arguments then people wouldn't be so convinced by them

[@declansceltic198]

@@faithalonesaves Not a very charitable comment, please be kind to your fellow Christians :)

[@faithalonesaves]

@@declansceltic198 my comment included zero emotion. It was purely factual. As is this one.

[@declansceltic198]

@@faithalonesaves Saying a fellow Christian has “empty statements” is unlikely to make he/she have too much sympathy your perspective :) Also as followers of Christ I’m not too sure we should ever have “zero emotion”

[@qazyman]

You really have to be able to see, that from a scriptural bases, that sentence applies to all men equally. God has clearly told us, over and over, his Grace and Mercy has already saved all who believe.

[@ClintnRebeccaWarner]

Interesting interview. I do agree with some of his points, but not his ultimate conclusion. I used to be in the Episcopal Church before becoming a conservative Lutheran. I had some bad experiences growing up in Evangelical/Fundamentalist type churches. I wanted nothing to do with that and found Liberal Protestantism and loved the liturgy in the Episcopal Church. However, I came back to belief in small "o" orthodoxy through some of the writings of John Warwick Montgomery and his Evidentialist apologetics. While your guest is very smart, and no doubt genuine, if I ever came to his conclusions I wouldn't call myself a Christian anymore. Of course a non Christian can still be interested in questions of meaning, God, ethics and so forth. I just think it would be more honest to call oneself an Agnostic, a Deist or something along those lines. I like consistency and if I came to the point of me coming to his conclusions I'd focus on fellowship with people in general, but not in a particular religious context. I find Liberal Protestantism to be bereft of anything that inspires me or makes me want to get up on Sunday Morning. I wish they would stop trying to call in Christianity or a particular denomination. They empty out the meaning of those confessions and they become empty husks, all of the Liberal Protestant Denominations are cratering faster than any other kind of church. In practice it becomes a Sunday meeting of the Secular Humanist club in most instances. I've also found the on the ground reality of most liberal mainline congregations to be very unwelcoming toward those who hold more conservative views. They tell you all are welcome in their churches, but say you hold to the traditional view of marriage in the Episcopal church these days and you'll wear out your welcome real fast. When I was Episcopalian I wrestled with my views on gay marriage. I was not given any loving explanations, but instead told to stop being a bigot and the Bible isn't true, move with the times, etc. It was not a healthy environment to be a seeker. Most conservative churches welcome the opportunity to let seekers of truth visit, and ask questions. I do care about truth, and have an intellectual bent, but I believe based on the evidence, or perhaps I could say God worked faith in me through studying the evidence. I just don't find Liberal Protestantism compelling in any sense of the word. But I guess it's good to hear from many perspectives to sharpen your own.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing your experience and your thoughts on this topic!

[@komnennos]

The Church Fathers, Magisterium, Doctors of the Church, Saints and councils were all wrong, thankfully after millenia of those nobodies being wrong I got it all right.

[@blamtasticful]

Wow ancient people got things wrong. Shocking! Says a lot about how you reason.

[@rexlion4510]

@@blamtasticful I think you missed komnennos' sarcasm. He's caricaturing Dr. Nemes' position with a bit of humor, and it's spot-on.

[@blamtasticful]

@rexlion4510 I think you missed mine. It rightly the uniformed sarcasm.

[@Notouchs]

Gnosticism lives on

[@thechurchoftherevolution8343]

@@Notouchs this unorthodox Christian considers the gnostics - insofar as that's a useful category - to have simply taken the orthodox hatred of physical existence a step further by claiming God didn't create physical bodies, some inferior demiurge did that. As someone who loves embodiment and sees them as God's gift, why would my unorthodoxy lead me to gnosticism?

[@stevekamponda]

Tell me you're an agnostic without telling me you're an agnostic.

[@blamtasticful]

Tell me you don't know that you can believe without knowing or being certain without telling me you don't know that you can believe without knowing or being certain.

[@notatall8722]

Re: The "distinction between speech and being" (@6:40 to 11:24): Dr. Nemes is leaving out an important third category: Epistemology. To draw a distinction between the claims of testimony (whether Scriptural or Patristic) and "being" (the actual facts) one must first have _access_ to the actual facts. That is to say, one must have a _way_ of knowing what the facts _really are,_ so that one can discover whether there is any difference between the facts (as they actually are) and various human testimonies _about_ the facts. If the only access we have to the facts is _through_ testimony, then we will _never_ be able to draw a distinction between "speech" and "being." The "being" will only be obtainable _from_ the "speech." That much is obvious and undeniable; even tautological. And, since Dr. Nemes includes _scriptural data_ and _patristic data_ together under the category of "speech," he has _eliminated_ all other data-sources. It's all "speech." His whole epistemology -- that is to say, his whole _method for knowing_ -- is reliant on precisely the thing he doesn't trust to be reliable. Tiptoeing around this uncomfortable fact, Dr. Nemes implies that he is able (he doesn't say how!) to discern what the actual facts were, while simultaneously finding _none_ of the testimony trustworthy, and _all_ of it discardable. Having thus _circumvented_ the need for testimony, he says, "These are the facts." Then he notices that (his version of) "the facts" doesn't match Patristic testimony, and joins Zwingli in saying, "everyone before me was wrong." What's wrong with that? To begin with, it's pretty doubtful that a 21st-century person attempting to reconstruct some "lost Christianity" is going to get it _right,_ if the persons who had "the teaching of the apostles ringing in their ears" collectively got it _wrong._ If they're so liable to error, _how much more_ is he liable to error? If "real Christianity" had already been lost in 200 or 300 A.D., then _it's even more lost now._ For, if Dr. Nemes were somehow lucky enough to guess the Required Content of the Christian Religion 100% correctly -- the first to do so, after all these years! -- he could not _possibly_ have any principled _confidence in his guess._ He would have made his best guess, and unbeknownst to him it would be correct, but if he had any _intellectual humility at all,_ he'd have to admit that some of the other scholars (who're at least as smart and well-intentioned as he is) had come to different-and-competing conclusions. And he'd have to admit that, objectively, their reconstructions were just as likely to be correct as his. In the end, he'd be left with... (a.) his best guess about what real Christianity was supposed to be; and, (b.) somewhere between 1% and 5% confidence that his guess was the correct one. But it's worse than that. The method used by liberal Protestants (to reconstruct what they think real Christianity is) has _non-deterministic outputs._ That is to say: It is like a mathematical function or a computer algorithm where you input the known facts and ask it to draw a conclusion ...and, you input the same facts every time, but every time, the conclusion is a different conclusion! This is undeniable, because nobody denies that Dr. Nemes comes up with different conclusions than some other liberal Protestants, even though their methods for _arriving_ at those conclusions are the same. To be sure, archaeology or textual-analysis occasionally provides new information which can be added to the inputs. But even when they input _the same information,_ their conclusions are _different._ Which of the conclusions is the correct one? Well, nobody knows. Nobody _can_ know, even in principle. But this means the method _itself_ is just broken. And that raises the question: IS this the method which God Himself intends us to use, in order to come to an awareness of "the truth" which will "set us free?" If so, then He isn't the God of Christianity. He'd be more like a trickster god: An Epistemic Loki playing games with all the Liberal Scholars. (I can't see _any_ reason to get up early on a Sunday morning to go worship a creep like _that._ Can you?) The more-plausible explanation is this: Dr. Nemes' methodology for discovering the Required Content of the Christian Religion is just wrong. It was never intended by Jesus Christ. It's just a foundational mistake, like interrogating the Owner's Manual of your 2006 Toyota Corolla hoping to find a recipe for Tomato Soup. So, he needs to give up that methodology, and find a _better_ Epistemology of Faith.

[@ninjason57]

@@notatall8722 this is exactly right.

[@faithalonesaves]

he wrote books on epistemology and how phenomenology philosophy is superior for truth-seeking knowledge. you should read his books before posting such an uninformed and misleading lie

[@notatall8722]

@@faithalonesaves: I haven't bought (and thus, haven't read) the books, admittedly; just some articles on the web. (And that's been a while back.) But what I said earlier is what I believe, on consideration, to _be true._ So, by definition, even if I am wrong, I have not told a _lie._ Please don't imply I was being willfully deceptive when, in fact, I was giving an opinion which I believe to be true, _and_ even offered arguments for _why_ I believe it to be true. As for your comments about Dr. Nemes' use of phenomenology: Are you sure you're expressing that correctly? Phenomenology as such just _is not an epistemology._ It is a category of experiences to which interpretation is applied to generate understanding of those experiences. But, that interpreted understanding is, itself, not trustworthy unless you have reason to know (and to know with some principled degree of confidence) that one's interpretation has yielded truth. To arrive at such conclusion requires some kind of working epistemology. From this it is clear that epistemology cannot be _replaced_ with phenomenology, but rather must be present _alongside_ the phenomena of experience for those phenomena to produce the kind of understanding-of-the-world which gives reasoning individuals a basis for action. And at any rate, it is hard to see how phenomenology _as such_ could be applied to the questions which are pertinent in a conversation about what constitutes Christian orthodoxy. Is one's subjective experience a real fact that occurs in the world? Of course. Ought it therefore be included among the facts from which one may draw conclusions? Naturally! (If pertinent.) But _to yield orthodoxy,_ one's method must be sufficiently powerful that it takes oneself _out of one's own head._ To be "orthodoxy" a body of belief must be extensible beyond the subjective: The dominical utterances -- that's stuff Jesus actually says and commands -- found in Scripture assume as much by authorizing the leadership of the Church to adjudicate cases and render binding verdicts which are "already bound in Heaven" (c.f. Matthew 18) and with the assurance that the rulings thus issued are rulings which "seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (c.f. Acts 15). Unless we are to speculate that God's knowledge is limited (!) to what He subjectively experiences (!!) in a passive (!!!) way that doesn't necessarily correspond to reality (!!!!), this detail of orthopraxis requires us to hold that real Christianity _is one thing,_ accessible to us, and not rendered unobtainable by our subjectivity, upon which we are sometimes _required to act,_ even to judge theological disputes. Consequently, Dr. Nemes cannot address the topics which distinguish _liberal_ Protestants from Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians without a real epistemology in play. If he denies he has one, or says that phenomenology can take its place, that doesn't mean he isn't actually using an epistemology of some kind. More likely, it means his actual epistemology is improperly-identified, and thus perhaps not very well-thought-through. Respectfully, N

[@philoalethia]

[If the only access we have to the facts is through testimony, then we will never be able to draw a distinction between "speech" and "being." The "being" will only be obtainable from the "speech." That much is obvious and undeniable; even tautological.] No, it is not obvious, undeniable, or tautological. What is "obvious" is that what you have is speech. Whether that corresponds with being is not (and cannot) be known by speech alone. Your error is the assumption that the absence of clear access to being means that speech and being are an identity. They are not, and the assumption that they are is a key error in prevailing apologetics.

[@EloSportsTalk]

Thank you for this comment putting to words how I was reacting to this. This faith is ungrounded, unfounded, and unsound. By how he's described it a liberal protestant could believe anything: Arianism, Pelegianism, any of the numerous past heresies and maybe even inventing new ones. What's the point of such a faith? Morality? "Spirituality"? Idk but thank you for your thorough comment

[@anglicanaesthetics]

What's most helpful about this is that Steven demarcates what non-catholic Protestantism is, and makes it easier for those of us who hold to magisterial Protestantism to define what we mean: it is a Reformed Catholic movement, and so seeks to be catholic.

[@sivad1025]

That's how I felt until I realized that all the liturgical churches were breaking off from their liberalizing elders which made the whole concept of church "authority" incoherent. If you want to seek Catholicism, it's much easier to just become Catholic lol

[@bridgefin]

You don't have to seek to be Catholic. That will never work until you do the only thing necessary and that is to BE Catholic. I have never heard an argument which validates any Protestantism. Feel free to show me my error.

[@loganpeck5084]

@anglicanaesthetics that is correct. We Protestants believe we should conform church practice to the scripture and that scripture commands us to do so. The "train stops" at the Bible, where we reason circularly, because all arguments to authority are circular. You have to have something that is self-referential. This is why God says "I Am Who I Am"... There is no one higher by which he can derive his name or authority. For us, His revelation is given in His Word. Romanists believe in 2 self-referential authorities (church and scripture), according to the Catechism, Vatican 1, Vatican 2, and the Council of Trent. This is an innovation of Medieval thought that the Counter Reformation made dogma. And modern Romanist thought cuts off many church Fathers and historical catholics, especially St. Jerome, who believed the Bible was the authority. Protestants use creeds and confessions as tools to reflect the Bible (like the moon for the sun). No light is derived from the church. It only reflects the Bible's teachings if we get out of the way. The Romanist thought has 2 suns. But since no servant can serve 2 masters, it really has one - the hierarchy.

[@computationaltheist7267]

Your definition of Catholic is a redefinition of the word. Definitely not the institutional visible Church that the early Church taught. It's another reason that you give excuses for not condemning Catholics to Gehenna. Especially, when you read many people from your own traditions arguing that Catholic doctrine comes from fallen angels.

[@TheFireDivine]

When it gets to the point where they are preaching sin from the pulpit under the guise of being “inclusive”, it is no longer Christian.

[@blamtasticful]

I'll take presupppsing my own conclusion for $1000 Alex.

[@Continentalphilosophyrules]

I wake up every morning with my persecutionist Catholic mindset fully intact. Groaaarrr.

[@blamtasticful]

Better than the case for anti-intellectual Christianity.

[@pamphilus3652]

Next episode will be "The case for atheistic christianity"

[@xpictos777]

If you want to be liberal why bother with Christianity?

[@joelrothman385]

I'm looking forward to this one. In these Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant discussions there is a degree of charity and a degree of condemnation for others. Some condemn Catholics as not real Christians, some condemn Orthodox as not real Christians, some condemn Protestants as not real Christians ... but it often seems that everyone is agreed that Liberal Christians like me are not real Christians and not even worth hearing.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I can't promise that everyone who watches will hear out his arguments, but I did my best to try do that myself. Dr. Nemes and I disagree about a number of things, but I was glad to have him on the show. He sharpens my thinking and forces me to ask new questions.

[@josiahalexander5697]

Perhaps that’s a cue that you should reconsider your position. In this day, Christians are expected to be quiet and complicit and cater to the desires of everybody as if this is the way that the gospel was ever spread. It wasn’t. Standing for something doesn’t mean that you are judging everyone. It means that there is a baseline criteria for what it means to be called Christian and not compromising when people falsely identify themselves a certain way. If you do not meet those criteria, you should not be offended, you should reconsider calling yourself a Christian. To be blunt, it does not matter if you are offended. What matters is the Truth and compromising on the truth for a person’s feelings, is to put a person’s feelings above the Truth. And that is essentially idolatry. “Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy" -Proverbs 27:5-6

[@joelrothman385]

@@josiahalexander5697 It sounds like you are telling me to both (a) follow the majority, and (b) not follow the majority.

[@josiahalexander5697]

@@joelrothman385 I’m saying that you should reflect on your position.

[@Hello.Bethany]

I appreciate this comment Joel. I have noticed the same thing. To be fair, liberal Protestants tend to be just as dismissive and derisive of other Christian faith traditions. I would like to see more respectful, good faith dialogue among us all. I am glad to see Gospel Simplicity and a few other channels like What Your Pastor Didn’t Tell You try to lead these conversations. Hopefully more will follow.

[@thomasj51]

The more pertinent question is whether Nemes is Christian, and the answer is no.

[@coreyevans9543]

How do you know that?

[@thomasj51]

@@coreyevans9543 Can you reject the incarnation or the Trinity and be a Christian? Not according to St. John Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. Any one who denies the Son does not have the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also. - 1 John 2:22 - 23

[@coreyevans9543]

@@thomasj51 The idea of the Trinity and the incarnation are distinct ideas from Jesus being the Messiah. One can deny the Trinity and Incarnation whilst still affirming that Jesus is the Messiah. Dr Nemes does not deny that Jesus is the Christ, he affirms this in accordance with 1 John 2:22-23.

[@Howjadoo22]

​@@coreyevans9543 yet if you deny that Jesus is God, you're putting your faith in the wrong Jesus. If I tell you "oh sure, I believe in Jesus! Here he is right here!" and I hold up a picture of Bob Ross, I'm not a Christian. A Jesus Who isn't God is a false Jesus, and a false gospel.

[@JohnG-dw2gb]

Ridiculous comparison ​@@Howjadoo22

[@protestanttoorthodox3625]

That’s where Protestantism ultimately leads folks… I remember engaging with this guy in my journey out of Protestantism and into Holy Orthodoxy❤️☦️🇺🇸

[@rexlion4510]

It's where liberalism leads. But not orthodox, catholic Protestant Christianity... and yes, that is a real thing.

[@blakeceres]

Really enjoyed the discussion between you two, Austin. Thanks for having this conversation on your channel. Brave choice!

[@issaavedra]

I have a confession. I like liberal protestants, I feel their criticism of conservative protestant is a real life example of the arguments from RC/EO against protestantism. I like to listen to them and even cheer some points because they make sense in a reality without authoritative interpretation of Scripture.

[@DanielRaymondZink]

@@issaavedra Agreed!

[@TheMorning_Son]

Like what other liberal protestants are there?

[@issaavedra]

@@TheMorning_Son Randal Rauser, for example. I disagree with him in almost every issue, but he is smart.

[@blamtasticful]

Sounds like believing based on what you personally want rather than an actual objective analysis.

[@issaavedra]

@@blamtasticful I don't understand how you could infer that from my comment.

[@sillysyriac8925]

Nemes fills out the stereotype of the “descent of the modernist” meme pretty well. He’ll be an agnostic sooner or later.

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

THIS will be interesting

[@GospelSimplicity]

Here's the question: What will be more interesting, the comments or the content? I suppose it depends on what people are into, lol.

[@EJ-gx9hl]

@@GospelSimplicitythe content should be more interesting. The comments will most likely be the same type of comments found in all other videos regarding the different branches of Christianity

[@theproceedings4050]

Interesting, perhaps not helpful. I do not think these are the kinds of voices we should be giving any kind of traction to.

[@ninjason57]

@@theproceedings4050free speech goes both ways.

[@theproceedings4050]

@@ninjason57 The Bible and church tradition doesn't allow for completely unfettered speech and thought, it's a byproduct of surrendering to Christ. Free speech is a secular concept.

[@SibleySteve]

In 1987 I went to an independent Baptist college to study Speech Communication and Biblical Greek. In my speech major I was required to study rhetorical theory and logic. It was in my conservative college that I learned that 99% of my Baptist faith was built on circular reasoning, straw manning, guilt by association, and on and on. What if Orthopraxy is actually the basis for our future judgment for deeds done in the flesh. Our catechesis is in flux, we are all heretics after early Americans rejected Christian monarchy that was put over us. After the revolution/reformation we are all heretics. But our current actions, our ethics, are the fruit of faith and hope and love. It is on this basis that we can reform faith and grow in Christ. The method is inherently transformative. Most liberals I know spend hours every week in food kitchens and homeless work and prayer. Not to EARN their salvation but from their empathic motivation that comes as a gift (grace), based in gratitude and action. This effort is kind and merciful and righteous not from ourselves but as a grace. Faith working in love.

[@Jim-Mc]

Would the British Monarch at that point have been considered a valid Christian Monarchy by anyone outside the BE?

[@NathanielJ.Franco]

The more ambiguous we make the term . .

[@trebraswell5043]

🤠

[@elysenapoli6395]

I'm only 11 minutes in and so far this is the strongest case I've heard for Catholicism yet.

[@gooser2583]

How?

[@ElvisI97]

Interesting because I've seen similar problems with Western Catholics as well

[@Jim-Mc]

​@@ElvisI97Yeah that's what's confusing me too. I thought the RC situation today is full of internal conflict over this kind of thing.

[@ElvisI97]

@@Jim-Mc yep, there are plenty of liberal Catholics within the high ranks of the RCC. Sadly this is a western phenomenon affecting all kinds of Christians.

[@LoveIncarnate]

His description of liberal Protestantism being gathered around ethical concerns or other things not related to the Faith quite literally sent a chill down my spine. What a heartbreakingly empty and vain system. It genuinely scares me that people are in such belief systems. With all respect to Dr. Steven Nemes, I struggle to understand what is even the point of striving to hold the title of Christian at that point. It is secularism with a cross stamped on it (if even that). I respect his logical reasoning, but if this is what he wants then it's...._ok_ to simply say "hey, I'm not a Christian. I don't believe these things anymore!". The Protestant Reformation originally began as a reform movement within what was, at the time, the ancient Roman Patriarchate. By this point in history, this Patriarchate had developed into the Roman Catholic Church, which claimed universal jurisdiction over Christendom. The Reformers aimed to return to original, apostolic Christianity, or “catholic” Christianity, as they saw it, believing that key elements of this faith had been lost or corrupted. This impulse to reform was not simply about protesting abuses but about recovering a continuity with the faith of the Apostles. Significantly, early in the Reformation, some Reformers (Philip Melanchthon and Martin Luther, etc.) turned their attention to the Orthodox Church. They recognized in the Orthodox Church an ecclesial body that had preserved much of the faith and practice of the early Church described in Scripture and history. The Reformers were intrigued by the Orthodox Church’s apparent rejection of certain theological developments they believed had gone too far in the West, such as the papal claims to universal jurisdiction and doctrines like indulgences and purgatory. Yet, for all their admiration, I really do think that the Reformers misunderstood much about the Orthodox Church’s theology and practice, particularly its emphasis on sacramentality, liturgy, and the apostolic faith. Moreover, cultural, linguistic, and geopolitical barriers prevented meaningful dialogue from progressing. The Reformers’ lack of familiarity with Greek theology, combined with their need to focus on survival amidst opposition from Rome, led to an abandonment of this potential bridge. Had the Reformers persisted in their initial quest to reform back to original, apostolic Christianity, it stands to reason that they might have found their natural home in the communion of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem-churches that trace their lineage directly to the Apostles and have maintained an unbroken continuity with them. These churches, along with their modern successors in communion, embody the historical and theological foundations of the Apostolic faith. However, rather than pursuing reunion with the Orthodox Church, the Reformers eventually turned inward and began developing theological systems based more on their interpretations of Scripture than on the broader Apostolic tradition. This turning inward has had profound consequences. Over time, Protestantism ceased to focus on reforming back to the original Apostolic faith and instead became defined by its act of “protest.” The rejection of ecclesial authority, particularly that of bishops as successors to the Apostles, created a theological framework where individual interpretation and innovation became the norm. This shift, though understandable in the context of a reaction against perceived abuses in the Roman Catholic Church, inadvertently sowed the seeds for fragmentation and, ultimately, the liberalizing tendencies we see today. The comparison of this modern Protestant trajectory to the ancient Gnostic rejection of Apostolic authority is also of note. Like the Gnostics, who claimed direct access to divine truth apart from the Church, some Protestant traditions have rejected the authority of the historic Church, asserting a direct connection to the Apostolic era that bypasses ecclesial structures. Or some mechanism by which they can stay connected to the Church through an "invisible" mechanism without apostolic succession or apostolic bonds of ecclesiality. This has led to an increasing divergence from the original intentions of the Reformation and, in many cases, a denial of the historical and theological traditions of Christianity itself. And I'm not saying that _all_ Protestant traditions have followed this path. Confessional Lutherans, traditional Anglicans, and certain Reformed groups continue to emphasize the importance of Apostolic teaching and creeds. But I truly believe this to be in spite of their Reformation heritage rather than because of it. The fruits of Protestantism’s fragmentation are evident. Many denominations have succumbed to the cultural pressures of liberalism, abandoning historic Christian doctrines for the sake of modern sensibilities. This “self-devouring” tendency, as you aptly describe it, reflects the inevitable outcome of a theological system detached from Apostolic authority. It is a sobering thought to consider what might have been if the Reformers had completed their journey back to the Orthodox Church. The unity they sought, grounded in Apostolic faith, could have been restored, and the tragic divisions of Christendom avoided. As it stands, the Reformation’s legacy is a mixture of noble intentions and unintended consequences, a reminder of the importance of remaining rooted in the Church that Christ established through His Apostles. For Protestants today who seek to reconnect with the Apostolic faith, the Orthodox Church stands as a living witness to that unbroken continuity. To truly reform-to return to the foundations of Christianity-requires humility, repentance, and a willingness to embrace the faith as it has been preserved in the communion of the Apostolic Churches--namely in the Orthodox Church, which longs union with all her estranged children.

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

This will definitely be an interesting one Austin 😅. I always love the variety of people you have on the channel. Thanks brother.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I suspect the comments will be rather entertaining. I'm glad you enjoy the diversity of my guests though! In my estimation, we have too many echo chambers on KZbin, and it's good to hear from different perspectives, even ones we might strongly disagree with.

[@mrjustadude1]

​@GospelSimplicity haha well entertaining is one way to put it.

[@Georges_Jacques_Danton]

While I respect Dr. Neme’s scholarship and arguments, I can’t help but to think that the path to liberal Christianity is a dark and empty one. This conversation made me appreciate just how precious all three traditions (Protestantism, Orthodoxy and Catholicism) are and how they all offer more clarity, hope and substance than liberal Christianity.

[@rexlion4510]

I don't think I have much respect for his dark and empty arguments, personally. He's lost and flailing about in a prison of his own devise.

[@richardhammill8666]

According to Tom Holland the furtherance of Protestantism is Richard Dawkins

[@jacobbeckmarketing]

Agree or disagree with him, Steven Nemes is super sharp and I always appreciate hearing his thoughts.

[@GospelSimplicity]

@@jacobbeckmarketing agreed. Steven and I disagree about very many things, but he challenges me to think better and consider challenges I wouldn’t otherwise.

[@zelenisok]

I disagree, I'm twenty minutes in, and so far it's pretty frustrating, and I'm a liberal Christian. Maybe it's because I went to seminary and majored analytic philosophy, so I'm picky. But he repeats the same point several times (time he could use for deepening and argumenting them), and I would say his points are actually not true, like liberal theology being about 'we can disagree', or about moving away from pre-Reformation traditions, or the Reformation /Protestantism by itself already is moving towards liberal theology because it moved away from catholic theology. I'll see the rest when I catch the time, but so far it's not that good IMO.

[@toddvoss52]

I will say he is an honest man. And I think he has clarified certain things.

[@arash402003]

Committed small c Catholic here…still found the conversation very interesting with much to think about. God bless you both.

[@leondbleondb]

What's the difference in c and C?

[@rexlion4510]

@@leondbleondb Big "C" Catholic = in communion with the "Holy See" in Rome. Little "c" catholic = in the universal church founded upon Jesus Christ, no matter what the denominational name might be.

[@elizabethblountludovici]

Very excited for this one as an earnest ELCA Lutheran. Love the work you do!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Hope you enjoy it!

[@DanielRaymondZink]

Uhmmmm This is my first time interacting with Dr. Nemes and a lot of his *rationale* seems fairly solid. I don’t know his exact positions (I can guess), but I don’t know if I heard anything related to his reasoning that I directly disagree with here. Perhaps if we were to dig deeper I *would* disagree, but at face value I don’t know :/ Incredibly interesting conversation regardless. Edit: If there’s one thing I would take from this conversation, it would be that saying “I don’t know” should be more acceptable in Christian dialogue. One of my severe hang-ups with Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the dogmatizing of things that just don’t seem all that historically grounded, or important.

[@kazager11]

You nailed it here! I was even thinking earlier today about the thief on the cross. His base level faith saved him. How much more should we dogmatize beyond what he could have known?

[@DanielRaymondZink]

@ Thanks! That’s my thinking exactly, and your example is phenomenal. I’ve lately found myself wrestling with ideas such as the Trinity. While I understand the logic and the rationale for the trinity, it kinda seems like a gamble at absolute best. We’re using our human understanding to try and rationalize an infinite God, so even if the odds of there being a Trinity vs. a Unity (or something else entirely) are 90/10, then why are we so confident as to take that gamble. The sensible solution to me is to follow God’s commandments, and leave the Mysteries as they are. I hope it’s not off-base, but even concepts such as the Filioque seem like speculation at absolute best. Unless someone invents a time machine and can go back to ask for clarification on these issues, then our rationalizations and philosophy only accomplish so much. At any rate I think Jesus would offer as a firm rebuke for “straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel” as it were.

[@kazager11]

@DanielRaymondZink yes, the RCC pats themselves on the back for resolving this or that disagreement. I'm not suggesting heresy isn't real, but I'm only concerned with God's opinion, not a pastor, priest, or pope. I will listen, but ultimately can't believe what I don't believe. Like you said, do I really have to take a side in every theological controversy ever? Maybe less controversy would be better?

[@djo-dji6018]

You clearly don't know Catholicisms well enough.

[@djo-dji6018]

@@kazager11 But God has never spoken to you directly, His commandment and teachings have arrived to us through books written by humans. Your argument is deeply flawed, because if you don't care about what a pope or a priest says then you actually don't care about the word of God. By misunderstanding Roman Catholicism you fail to understand Christianity.

[@EloSportsTalk]

15 min. in he's saying we have to compare testimony to "the thing itself" but, forgive me if he clarifies later, what is that? If tradition is testimony and scripture is testimony and both are falliable then is faith the "reality of Christ" but then how is that known with any certainty without some sort of testimony? Basically what is the core tenent of faith in liberal protestantism? If you are conservative (like me) don't reply, this is a genuine confusion I have and I want a real response not a bunch of "here here" notifications and dogpiling.

[@petersouleyrette8484]

Hey Austin, thank you for hosting this video. I admittedly lean to a slightly more liberal Protestant understanding of the faith, although I’m much more conservative than Dr. Nemes. I think that for whatever reason liberal Christians receive a lot of hate in the comment sections of more conservative channels and it’s definitely disheartening to see others bashing instead of listening and disagreeing in love. Apologies for the rambling, but I just really appreciate your channel and the diversity of voices you have on it as well as your personal commitment to your understanding of the faith. It’s inspiring to me.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Hope you enjoy it!

[@ClintnRebeccaWarner]

I don't want to excuse cruel rhetoric towards liberals in comment sections of conservative Christian channels. So, don't misunderstand me. However, as someone who came back to a more conservative form of Christianity from a liberal mainline church I also encountered a lot of hatred and derogatory language toward conservative Christians. In the early 2000's when the Episcopal Church adopted same-sex marriage I was wrestling with the issue as a member. I was told in no uncertain terms to get out if I didn't like, no offers to walk me through a deeper understanding of why it was done. I ultimately decided to be against same sex marriage, and even if I wasn't a Christian I would still oppose it just based on reason and history, benefits to children etc. Talking past each other is a human problem, both conservative and liberal Christians are incredibly cruel on line and often talk past each other. It isn't a problem just in conservative comment sections, in fact, I've found conservative comment sections tend to have far less profanity than in liberal ones.

[@Hello.Bethany]

I appreciate both these comments @petersouleyrette8484 and @ClintnRebeccaWarner. I also have some experience at various places on the liberal-conservative theology spectrum and both your comments really resonate with me. I was raised conservative evangelical, went agnostic in my mid-twenties, came back to faith as a fairly liberal Protestant some 7 years later, and then gradually over the last few years have come to find the evidence for more conservative theological positions more and more convincing. But I’m still fairly liberal politically and even on a number of notable theological issues like homosexuality. Through it all, one thing has sadly become VERY clear to me is that we all hate each other way too much. Liberal Protestants tend to make ridiculing conservative Christians their whole personality and most conservative Christians (Catholic and Orthodox, as well as Protestants) seem to pretend liberal Christians don’t even exist, except for occasional, throwaway, derogatory comments. I hope we can start having more fruitful dialogues and I applaud Gospel Simplicity for leading that effort.

[@quayscenes]

I have a great Catholic (RC) admiration for what I would call Classical (for lack of a better term) Liberal Protestantism - Schliermacher through Bultmann and beyond. The "Liberal Protestantism" here discussed leaves me scratching my head a bit. Too many terms and concepts have been given novel definitions to suit a very personal agenda. What I admire about Bultmann, for example, is that despite reevaluating so many of Christianity's factual claims he still maintains an allegiance to the deeper theological principles. Balthasar says something to the effect that Catholicism would have provided the proper guardrails for Bultmannian thinking. Although Congar notes in his journal how Barth paid a visit during Vatican II to essentially warn that Bultmann was having too much influence on Catholic theologians). At any rate, I am happy to see the channel is open to liberal voices. Maybe we will hear from a more "normative" Liberal Protestant in the future?

[@GospelSimplicity]

Those are some fascinating figures! On hearing from more in the future, perhaps. It would have to be people who are comfortable receiving a rather hostile reception. Dr. Nemes is used to that, but it can be difficult inviting people on knowing they will be speaking to an audience that fundamentally disagrees with them. It's a balance between diversity of guests and trying to take care of those guests well.

[@ajrthrowaway]

​@@GospelSimplicityRandal Rouser would be a good fit. he's not a liberal in the sense that nemes is, but he is more tolerant of diversity of belief within Christianity.

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

Siding with liberal protestantism is like boarding the titanic after it struck the iceberg.

[@blamtasticful]

More like getting on a lifeboat after a tradition has been sinking years after year, century after century....

[@RealBadgerScrutiny]

@@blamtasticful funnily enough Protestantism can’t survive in a non liberal democracy but at the same time the congregation leave them. Come back to apostolic Christianity.

[@faithalonesaves]

liberal protestantism is true though. roman catholicism is not

[@bogtrotter17]

I see a lot of hate and not much working out one's salvation in the comments. We have one judge. Hate and smart ass comments are never Christian, period. Listen and agree or disagree, and be vocal. But never hate. The video hasn't even aired yet. Of the virtues love is chief.

[@alexguardado6942]

Could you explain what you mean by hate? I just see people expressing their disagreements, that's all.

[@briandelaney9710]

Hate or standing for something ? Nemes himself is fairly aggressive in this interview using terms such as “neuroticism “

[@theproceedings4050]

Actually, Christ does teach to hate evil. All of these people see a person spreading evil thoughts. What should they think of a wolf in sheep's clothing? To treat it with "love"? That's not loving, it's cruel to all of the victims of this man and his false witness of the Gospel. He is far worse than any heathen, he is the enemy among us and people have rightly seen the face of Satan laughing within him.

[@bogtrotter17]

​@briandelaney9710 I disagree with him on that. I consider my self a little c catholic. My point was that people were up in arms before the conversation even happened and after, it isn't productive to salvation. Christ himself when criticized often responded with questions. We will not be figuring out who is saved here let alone anywhere else. The conversation is important, the practice of the beatitudes is even more important.

[@bogtrotter17]

​​@@alexguardado6942I see that now that the video has been posted. I agree with some criticisms and disagree with others. I think this channel generates good discussion in a charitable way. We should follow that inspiration. I found the way the discussion was treated before we even saw it ridiculous. These two people in the actual video treated each other with charity and no vitriol and we in the comments owe each other the same. A lot of people follow this channel and all of us deserve dignity, not dispersion.

[@GabrielPereira-hm1cz]

Dr. Nemes the teachings of the Church are true, not because Bishops agree, but because the Holy Spirit protects the Church. The same with the Bible.

[@thursdaythursday5884]

Nemes is not being honest about the “generative” power of the non-orthodox forms of Christianity he references. First of all, they died off in peripheral areas outside the control of the Roman and Byzantine empires and their successor entities. There a lots of weasel words like “very popular” too. Exactly how popular? As well, liberal Christian groups are also dying off in modern societies where they not persecuted and are arguably preferred by the powers that be.

[@thursdaythursday5884]

Liberal Christianity over the past two centuries has had control over many large and wealthy organizations and has squandered that.

[@geoffjs]

@@thursdaythursday5884 Agreed, but they have achieved their goals of relativism & wokeism!

[@jordanknox8401]

this is an undercover catholic apologetic

[@faithalonesaves]

Dr. Nemes convinced me to NOT be catholic. You can't have epistemic certainty that its true. So Catholicism is just imagination land hopeful thinking.

[@arash402003]

@@jordanknox8401 lol

[@reverendcoffinsotherson5807]

​@@faithalonesaves LOL, ok, buddy...

[@reverendcoffinsotherson5807]

LOL, ok, buddy.....

[@faithalonesaves]

@@reverendcoffinsotherson5807 I would love for you to prove me wrong though

[@christianfontenot9435]

Also, as a Protestant who is inquiring to Orthodox and Catholicism I can see how Protestant reasoning could lead to these conclusions. I disagree with Dr Nemes’s reasoning and conclusions, and don’t see how he can choose to believe in the God of Christianity with the conclusions he holds. But I honestly do think his line of reasoning is consistent with Protestant reasoning and this has honestly pushed me further into being more assured into my move to one Orthodoxy or Catholicism because if you don’t believe that God established a church that protects, defines, and preserves the truth and unity of the faith then liberal Protestantism seems to be the logical conclusion of denying the infallibility of the church.

[@varivid3136]

There is a reason why intelligence and wisdome are not the same thing. Dont you guys think that Arius was a very smart dude? Im sure he had a great case for arianism. You can reason your way to anything. What we need is humility, not sophistry. So before even watching the video, the answer to the question if this even is christianity is very obvious and its even obvious that its obvious.

[@Galmala94]

One thing I appreciate about this channel is the diversity of guests. There aren't many (Christian) channels on KZbin where the guest might be an Oriental Orthodox or a Liberal Protestant. I hope the same trend continues. :)

[@rayfulmer5146]

I think that the speaker makes a lot of good points. Now let me demur on one key issue (and here I'm really just siding with Austin's point): It's not proving to be generative. So with Marcionism and Valentinianism and Balidieism and on and on and on the claim can be made that they were persecuted out of existence. I'm not sure that that holds up to critical scrutiny, as Dr. Stark argued in his book on Gnosticism that it really lost the battle of popular appeal, rather than being persecuted out of existence. Still, for the sake of generosity let's grant that some groups were persecuted to extinction (ex: Pelagians; Cathars). But what about MODERN Liberal Protestantism? It has all of the "breathing room" it could want and yet is plummeting in membership. So no, not "anything" will grow if given breathing room. I think that I agree with the Dr. Nemes that acute theological agreement doesn't necessarily have to be the basis of a church. There can be ranges of opinions. But at the same time the church community has to be firmly rooted in something. There has to be some kind of fence around what it does and does not believe, endorse, etc. It doesn't have to be biblical literalism, but whatever the anchor is must, all the same, have weight or the boat drifts out to the deeps while the crew sleeps ashore. Once you define that anchor, you have a form of dogma. You've fenced in what is and isn't within the community; defined the boundaries of the group. Liberal Protestantism suffers from the same problem that any wishy-washy system does. If you try to be something for everyone, then you end up not being everything to anyone. People don't give their all for latitudinarian systems. This is also the generative problem. At some point the kids start asking themselves "If I can believe whatever and be or not be a member, or play rock/paper/scissors about the reality of God, then what's the point? That's a perfectly good Sunday I'm wasting when I could be playing traveling soccer". If an idea or institution is not transformative, then it's not generative. In order to be transformative, it has to have enough insistence and enough substance to make claims on its members. Someone's testimony has to be considered as being, or else you end up having a theological curiosity society and not a church. I do think that there's the potential for liberal Protestantism to be generative and successful. I see within the Anglican tradition some nuggets for how to hold diverse views together in one big tent, though I think they've also provided some lessons in the limits of that method.

[@harrygarris6921]

So the critical approach to Scripture and the testimony of the Church fathers and Christians throughout history fails because these things are not being tested against something that is reliable, they're being tested against the critic's conception of what is true/reliable. But that conception itself could also be wrong - just as they are claiming the Biblical authors and Church fathers conception of the truth could have been.

[@Murk_Matter]

@@harrygarris6921 but it’s self-evident Harry, I don’t care that they lived contemporaneous with Jesus or the Apostles I have a self-evident metaphysic that can adequately account for my liberal Protestantism you don’t get it.

[@everetunknown5890]

Thanks for sharing this. I found myself dipping in and out because his explanations were kinda lengthy, but all in all I feel this expanded my horizons... Soli Deo Gloria 👍

[@davidbasaraba457]

Memes proves that without catholicity one ends up in their own head!

[@GospelSimplicity]

I think you meant Nemes, but "memes" gives this a fun alternative meaning

[@blamtasticful]

The sad thing is thinking that getting one's self to believe in Catholicism never has anything to with being in one's own head and that rational thought is a bad thing.

[@ContemplativeSoul]

The last time he was on your channel, I don't remember particulars that were said, but in my opinion, at the time I thought it seemed there were some inconsistencies in what he shared. But here I found him clear and with internal logic in what was said. I understand if someone doesn't agree with his particular points on what is Christianity, but with the idea that his Christianity must tie with what is experiential for him, I wonder if that's really much different than the traditional belief that faith is a gift. A faith that is coerced and imposed from the outside from another man is not usually considered a conversion.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I could be wrong, but I get the sense Dr. Nemes has come to more settled conclusions since that last interview.

[@EloSportsTalk]

Halfway through he said Christianity has boundaries but in the same breath he rejected the idea of heresy.....I'm lost and I think there has to be a better representative for Lib Prot and I say this as a conservative Anglican.

[@gregvanblair9096]

It is the Faith delivered...this is the Catholic Faith... I will keep listening to this Post...

[@zelenisok]

As a liberal Christian, and a Protestant, I disagree with this framing, IDK why he is trying to make this lower case c 'catholic' terminology a thing, when he just means traditionalist /conservative theology. There are many Catholics (and high church Lutherans /Anglicans / Methodists /Presbytarians) who accept liberal and progressive theology, as there were a century and two centuries ago when liberal theology was developing as a school theology.

[@toddvoss52]

As for Arians, JH etc being Christians, I think the “catholic” view is that they are Christians, just heretical Christians. For example, the Catholic Church accepted Arian baptisms as valid generally.

[@MrPeach1]

If he is right then I think he just disproved Protestantism. Not that I even thought protestantism was correct to begin with but it certainly cant be good of it leads to the conclusions that he has arrived at.

[@kazager11]

If that makes you RCC or EO, the point for you here is that your traditions have, in some way, departed from the apostolic faith. It's more important to be correct than connected to your club.

[@jordanknox8401]

im a reformed anglican, and I absolutely agree.

[@jordanknox8401]

A RC/EO has much more in common with me than this guy.

[@MrPeach1]

@@jordanknox8401 I have know anglicans to say the Eucharist is Christs body and say the rosary every day. I know anglican is a mixed bag. But some anglicans are very similar to me.

[@jordanknox8401]

@@MrPeach1 I would say those anglicans are going against their own Anglican Formularies- more with the rosary than witht the eucharist, because I'm ok saying we feast on christ in the eucharist.

[@T-Cranmer]

Oh goodness…

[@jordanknox8401]

i didnt know the great and honorable Thomas Cramner played bass.

[@rhondalandry5215]

If you follow his reasoning it leads to "why believe that anything is true" and quickly devolves.

[@gth671t]

Nemes: "The Catholic tradition is the reason that these non-Catholic forms of Christianity were never given a chance to really bloom... the Catholic tradition has this persecutor mindset. It has always been that way. It is intolerant of theological disagreement. Even within its own boundaries, it is unwilling to compromise. It has to split hairs, it has to have total agreement, it has to have submission to the tradition that it thinks comes from the apostles and it is very intolerant of differences." Me: "Praise God!"

[@Gninwodnwot]

I don’t know what this guy has his doctorate in but his grasp of epistemology is surprisingly weak. His argument seems to be something like “because all testimony (scripture and tradition) might be false, we have to check it all against the truth, and that implies liberal christianity.” But where is he getting this certain truth against which we can compare testimony? His senses? Science? In a basic Philo 101 class you learn that no source of information is completely epistemically certain. It’s technically possible we’re all in the matrix afterall, or that we mistakenly think we’ve reasoned correctly when we’ve actually made a mistake. It’s just a bonkers argument to say “Since we could be wrong about the truth of Catholicism we have to be liberal protestants.” You could be wrong about literally anything.

[@kevinmac8629]

It leads the Protestant down the path of appealing to oneself for any kind of certitude.

[@toddvoss52]

Agree - this is the problem at the root of his argument . Just that he and liberal Protestantism has the same problem as everyone else . This does lead toward a tentative conclusion that before one can even proceed in theology one needs to sort out one’s philosophical understanding of reality. Ed Feser has made the case that, in the post modern west, we first have to make a basic case for metaphysical realism before we can even begin to re-evangelize. ten years ago I would have said that has nothing to do with it , but I am more sympathetic to his argument now.

[@kevinmac8629]

@@toddvoss52 I don't see re-evaluating being the answer. That's why I'll just appeal to the Church. Or else I'm just appealing to myself or some academic.

[@toddvoss52]

⁠@@kevinmac8629 I hear you. I am thinking first of why a modern or post modern western should believe in God in the first place . The Church itself tells us we can know that through reason and “natural theology”. We then need revelation through the Church and Scripture to convince us of the Trinity and incarnation . And of course motives of credibility for the Catholic Church. I think Newman’s “An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent” is also useful.

[@kevinmac8629]

@@toddvoss52 The Orthodox Church doesn't say any of that. No natural theology or an appeal to reason.

[@seanmalone2]

I didn't understand 90% of what Dr. Nemes said in this episode. And I'm not an unintelligent or uneducated person.

[@drstevennemes]

You might try listening to it again.

[@MomJeansReads]

Same - I need to re-listen and familiarize myself with certain terms. This is over my head because I’m really very new to theology and all these schools of thought.

[@AV-tm5zf]

Jimmy Akins and Nemes have a debate together and it was pretty good. Nemes is very good. The misconstrued scripture and narrative were handled with much charity and excellent explanation by Jimmy.

[@User28870]

There’s a lot of conservative protestants and Catholics who are very angry at the is guy in the comment section but who haven’t bothered to listen to his perspective

[@stevied3400]

Don’t need to give the time of day to those who claim 2 + 2 = 5

[@User28870]

@ I don’t see how anything he said is equivalent to 2+2=5

[@Ostariophysi]

I thought this was very interesting. Good interview!

[@user-yg2ms9od5s]

I’ll save you the trouble: No.

[@toddvoss52]

Steven - one question. I have a number of family and friends who are agnostic and adhere to liberalism and liberal values. They are able to reap and live out most of the values you note that your concept of Liberal Protestantism can bring . Why should they be interested in Liberal Protestantism as opposed to Liberalism ? Why should they believe in God? And if they were interested where are these Liberal Protestant communities they could explore - United Church of Christ? But I still think they could just find like minded friends and other non-religious groups to be involved in. I just don’t see what would be the strong attraction . And in fact they aren’t being attracted to any such community as far as I can see.

[@thechurchoftherevolution8343]

The election of Donald Trump has in fact created upsurges in attendance at many liberal Protestant churches, which also happened in his first term. The pandemic brought that to an end, but I think there is in fact a growing audience for unorthodox Christianity in the US. One thing that holds many liberal churches back is that they aren't fully committed to their unorthodoxy. They want to have it both ways, with using the outdated language of the classical liturgy without going the whole way into an unorthodox theism where God isn't some omnipotent LORD who rains fire on the wicked.

[@Jim-Mc]

Exactly, good question

[@IsoMorphix]

Maybe something we can take from the most honest liberal protestant thinkers is that they at least take incredibly seriously they are coming to faith from within a materialist, modernist framework. I think evangelicals tend to gloss over just how far away we are from the spiritual worldview of the ancients. We dont really access to the same world that they do. I would love to see conservative christians take this alienation more seriously, so we can re-encouter Christ again for the first time.

[@GodwardPodcast]

Great vid.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@CatholicWithaBiblePodcast]

I’ve said this for a while. If I decided against apostolic Christianity, I would probably end up a progressive Christian. This is why.

[@nicklausbrain]

This is fresh! Thank you!

[@Hyrodeniamandibulata]

The case for Conservative Christianity is also a question

[@sivad1025]

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." Done.

[@Labr10938]

​@@sivad1025 Simple as 1+1 lol

[@kevinmac8629]

Orthodox Church already exists.

[@rayfulmer5146]

Great bit on Michelle Henri there at the end. Added to my reading list. This was challenging in all of the best ways.

[@IlluminatiCheckerboardflooring]

So to cap all that off, we get "do as thou wilt"?

[@TennisFreakHD]

Since when are we featuring non-Christians?

[@blamtasticful]

Since when are we listening to anti-intellectual comments?

[@TennisFreakHD]

@@blamtasticful Another valid question for this show!

[@blamtasticful]

@EmilTennis00 On the contrary, it's a valid question for you.

[@foodforthought8308]

​@@blamtasticful One doesn't have to be an intellectual to understand common sense.

[@beemitch95]

Psalm 131:1-3 ESV - A Song of Ascents. Of David. O LORD, my heart is not lifted up; my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me. But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child is my soul within me. O Israel, hope in the LORD from this time forth and forevermore.

[@javierluyanda8283]

50 minutes in … going to finish the rest tomorrow but did want to say a question I would have for this guest is if you reject church authority and even the Bible’s authority then how do you define doctrine at all? Without any authority isn’t it theological anarchy , complete relativism? Did he admit that his position implicates this ?

[@geoffjs]

He’ll never admit it!

[@therealinak]

It is really hard to listen to Dr. Nemes and draw the conclusion that he believes in God. His whole historical and future outlook removes any supposition of God, in any part, leading any part of Christianity.

[@bradleymarshall5489]

Dr. Nemes is an interesting guy raising some interesting points but he lost me at calling the Bible just "testimony." We have good reason for recognizing scripture as the word of God. One more thing I would add is in regards to Irenaeus, John Behr's scholarship indicates Irenaeus actually thought Christianity should have many diverse views and never called any group heretical until they had already chosen to isolate themselves from the broader Christian community.

[@mr.caretaker6086]

??? I don't really follow at all. This is not like having a disagreement on theology or having a different interpretation of the scriptures or debating what authority the church fathers have or how relevant the culture of the time would be to doctrine...this is throwing all that out. Ok, fine, you're free to do that...but then you're not Christian. That is literally the Christian religion. You can't be upset with me, I am not insulting you, I am describing you. It's like a muslim saying they don't believe in the quran or that muhammad wasn't a prophet, then such a person is not a muslim. I'm not angry I am dumbfounded. I don't think this really qualifies as liberal-protestant. My brain hurts!

[@kevinmac8629]

I would disagree with his point that Gnostic views of Christianity weren't generative. Because we can see the results of Gnostism, Arianism and Nestorianism in modern evangelical groups today.

[@Murk_Matter]

@@kevinmac8629 not just them they have an atheist prevalence, and some would argue Protestantism was deeply wedded with Gnostic ideologies.

[@kevinmac8629]

@Murk_Matter Protestantism is Gnosticism, Arianism and Nestorianism.

[@AndrewBorrill-q4c]

I think Dr Nemes makes some strong points, in particular, it seems correct to me that the questioning of all authority is the logical end point of the protestant reformation. I would push it one step further and say, why trust anything Jesus says in the Gospels? Why take anything he says as authoritative if the Gospels cannot be trusted? I'd perhaps encourage him to take the next step and give up on Christ in totality. In short, I don't see how his position can't be pushed further into generic theism/Agnosticism/Atheism. Having said that, I really resonant with him about not having to worry about deep theological and ecclesiological issues and just get on with life. This has been quite therapeutic for me, however, it has been a double edged sword as I also think without God life is utterly pointless and Nietzsche was right... I am happy to be shown to be wrong, as I don't know his work almost at all, but it's either submit to some (catholic? Muslim? etc.) authority you can't fully justify, accept Nihilism, or live with cognitive dissonance. So, while I think Dr Nemes is onto something in showing us the options, I think he doesn't got far enough.

[@christianfontenot9435]

Dr Nemes is certainly a thoughtful thinker and a very smart man but I do not see how you can hold his view and remain Christian. I say this because he says that you have to base the testimony and scripture to the facts but then does not give a way to determine what is fact. If true, scripture and testimony help us to find whether Christianity is true or not. If false, then Christianity is false and there is no reason to believe in the regenerative power of Jesus and to choose to obey his teachings. Also to base your reasoning on pure scholarship is hard because it’s always changing and there is always information being corrected, added, or missing. To evaluate scripture and testimony purely based on scholarship you would have to start off with the presupposition that scripture and testimony aren’t a part of the evidence for Christianity. Also he said that liberal Christianity doesn’t bear the fruit or focus on bringing people to church or unity but on other things like the liberal society it produces. But this is contrary to Jesus saying to make disciples of all nations, and to the church structure Jesus clearly put in place for communion, teaching, fellowship, accountability, and mission work. I agree that you have to have reasonable arguments for believing in the testimony of the fathers or in scripture and that just because a whole bunch of people agree on something does not mean it’s true. But for all of Christianity to get it wrong for thousands of years and for liberal Christianity to get it right is impossible. Why believe in a faith you believe got corrupted so early on, that you believe hasn’t preserved the truth, that you believe is hard to find the truth in. How could you have these conclusions and want to believe in that God and that faith. Jesus is not something that you add to your life. He is supposed to be the center of your life.

[@samuelwillowcreek8764]

Thank you for this interesting video! Nonetheless, I will remain proudly catholic in my thinking. I think it is important struggeling with tradition and looking for the truth instead of employing this broad skepticism and withdrawl from historical christianity.

[@thursdaythursday5884]

In order to have a community you need to have some sort of common purpose at the centre. Liberal Christianity is too vague theologically to have a functional centre there. Liberal churches have tried putting secular leftist moral causes at the centre, but to predictably dismal results.

[@Thoreseus_]

I need to hear more about what anchors the progressive Christians. If not doctrine, creeds, or especially Scripture, it seems to me that it will inevitably become just another unitarian universalism that is only interested in promoting progressivism for the sake of prpgress. You could say it's anchored by the person of Jesus, but we primarily know Jesus through the Scriptures. So i can't get past the rejection of scripture as the anchor and standard for determining Truth and Faith.

[@philoalethia]

"In the absence of some doctrinal unity, what will hold the community together?" (paraphrased) Easy! The love of Jesus Christ living in each person and being shared with each other, especially for those in need. Christianity has a very bad history of invoking dubious doctrinal details in order to exclude (and sometimes torture and kill) those who hold other opinions. This was a great presentation. (My background is in phenomenology, logic, and Christian theology/history.)

[@kazager11]

Was scripture God breathed, inspired, or just the testimony of men? What sources argue these options? I've never been asked to reject divine authorship of the Bible.

[@CatholicaTV]

In this worldview, I’m struggling to understand what makes Jesus special. How can you even know who Jesus is?

[@qazyman]

it's really amazing how much of Christianity is one person telling another person they aren't true Christians. God clearly tells us: Revelation 1:18 Jesus says, “I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.” So much of the history of Christianity is ignoring what God has clearly told us. I don't know if I would call myself a "liberal Protestant", but their views are as much in line with Scripture as any branch of Christianity. John 12:25 "Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life."

[@foodforthought8308]

Whoa man keep reading Revelation, Our Lord takes a completely different approach in evaluating the 7 churches

[@danielfertig6168]

He does not believe Jesus is God and therefore also rejects the Trinity. Can such a person (1) call himself a Christian and (2) be an arbiter of what Christianity is? I would say “No”. And I reject in advance any comment saying I am anti-intellectualism or have failed to refute his points.

[@GabrielPereira-hm1cz]

Other titles: The Case for Catholicism The case against Protestantism The case of meaningless definitions The case for straw man The way to Atheism Phenomenology a tragic story

[@frankiecal3186]

Ohh hell nooooo!!!! 👎

[@blamtasticful]

So many dumb comments not addressing Dr. Nemes actual points. Thank you all for making the case for intellectualism being at home in liberal protestantism. When you sound like Alisa Childers you should question your life choices....

[@theologicalwebb]

The doctrine of Sola Scripture is being conflated badly with the church father's. Saying you can go one step further and say Scripture is the same as the church father's is to radically misunderstand that the reformers believed that Scripture is God's testimony. Protestantism does not lead to liberalism, rationalism does.

[@kevinmac8629]

Rationalism is part of Protestantism. You need to read about Martin Luther.

[@Notouchs]

Rationalism is what caused the Protestant reformation int he first place.. rejection of authority, use of empiricism to understand the Bible and critique of dogmatism is the very definition of rationalism.

[@theologicalwebb]

@Notouchs No it wasn't. It was the conviction that Scripture was the highest authority. Read Lutheran confessions on Scripture and rationalism. All the reformers were explicit about this. If you read their own words they deny rationalism. "My convenience is held captive to the word of God" - Martin Luther. The Reformation grew out of the Renaissance and the mantra back to the sources. Luther criticized Erasmus on this very point.

[@mj6493]

I like Nemes and I think he makes some good points, but his position all rests on his sharp distinction between being and speech. Fine, but it seems to me that he undervalues speech, or testimony. Sometimes it’s our only window into the facts, or “being”. That doesn’t mean we have to always accept the testimony uncritically. As for me, I’ll stick with lower case catholicism. I don’t feel the least bit encumbered or oppressed.

[@Hound_of_God]

*500 people saw Bob run the red light* Nemes: So what? It’s invalid to infer anything from the testimony of anyone, including lots of people.

[@EloSportsTalk]

Ok so his definition seems to be "Christians believe that Jesus is an individuals salvific figure"

[@kena3234]

I didn't find the case very compelling. You raised good points. I'd say for me, if I could summarize my biggest concern, it doesn't really consider what God would think about it. It seems to me that God really is concerned about how He's worshipped and how we live.

[@rexlion4510]

Faith integrates rationality to a degree, but beyond a certain point faith transcends or surpasses rationality. It must. After all, the Incarnation of the God-Man is irrational. The Resurrection is irrational. Many aspects of the Gospel and Christianity are not matters to be rationalized but are matters to be accepted as revelations from God. The problem with "Liberal Protestantism" is that when it views the Scriptures as fallible testimonies, we lose our sole consistent, unchanging basis for belief; the liberal Protestant is free to interpret practically any Bible passage in practically any way he wishes to rationalize it. "Liberal Protestantism" is a deviation from the "faith once delivered to the saints," and Dr. Nemes basically admits this when he states that the early churchmen were not liberal Christians. Dr. Nemes postulates that all of the early churchmen could have been wrong; is he willing to postulate that they could have been right and liberals like him are wrong?

[@kazager11]

Would Nemes consider liberal protestantism equal to mere christianity?

[@theproceedings4050]

Allowing these people to spout their evil is not helpful to Christian discourse, it is harmful. The Bible does not teach us to allow everybody to speak heresies and lead people away from Christ in his name. In fact, it directs us to persuade them of their error, and if we cannot, then to cast them out. This is what we should be doing with these sorts of people now, not allowing them a pulpit to assault people with their wicked, diseased thoughts. There is not one verse of the Bible or passage of Church tradition that has unlimited toleration for free speech. Speech engenders thoughts and actions that loose and bind the soul in equal measure, depending on their content.

[@theproceedings4050]

I should note, what you see in the comments section are the symptoms of a grieved Spirit and anyone adding to it are equally guilty of the unforgivable.

[@austengiles2089]

God made physiognomy a thing for a reason

[@drstevennemes]

🤓🤓🤓🤓

[@seanmalczewski1998]

Well damn, thank God Steve showed up to figure out what the Bible got wrong lol

[@nicklaushart9063]

This aint it.

[@stonecrier6891]

Please see this as an attempt to share wisdom in good faith, and not an attempt to dunk or belittle. He is honestly taking Protestantism to its logical conclusion. It was astute that it was said Dr. Names quickly took the arc that the Protestant church has been taking, writ large. Yes, that path is deconstruction of the faith and apostasy. It presupposes that the Holy Spirit failed for 2,000 years. That is a presupposition that has so profound a ramification that you should really ponder that for a moment quite intensely. For doing so really undermines ANY faith in the Holy Spirit to succeed at all in anything going forward as well. This is why this thinking is so dangerous. Because even with good intentions, Protestantism puts people (and whole groups) on paths that lead to apostasy, whether in a single life, or gradual degradation over several generations. It is very much the slow motion apostasy we see today as churches bend to social pressure to conform to the spirit of the world and compromise on points of faith. You cannot fix this by sheer force of will and looking to engineer it from your own strength of study and doctrine reconstruction will flash and die out with you. The only remedy is to return to Holy Tradition in Orthodoxy, where the path has been preserved through great suffering and great works of the Holy Spirit through 2,000 years. When one thinks about the church they are in, they would be wise to extrapolate, based on the past, where the course will go in the future. Where will the church be at the end of your life. If you hope to entrust the eternal lives of your children, grandchildren, and beyond, will they care for them? Will they provide the path of life? Or will they bend and direct your loved ones after you into apostasy? One must take the long view if they wish to love their progeny. Will your tradition/church even exist in 30 years? Will it embrace the wickedness that the world is pressuring it to compromise on? Does God’s Spirit return to Him with the desired effects or not? You (any reader) must really pray on these things. Do we have faith in God’s power or are we left to just reinvent the wheel every generation? Dr. Nemes’ points might seem cogent to some, but that is because this is inherent in Protestantism. Schism begets schism until the whole faith unravels.

[@RealBadgerScrutiny]

Nemes is not Christian, he rejects the trinity.