My thoughts on various famous pastors (Part 2) - KingdomCraft

[@newglof9558]

4:20 Voddie Baucham 10:30 Todd Friel 15:25 John Piper 19:53 Paul Washer 27:20 James White 33:15 Doug Wilson 42:20 Bishop Robert Barron

[@energizedDisciple]

Paul Washer is extremely clear in his distinction of salvation by faith not works. If someone only listens to out of context clips and not entire sermons then you can certainly get the wrong impression. But Pauls passion for sanctification is so needed in modern America. His preaching is what opens eyes to sin and leads them to repentance. He is fighting against this cultural Christianity that is hurting the church and misleading so many.

[@internetdinosaur8810]

Agreed. While he has caused anxiety, I think it's because the message is not for them. The message is for the unrepentant! Washer has definitely taught on His love many many times

[@Souls_25]

I love brother Paul washer man❤! 🙏🏻 hes a REAL Man of God. A truly prophet of God. He’s zealous for him❤. God bless that guy

[@duncescotus2342]

Sanctification is either upfront along with justification, as God accepts nothing unholy, OR it's via the gifts of the Spirit, the Spirit being the Holy Spirit. Washer is just a confused Keswickian.

[@wordforever117]

Paul talks about faith in action a lot throughout scripture. Faith is not genuine if it is not acted out in Works of Love. This is the teaching of Jesus, Paul and James. It seems all Christians agree that initial justification is a free gift (grace) without any kind of work (except the Work of God). But we disagree on the possibility of losing justification. It is reasonable to say that *IF* we can work to lose our salvation, then we need to work to regain it.

[@Lurkingdolphin]

My only problem with Paul washer is his “lordship salvation “ let me define what I mean I’m not denying Jesus is LORD . Paul once told a girl who kept falling into sin and she was asking what to do to be saved he said cry out to God and beg until he saves you or go to hell . This girl was in a mess she just didn’t feel saved based of her lifestyle and cried the whole night . People might think what Paul said was biblical buts it’s just not . When a sinful pagan came to Paul the apostle and would have killed himself if it wasn’t for Paul and Silas asked what must I do to be saved . Paul said Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ and you will be saved . Not cry out to you start to see good the works . Christ is Risen and Jailer must have felt such a comfort unlike that poor girl with Paul washer . All she had to do was look to Christ and after that he would help her .

[@jockchicken3595]

Paul Washer preaches in the way he does because of evangelicals issue with “easy believeism”. I think the biggest issues I saw growing up in my church was a ton of lukewarm Christianity that can be caused by this and Paul Washer style sermons can definitely wake people up! I agree that it cause undue anxiety in people though.

[@davidhiramreyes6490]

The issue with some Lordship Salvation preachers (like Paul Washer) is that It bleeds into works salvation. A preacher MUST emphasize that Salvation is by faith ALONE. Somebody CAN be saved & not show any works. It’s not on Paul Washer to decide who is & isn’t saved. He very often says people aren’t saved. Only God can decide that.

[@RedeemedReformedRenewed]

@@davidhiramreyes6490 Paul washer does, the problem is people see his speeches made to wake up the youth and assume it's 100% the same as them. For example the people he's targeted towards get drunk every night and he calls it a sin that they don't repent of. But some random listener hears and think he's talking about their social media addiction. It's context that matters in his speeches, consider the audience

[@davidhiramreyes6490]

@@RedeemedReformedRenewed Idk, man. I’ve heard Paul Washer and sometimes he’s very emotional about it. I understand holiness is something that should be heavily emphasized. However, salvation by faith ALONE should be emphasized all the more. We do good works BECAUSE we’ve been saved.

[@internetdinosaur8810]

I agree. The Lord used Paul Washer to wake me from my evangelical relaxism.

[@Souls_25]

@JockChicken, But he preaches holiness because he WANTS and loves the people to be saved and like u said “luke warm christians” they are the ones that need to hear the truth and paul washer is the guy that ppl need to hear

[@TescoOfficial]

I would love to see you feature: - Gavin Ortlund (Truth Unites) - Keith Foskey (Conversations with a Calvinist) - Justin Peters (JP Ministries) - Calvin Robinson (Free Church of England) In your next video, especially as you have interacted with most of them directly.

[@z_nytrom99]

Saving these all. Thanks for sharing

[@karlymartin3502]

Calvin Robinson is an absolute gem.

[@chad7070]

Jeff Durbin as well.

[@greg28]

Calvin Robinson is no longer a member of the free church of England and is now an Old Catholic

[@Snowhater-jm1wr]

Justin Peters is awesome

[@z_nytrom99]

"I am only meant to be a gateway drug to right theology" This is actually an amazing statement. This should I believe, be true of virtually every online ministry. There's no replacement for being involved in a local church, walking the Christian life together with fellow believers. Good on you Zoomer.

[@Christian-mlady]

Gavin Ortlund is also one of my favorite KZbin pastors despite the fact that I am-like you-a Presbyterian. I love his ecumenical approach when talking about different denominations and his soft-spoken/gentle nature. Praise God that we can find so many great examples of His light in every part of the church!

[@timboslice980]

Gavin is really good but from a catholic perspective, he gets offended very easily, constantly assumes catholics don't believe what they say they do, calls people liars and runs from debates, and his abuse of the church fathers is facetious at best, abhorrent at worst. He'll use jerome when he thinks it proves he had a protestant mentality but totally ignores him on Mary, the papacy, and monoepiscopacy. Gavin comes off as very charitable but he's been nasty to me directly when I was just pointing out one of his patterns of inconsistency. He likes to group all protestants together for data when volume is useful but will dissassociate himself when talking about collective protestant doctrine. "You can't critique protestant doctrines of anyone but the historical ones" He tends to dissassociate himself from all protestant churches when it's convenient but then when he wants to inflate his numbers, he can't wait to include them. Especially nondenominational churches because of their growth yet won't acknowledge them as protestant when you bring them up as an example of protestants. Particularly the critique of excessive denominations and biblical interpretations being produced from the reformation's stance on sola scriptura. He'll get very upset at the claim of 30k denominations and shoot down all of them except a handful of the original protestants. It's such a sharp double standard I felt it was neccessary to call him out on it. Still he got very nasty with me a long with many of his fans. Still they didn't refute my critique, just a bunch of insults as usual.

[@BenjaminAnderson21]

​@@timboslice980 The tone of your comment makes it seem like you get offended very easily by people of different theological views from yourself. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but maybe you should step back and ask yourself if Gavin really was that insulting toward you or whether you were simply in a hot-headed state while engaging with him. A lot of your reasoning behind Gavin's supposed shortcomings only work if you assume that Roman Catholicism is true. Of course if you're a Romanist you're going to think that someone is abusing the Church Fathers by arguing they weren't full-blown Romanist as well. But that is only an issue if you pressupose Roman Catholicism.

[@Christian-mlady]

@@timboslice980I can’t evaluate any of your criticisms because I don’t have as robust of knowledge in the church fathers as I would want, nor do I often watch his Catholicism critique videos. However, I think we should try to speak more kindly of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, especially since a major point of yours is that he doesn’t do the same. Even if he isn’t a perfect Christian or debater, none of us are. Even if we disagree on things, and even if some of us are wrong, the Lord would still want us to treat each other with all the affection of Christ Jesus. He would want us to speak carefully and with purposeful intention, as noted in James.

[@timboslice980]

@Christian-mlady My main point is he won't debate William Albrect on some of his misuse of the fathers. His main reason is he's accusing William of some dishonesty. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.... he really does mislead his audience in his portrayal of the church fathers. It's like many of these men gave their lives for the Catholic faith and he'll comb through them looking for anything that sounds protestant. Build a case around it and make assertions all the while ignoring everything the very same father says to the contrary. He cherry picks everything to suit his theology and the points he wants to make. It's painful because I really think Gavin has good intentions, but it's obvious he's willing to bend the truth to the breaking point. I wonder if he ever feels bad about it, he'll act shocked when he see's a father he respects like augustine say something overly catholic like his take on infant baptism or Jerome on the monoepiscopacy. I'm not saying don't listen to Gavin but if he's your main source for what these fathers taught, you're going to get the idea that the catholic church just made everything up from pagans in the 7th or 8th century. He literally ignores everything to the contrary and combs through history looking for any single lines he can use against the idea that the catholic church goes all the way back. His favorite word us accretion... he says it like it's synonymous with corruption. I'd encourage you to check out reason and theology, suan sunna, and especially William albrect on the fathers. Test them rather than trust them.... theybdontheir homework and are extremely passionate about these topics.

[@timboslice980]

@BenjaminAnderson21 The way to really engage apologetics is to defend your side but do that with respect. If a pagan tells me he worships a tree, I'm not going to say... no you don't and here's why. You have respect for the person enough to accept that he believes he worships the tree even if in some way you don't think that's what's really happening. It's insulting to make video after video saying this guy does not worship a tree. If you catch my analogy. I was offended because he didn't engage my argument, he dismissed me and said he loves when people like me make false arguments. How is that charitable? I'm not hot headed at all... I was cordial as I could be. Gavin has also been offended by s sunna and e ybarrow. Maybe the 2 nicest youtubers in apologetics. Gavin just doest like to be challenged that's all. He's constantly challenging catholicism in general but when his arguments are refuted he doesn't adjust. He still makes the same bad arguments.... his handling of epephaneous on mariology is a great example. So many people have corrected him yet he holds to the same poor citations, inconsistencies, and personal attacks. Instead of truth unites, his channel should be called mischaracterization divides

[@no-one-in-particular]

I thought it was going to be about famous pastas. Penne, tagliatelle etc

[@Diamondbackwastaken]

Redeemed Zoomer Pasta Tier List when?

[@GRIFFIN1238]

​@@DiamondbackwastakenApril 1st, 2024

[@RaphaCramer]

Tagliatelle 10/10

[@Skibidivm_Latrinae]

“Confusion of da highest oda”

[@paxmeetsworld556]

Penne is a heretic and you know it

[@starks7701]

"They think they're a Christian because they're a good American who goes to Chick-fil-a or something." Gold! Underrated quote from this video! 😭😂

[@jadenalmeida8592]

Do on 1) william lane craig 2) frank turek 3) inspiring philosophy 4) trent horn 5) whaddo you meme

[@Holy-Heretic]

Whaddo you meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeme????

[@justchilling704]

All based minus Trent Horn on anything regarding his Catholic specific takes.

[@FRodriguez_]

@@justchilling704 some of them have heavily compromised the gospel and the Bible to fit into worldly standards. Nowhere near as based as people like Baucham.

[@Skibidivm_Latrinae]

+ Fr. Casey and Fr. Patrick from Upon Friar Review!

[@qomm8071]

Love inspiring philosophy.

[@drummerguy134]

I would add a correction to Doug Wilson. Although Moscow is fairly rural, it is one of the most liberal towns in a very conservative/libertarian state. There are plenty of towns in Idaho that one could “retreat” to, Moscow is not one of them mainly due to the university being there.

[@harrygarris6921]

Oh easily. Moscow has a conservative side but there are also LGBT flags flying in the windows of about a third of the downtown storefronts.

[@haydencassinelli]

I second this. Moscow is really the only battleground in the state of Idaho, primarily due to the universities. He elaborates on Moscow as a strategic choice and why areas like Moscow are better choices than big cities in his book Rules for Reformers, which is definitely worth checking out.

[@kmelons]

I live in Moscow and yea it’s very liberal here because of the university, but a lot of Doug’s long-term goals involve terraforming the town into a fully Christian one, which you can see put into action through his K-12 school and college, as well as other places in the town that are all connected with the CREC church.

[@internetdinosaur8810]

I must say though Paul Washer has changed drastically. He's still firey and brimestoney but he never fails to remind us of His love

[@karlymartin3502]

"If you're worried about your salvation, don't be." *stops worrying* "If you're not worried about your salvation, maybe you should be." *continues worrying* (yeah I'm a baptist)

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

Ok then don’t worry. And look to your baptism for assurance

[@karlymartin3502]

@@redeemedzoomer6053 Ok thanks, I'll try.

[@silvio1894]

@@karlymartin3502 Lord Jesus Christ said not to worry and when Peter the Apostle was asked on how to be saved, he said: "Be baptized and believe." If you are baptized, believe in Jesus Christ and if you are striving to run away from sin and do good works, you are good to go. Do not listen to those that strike fear of any kind in you, instead of conviction. God bless.

[@wordforever117]

Karly, I say this out of love for you honestly...the moment you were baptised you were washed completely clean and were completely justified. If you have turned away from God in the meantime, then you do need to turn back to Him. Baptist (etc.) doctrine aside, this makes sense. Traditional Christians have always had a definite and immediate way to know we are absolved of our sins and have been reunited with God and that is through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. It is really worth looking into...I honest don't know how other Christians cope with the worry and uncertainly. It must be difficult to remain hopeful without being able to hear God speak the words into your ears "I absolve you of all your sins" - that is an amazing gift of grace!! God bless you and please don't worry!

[@ethannickerson1901]

@@redeemedzoomer6053 Don't look to your baptism or your prayer of salvation or anything YOU have done for assurance, look at Jesus and trust what HE has done for your assurance. That what he did was for you, and that it is enough. His work is the only work you can truly rest in.

[@Jonathan-9799]

Could you make a video on your thoughts on famous Christian KZbinrs? Whaddo You Meme Off The Kirb Ministries InspiringPhilosophy Apologetics Roadshow

[@jacobpottage6938]

Good idea.

[@paulsocie7152]

Voddie has good theology and it is very sound in my opinion

[@RedeemedReformedRenewed]

I agree very much so.

[@paulsocie7152]

@RedeemedReformedRenewed he was a breath of fresh air to me and it is nice to see a man, stand up for the Bible❣️

[@paulsocie7152]

I agree.....As being newly found in Christ, I can see false doctrine everywhere. The Lord put beliefs in my mind and on my heart, I know to be true❣️ Yet, finding a denomination has been diffecult for me, due to false doctrine in conflict with my decernment. I feel every denomination has a key to the master set, to completely unlock the Truth that Moses knew, of the Lord. His ways, so to speak.

[@OtherworldlyYTP]

Dude tysm for making this video, this is literally perfect timing man- I needed this

[@TolkienAnswers]

I think James White take a more spiritual presence view of the Lord's Supper. And he does understand church history well (he has taught it at a seminary-level for decades), that doesn't mean he agrees with the Reformers on the sacraments. He has often said when teaching about the Reformation that his heroes would burn him at the stake, lol.

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

that is true. Maybe he has a spiritual presence view but I've never heard him articulate it despite him doing 6 hours of lectures on the Lord's Supper

[@wordforever117]

The disciples who couldn't accept Jesus' teaching in John 6 and left Him also took a more spiritual view of the Lord's Supper! Nothing new there!

[@crusaderACR]

Reading John 6 suggests to me that the Lord's Supper should be a doctrine that leaves you slightly uncomfortable (at least at first). A more "spiritual" view is definitely the wrong direction. That's if with spiritual you mean as less "real", which is a misuse of spiritual if that's the case but whatever. I mean, the spiritual is as real as you and I. Christ is REALLY there in some way. No, don't add a "but." The Greek there literally says gnaw on my flesh, drink of my blood. There's a very real sense, beyond the symbollic, that made the Jewish listeners uncomfortable, and right after they leave Christ turns to the apostles and goes like "yeah this one's an uncomfortable one, you're still sticking around right?" I think the "literal body of Christ in every way except physical" is the most proper way to put it. That type of phrasing is used by Lutherans (and offshoots), Catholics, I think Episcopalians, many Reformed, and I don't know of the rest. I'm not an expert in American denominations. The Evangelicals usually have it waaaay off. A pagan or Jew walks in. They overhear. Did that person find it weird? Uncomfortable? Hard to swallow? Extremely serious business, where misuse is basically eating and drinking death on yourself? Then that's the Biblical view as far as I'm concerned. No "mere symbol" stuff please. To go any less due to knee-jerk emotions is what gets people to stop believing in Hell. Gosh darn James White. If it's serious to Christ it should be serious to you.

[@grgemclr1992]

I had a pretty good laugh at “a good American who goes to Chick Fil A”

[@ChristianityExplained]

I am enjoying your thoughts on famous pastors. I see that you're working your way through the Baptists. I'd love to see what you'll do with Pentecostal and Charismatic pastors. Hint: They are not the same. There are differences. :) I'll keep coming back to see what else you do.

[@RedeemedReformedRenewed]

I agree. The only thing I don't like about this is when he says "You Baptists can say this But the reformers say this" the reformers did not perfect theology. They were great, but its important to understand just because Calvin says something on Baptism, what he says isn't scripture. By viewing the Reformers as the final say instead of the Bible, many valid arguments can be dodged.

[@GODLOVERBAM]

@@RedeemedReformedRenewed No one I've ever met advocates for "viewing the Reformers as the final say instead of the Bible"

[@RedeemedReformedRenewed]

Yeah i know, he kinda implies it a little to dodge good arguments though. It's implied a little in this video not outrightly spoken. @@GODLOVERBAM

[@justanotherbaptistjew5659]

Todd Friel isn’t a pastor, he’s a radio guy

[@Silence3157]

If I may politely make a correction to your video... The CREC wasn't started because of the Federal Vision. The denomination was founded 4 years before the Federal Vision conference at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church. As a consequence of the whole controversy, the CREC kind of became the FV denomination, but that's not why it was started. Doug wrote about it on his blog at one point. He went from being a Baptist to being a Reformed, Calvinist, Postmil paedobaptist, and therefore was in the process of being removed from the pulpit by his elders. A large number of the congregation didn't want him to leave and were willing to put aside the baptismal differences. He considered joining the PCA, but didn't want to abandon the people in his church who stood by him. Therefore, he and another church founded the CREC to be a denomination of broadly Reformed churches that allows for differences on things like baptism and paedocommunion, which is why a CREC church can adopt the Westminster Confession, the 1689 Baptist Confession, or any of a number of other Reformed confessions as its doctrinal statement. Sorry that was long, but just some interesting facts for you 😀

[@justusdittemore1813]

I just moved to Moscow and have spoken with Doug on several occasions. He's a cool guy and a wonderful preacher.

[@Exhihilbro]

I’m actually a member at CREC church didn’t know this history. Very new to the denom. So thanks man. Lol.

[@silvio1894]

How about these preachers for part 3: 1) Billy Graham 2) Charles Spurgeon 3) John Wesley 4) George Whitefield 5) Bishop Fulton J. Sheen 6) Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel 7) Fr. Spyridon Some are from long past, but they are great preachers and my favorite.

[@barryallen119]

Pls avoid Mari Emmanuel, he is a Nestorian. All the other preachers are solid.

[@demishnand7216]

As a lutheran, I dont have many popular lutheran pastors I listen to on a regular basis outside of Jordan B Cooper, and Bryan Wolfmueller. Wish we had a larger more prominent voice online.

[@nikmonk1098]

I find 'Ask the Pastor' channel is useful. He's Missouri Synod.

[@WC3isBetterThanReforged]

As a Catholic, I really enjoy the LutheranSatire channel.

[@falsouth762]

Wolfmueller is fantastic. Cooper is good to, but a bit more professorial.

[@jamesearl389]

I have a very different take from you on several issues but let me give you a bit of encouragement: I love the grace I hear in your arguments. I love that you can disagree with people but still see the fruits of the gospel in their lives and affirm them as brothers. Good on you. May Father continue to teach both of us and bring us closer to the image of His Son.

[@landonlawson2676]

The point you made about reclaiming progressivism was something I actually first heard from Doug Wilson.

[@jeremiahjasso8591]

As far as the CREC credentials convo goes: it should be noted that the CREC was only started because they wanted a protestant denomination that didn't ostracize Baptists, Anglicans, and others. Also, the CREC has a rigorous ordination process akin to that of the PCA or OPC.

[@CharlsGalindo]

Hey Zoomer, could you do a video someday explaining Sola Fide? As a Catholic (ecumenical and deeply admiring your work) i cant help but feel it being heretical (sorry for that word) or a doctrine that does not strive for daily Ascesis or Theosis. God bless you. Keep up your good fight. Christ is King

[@CharlsGalindo]

Mt 16: 24-26 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wants to come after Me, let him deny[a] himself, and take up his cross and be following Me

[@WastelandArmorer]

Im not Zoomer, but do have a pretty good grasp on various versions of this. Some teach it’s literally faith alone, as in believe and your good, which is not a biblical belief, see James. What i do think is that Faith IS required for salvation. Believe and be baptized and you will be saved, but if you believe not you will be damned. Mark 16:16. I think that true faith will produce works which will lead you to being more like christ. If its not doing that the faith is dead, ie, not really there. From what ive seen its closer to Catholic beliefs than it seems at first because Catholics also believe that works, sacraments, ect power comes from Faith in Christ. Christ said no branch bears fruit of itself but of the vine. Meaning its not the branch thats actually producing the fruit, its the vine (Christ) which is supplying the fruit. The branch is just a framework that the real work is done through. Where soma Fide becomes a problem is when it’s either used to write off allowing the Holy spirit to transform you, or even worse as an excuse to sin. Does this make sense or am i making it more confusing?

[@CharlsGalindo]

@@WastelandArmorer Your response was brilliant. May God bless your path.

[@WastelandArmorer]

@@CharlsGalindo you as well!

[@harrygarris6921]

@@WastelandArmorer my only follow up question is… why the distinction between faith and “works”? The scripture doesn’t describe faith as intellectual mental assent it talks about it as a living out of the Christian life. There is a difference between faith and following the tenets of the Jewish law in scripture but no distinction given between “having faith” and getting baptized, receiving the Eucharist, praying, etc. These actions are how one in a very pragmatic sense has faith. I feel like Catholics speaking as if faith is intellectual asset and works are any conscious action is a submission to Protestant thought. This is not how Catholic theologians historically have defined faith and works. If you don’t agree with Protestant thinking you don’t have to validate their presuppositions by using their language.

[@Taydutt13]

I grew up in the church of god (Cleveland, TN.) And before I was baptized, my uncle (who baptized me) said that as soon as I came back up out of the water that I was a new creation. And when I did I felt that way.

[@AndrewEtmus]

Desiring God (the book) was, oddly, my first introduction to the Westminster Standards, and also a huge reason I am now Calvinistic in soteriology. Apart from the Bible, it’s a book I tend to recommend everyone read. I hope you enjoy it!

[@heir8095]

I'm glad you're starting to give some credit to contemporary worship music! As a classical vocalist I admire your respect for the classics, But there is some dang good contemporary worship music that has been released even recently. I agree that more churches should play classical hymns more often, but to say that recent contemporary worship is not theologically rich is really just kind of silly imo 🤷‍♂️. Anyways, love your videos Zoomer!

[@aidanwhite6478]

Just a thought - James White is indeed a professor of Church History

[@wordforever117]

That just makes his cluelessness of church history even more embarrassing

[@zachzimmerman4092]

​@@wordforever117could you maybe demonstrate that?

[@TheLincolnrailsplitt]

I thought he was a Bible scholar.

[@wordforever117]

@@zachzimmerman4092Does he not believe that the early Church Fathers did not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? That is hilariously wrong.

[@slick222]

CREC was around way before federal vision. A few pastors went there from that controversy but not that many. Wilson has gathered a following around classical christian schools, pro-traditional-roles family books, and the cultural stuff you mention. He basically has tried to build a parallel everything for people who follow him to live their whole lives in. He's also a good self-promoter and controversialist.

[@goragabdula8203]

Nice timing. After your church compass video, i am interested in kinda english speaking youtube pastors. You were talking about many names in your videos without explanation. I didnt understand in my (ukrainian speaking) context, so yeah video is very helpful.

[@Timo0469]

I love john piper.He answers many questions ive been asking myself and couldnt find a satisfactory answer to anywhere else.

[@coffeyallday]

On arguing for weekly communion in Baptist churches, ironically the pastor at my Baptist church growing up who did communion the most was the pastor who tried to turn us into a non-denominational church. We did it monthly with him vs quarterly with other pastors. Usually once at Christmas, once at Easter, and then once in the summer and fall.

[@keithwysocki9003]

That Joel Osteen impression, though!

[@KerbalProductions777]

As a Catholic I do have a level of respect for Dr. Baucham, I think he’s probably the best Baptist. However I’m not sure I can say I’m his fan because he completely strawmaned the council of Trent as if he hadn’t read the previous 8 canons before canon 9.

[@z_nytrom99]

To say Vodie Baucham's address of the CoT, canon 9 session 6 is "Completely strawmanned" is a categorical error. It's not strawmanning to _omit_ mentioning these canons that Protestants generally agree with. It's just plain omission -and not malicious. Perhaps if he in his address had omitted the canon title, "canon 9, session 6" then you could accuse him of deliberate omission. But he doesn't do that. There's therefore no excuse for his audience not to look into the canons for themselves to see the things magisterial protestants all agree on. Canon 9 is the most major point of definitive difference soteriologically between protestants and Roman catholics, therefore it's completely fair to address it squarely on its own.

[@KerbalProductions777]

@@z_nytrom99 no it’s not. When he’s doing this he’s making it seem like we affirm anthropocentric soteriology when we don’t. If you read the canon, it doesn’t say “if anyone says by faith alone the sinner is justified, let him be anathema.” There’s much more to it than that. Saints Clement of Rome, John Chrysostom, and Thomas Aquinas to name a few used the phrase “faith alone” and Benedict XVI said it’s okay to use the term as long as this faith is a faith that works. We’re not saved by faith and works, we’re saved by a faith that works. I’ve yet to see a Protestant quote canon nine and explain what we do teach on the doctrine of salvation. Because I know a lot of Protestants can say what we don’t believe but none of them ever seem to explain what we actually do believe.

[@duncescotus2342]

yeah, Trent got many things right, but is guilty itself of strawmanning justification by faith. Most of their anathemas, but not all, were well worded. However, Trent did not really help matters. It served to cement Catholicism into the anti-Protestant brand that it is to this very day. Orthodox, Catholic, and Reformed are one, as "a cord of three strands is not easily broken." Pray on this and the Lord will give you light.

[@wordforever117]

Haha they all do!

[@KerbalProductions777]

@@wordforever117 it’s like read the previous 8 canons

[@stevefreytag]

Bishop Barron is compelling to become a Catholic but I did hear him deny the historical Adam. This was quite troubling to me and made me pause. If Jesus is the second Adam and the first Adam was just a myth and not historical in any sense what does this say about Jesus?

[@aderousse6]

@stevefreytag it is the teaching of the church that Adam and Eve were historical people and our first parents. If Bishop Barron said otherwise he either misspoke or is just wrong. Pope Pius XII wrote about it in Humani Generis.

[@RabidLeech.]

The most heretical part of this video was him digging dirt with his pickaxe

[@FourEyedFrenchman]

Robert Barron is the modern Fulton Sheen. Bishop Barron is why I became interested in Catholicism and ultimately converted. He presents the complexities of the Catholic faith in a way that anyone can understand.

[@godsstrength7129]

Not close to his Excellency Fulton Sheen

[@wordforever117]

@@godsstrength7129Fulton Sheen is very difficult to understand though!

[@kuafer3687]

11:30 image thinking that literal Orthodox beliefs are not orthodox

[@Joostin8]

I’m curious to hear more about the “I believe one can have a temporary faith and walk away” even though you say you’re reformed

[@GODLOVERBAM]

I would quite enjoy him doing a video on this. I BELIEVE he will be talking about the visible/invisible church distinction.

[@wordforever117]

Of course you can have genuine faith and one time in your life then go on to reject God completely later in life. This is why "once saved, always saved" is a completely absurd idea, not just an unbiblical and anti-Christian one!

[@mickmilan2171]

Great job on this video and a great job on the discussion particularly around Paul Washer. Brother Paul is “my guy”, he’s probably the modern preacher who most speaks to me and imparts the Gospel to me. But, I do understand why some folks criticize his preaching. His most famous sermons are heavy on repentance. Having listened to dozens of Washer sermons, they do tend to emphasize examining ourselves and this can lead folks to despair if they aren’t careful. But, I love Paul Washer like a brother. He’s the instrument that Christ used to draw me back to Him. I probably wouldn’t have watched this video if it wasnt for Paul washer.

[@Holy-Heretic]

How about Mike Winger?

[@cabes5396]

Good video as a suggestion maybe you can add time stamps so some people can cut to our theological questions and such.

[@romansyoutube]

???? Hello? James white doesn’t have an incredible understanding of church history?Literally a church history professor and has been his emphasis of study for decades. I wonder what having a great understanding of church history means to you. Also can’t remember watching a single debate of his with a Catholic where the public comment sections (open to both Protestants and Catholics alike), werent filled with resounding agreement and naming James as having the best overall arguments.

[@aaronmueller5802]

"Literally a church history professor" At an unaccredited Baptist seminary with 13 total faculty members. He would have a hard time trying to teach church history at an accredited institution, because they usually don't accept professors who got their PhD through a diploma mill

[@romansyoutube]

@@aaronmueller5802 Negative. He would have quite an easy time, in fact has had an easy time being invited by accredited seminaries and schools all around the country to hold lectures on church history. Strongly recommend doing research before typing. Also really interested to know who you think is a good contemporary church historian

[@aaronmueller5802]

​​@@romansyoutube Can you point me towards the lectures he gave at these accredited institutions? I don't doubt what your saying, I'm just having trouble finding where he was actually invited. Seems there was a misunderstanding. When I said "teach at an accredited institution", I didn't mean giving guest lectures, I mean actually hold a teaching position, which is much more difficult than being invited to give lectures. James White may be able to get a job at some smaller seminaries, but like I said, you typically need a doctorate to teach at that level, so James White would need to get a real one. In terms of contemporary church historians, I like Robert Wilken, John Anthony Mcgunkin, Everett Fergeson, and Peter Brown. JND Kelly, and Henry and Owen Chadwick are recently deceased, but I would put them up there with the best. There are a few others, but I will admit I need to read more widely on contemporary historians, especially of the reformation period.

[@zeroisnine]

​@@aaronmueller5802people think "being on KZbin" is the highest achievement of intellect and prestige

[@thomasprefontaine5023]

Maybe someday you can do one on Brian Sauve, Eric Conn, Joel Webbon.

[@TheJoeschmoe777]

I loved this video, especially your thoughts on Bishop Robert barron. He's my favorite Catholic theologian as well and I hate when people dismiss or attack him because of his hopeful universalism. In all honesty I think such an outcome is something we as Christians should at least be praying for.

[@lanetrain]

I liked him until he told Ben Shapiro that Jews don't need Christ to go to heaven so long as they live a good and respectable life

[@MUSCLEMASSMMA]

Hit the nail on the head for Paul washer, at least his famous sermons give this vibe. I’m sure if I regularly attended his church he would be great.

[@justaway29]

Understanding Paul Washer's Sermons is you have to pinpoint his objective and context on that Sermon. Even though there's short clips on internet about his sermons,watching those are that made cause of Anxiety without watching the whole sermon, As a Christian, we need to address that Anxiety in us and make it a reason to place our faith in Christ more as said in 2 cor. 12 "My strength is made perfect in weakness". As we feel weak in times of Anxiety it's a reminder that God is Stronger and he is that gives us strength. It's like a challenge, that's what I liked about his sermons. It reminds me of Romans 5

[@NoobToobJamarMemes]

Did I just hear a Calvinst criticize someone for mental gymnastics? 🤣 I had to mention that. Anyways, great video, R Zoomer.

[@KevvoLightswift]

I've enjoyed your content over the last few months since I found you, RF. I do consider myself Baptist with a Premillenial view, but the analogy you made with Voddie Baucham and the sinking ship of the Titanic is very spot on. In fact, for several years now, my personal theology guides me to love others, but not worry too much about cultural decline. In fact, I'd say I more or less checked out from that. But I do find such a view to be at odds with Scripture, even though my beliefs tell me Jesus will fix it all in a flash when He returns. Thanks for pointing this out. This is perhaps the biggest weakness of premillenialism.

[@adamgenord4674]

I started actually following Christ for a few months but I’m wondering, if I’m interested in learning about theology, would you have any recommendation for books or any other sources to just get into beginner level theology and church history

[@adamgenord4674]

Besides your KZbin channel lol

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

Jordan Cooper is awesome! He's how I learned about all of this

[@elsewherian4494]

Not so sure about calling some of these guys reformed. Calvinistic sure, covenantal and confessional, no. Im a Presbyterian and i will go to bat for James White. He is a church historian. He crushes Catholics in debates. Especially older debates. As a Reformed Presby, I would not use to much Lutheran doctrine to dictate my theology.

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

what kind of Lutheran doctrine am I using to dictate my Theology?

[@elsewherian4494]

Most reformed Christians would not say Lutherans are reformed or hold your position on the sacraments. This includes Presbyterians.

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

@@elsewherian4494 I know… when have I ever said Lutherans are Reformed?

[@acct_deleted]

I’d like to hear your thoughts on Fr. Gregory Pine O.P.

[@bman5257]

Real life Chad

[@Taterstiltskin]

I still don't see how baptism saves can be mistaken as Biblical. yes as you say we have an "interpretation" of the passages as do you, but trying to understand what the authors meant by studying these passages in their context isn't "mental gymnastics" as you would like to believe, rather it's the opposite of superficially reading an isolated verse to support your bad doctrine. 1 Peter 3:21 isn't actually about baptism, it compares the water baptism to Noah who was saved not because of water but because Noah believed God, and subsequently obeyed God. the water in fact would have destroyed Noah, yet he was saved THROUGH that water, not BY that water, as one can be saved through fire meaning they are not burned up. so why was Noah saved? because he obeyed God. why did he obey? because he believed God. had he not obeyed, he wouldn't have believed, and had he not believed, he wouldn't have obeyed. without getting down to the nuts and bolts, God is responsible for your salvation, not your works. God is responsible for your belief that subsequently produces obedience, but the act itself (your work) has no saving power, that is reserved for God. therefore when Peter likens our salvation to that of Noah, it is not referring to water baptism which does NOT save, but rather through belief (and to be clear, in the Biblical sense belief also involves trust as a second side to the same coin.) Peter says baptism saves you in this way, meaning though belief, he clearly isn't talking about the act itself. this is not unlike the other passages relating to baptism that I've read and can think of right now. you should be forming your doctrines from the entirety of God's word. don't discard context of the passages you're using to support your doctrines, that's no better than any false religion. in the same way, you can't discard passages like the thief on the cross to make your point because it isn't convenient to your misinterpretation of other passages. so yes, the reformers were wrong on this and no it doesn't surprise this baptist. it's absurd to think that they were suddenly correct on everything just because they woke up and got one or two things right for a change. and btw, these things they reformed on, if followed to their logical conclusion, should thoroughly refute this baptism saves idea. so, there's that. they started a reformation, we furthered it towards a logical conclusion of Biblical understanding. surely we're not entirely where we need to be, but I'd wager that since Paul, no one has or will have every doctrine entirely correct on this side of the kingdom. it's just that us "reformed" baptists are most likely the closest to it :P

[@johna6828]

Amen

[@lanetrain]

Problem here is that all those Protestants who say Baptism Saves don't mean it saves ex opere operato. They agree that it saves through faith. That doesn't mean it doesn't save. All these historical Protestant systems are able to reconcile how baptism saves despite salvation being by faith alone. So we agree with St Peter when he says Baptism saves. Baptists are in a pickle. They have to say "well it doesn't actually save though, Peter was jk"

[@g.williams2047]

Didn't even know Todd Friel was a pastor.

[@justanotherbaptistjew5659]

He’s a radio guy, not a pastor

[@JoshxDude92]

To say James White doesn't know church history sounds kind of insulting, honestly. The man is constantly trying to educate people on church history and often argues Roman Catholics from a church history perspective. I don't know which debates between James white and Roman Catholics you've been watching, but I would encourage you to watch his debates from the '90's and early '00's between him and Gerry Matatics, Father Mitch Pacwa, Robert Sungenis, Father Peter Stravinskis and many others. If you don't recognize any of those names, I'm not sure you can say that he looses most of his debates from an informed point of view. When he debates Gerry Matatics on the Marian dogmas, he tells him he'll just take one example of an early church father that taught what you must believe as a Roman Catholic. These are great debates (no pun intended) and to say that he looses most of his debates with Roman Catholics makes you sound kinda ignorant.

[@traznian]

Why do certain denominations use only certain versions of the Bible? Like how presbyterians primarily use only NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV. Secondly, which is your prefered version of the Bible?

[@Ironica82]

We should focus on the word for word translation. As an ESV onliest, word for word is the best ones (especially one that was faithfully translated) and unless you are diving deep into a specific verse, sticking to one translation helps with memorization and finding a verse if you try to look it up.

[@YANI_578]

Saying James White doesn't know enough Church History is a wild take

[@Naomi_OB]

Right? A man who has taught Church history probably longer than Zoomer has been alive 😂🤷‍♀️

[@wordforever117]

@@Naomi_OBLength of years does not guarantee accuracy! He is wrong on a lot of things about church history. Have you heard his lectures on the Council of Trent? It's more of a comedy show!

[@dylangrubbs5969]

I’m just shocked redeemed zoomer hasn’t been invited to lead tours of the holy land and famous sights of reformation history like James White does, since he knows so much more about it than he does. Those tourists are really missing out.

[@sergloera]

James White is a man, as such he tends to be very wrong, very often. Get over it

[@crusaderACR]

​@@dylangrubbs5969James White is very lacking in pre-Reformation Church history. Methinks he didn't teach those parts. You do know your 1st-5th century Christianity... right?!?

[@timboslice980]

Ok i gotta say i agree with almost all your takes! The one critique i would add is most of these men seem to either not understand or mislead people about what the catholic church teaches. One critique of zoomer is he said catholics believe baptism saves apart from faith. No catholic believes this and its the 2nd time ive heard zoomer make this claim. Both times in a throw away comment. Its absurd to think we baptize people without faith and think it still saves them. Its incompatable with the sacrament, even in the case of infant baptism, the faith of the parents/guardians is required. I always thought this was almost identicsl to the presbyterian version of infant baptism. Loved your take on Bishop barron! If i had a wishlist for an additional one would be fsther mike schmitz.... dude has or had the number 1 religious podcast with boble in a year. His catechism in a year has been an incredible educational tool for me. I just got confirmed in the church this easter.

[@File001]

So, James White loses debates with Roman Catholics even on the topic of justification by faith alone and eternal security in salvation? Just curious...

[@timothyvenable3336]

I was wondering the same thing! I love Zoomer but some things he says and some of his takes are so far out there…

[@brettk1517]

Love you man, but to say James White doesn’t have a good grasp of church history is just unfair. I’m a Lutheran, but man, Dr White is a church history professor and his debates with Roman Catholics usually go in his favour. He regularly demonstrates it’s the RC apologists who don’t grasp church history. But you’re entitled to your opinion! God bless.

[@matthewdyer2926]

37:15 How, sir, can a culture be taken over for Christ without it having drastic and similar effects on politics? Please explain.

[@gracejohnston1715]

John Piper also wrote another book called When I Don't Desire God.

[@Charles_998]

I’ve known far too many people who’ve been hurt by the preaching of guys like Paul Washer and his Lordship Salvation. I completely agree with your criticism of Washer’s radical introspective view of sanctification. It’s so disheartening seeing someone want to give up their faith simply because some preacher like Washer told them they’re not hating sin enough or have enough godly affections. Having a high sacramentology and robust Law/Gospel distinction is so important.

[@ThetaMinistries]

Amen to that! (Independent Baptist here) I think Paul is well intended with discipleship. But conflates the law and faith sometimes and gets people worried without rightly dividing the word 2 Timothy 2:15

[@SamDailyShow]

If you don't believe James White knows church history, you may want to listen to his other 180 debates.

[@isaacsandoval9316]

Really want a deep dive on David k Bernard of the upci. I need to understand that more

[@jayjaygeez]

Having grown up in the UPCI, myself, there’s not all that much that needs to be said about it other than they are heretics and should be avoided (I don’t say this to offend, I just spent a long time there and they are literally heretical, which is why I ultimately left once I came to that realization). They reject the Trinity (modalism), teach that you must be water baptized *and* speak in tongues to be saved, enforce a legalistic dress/physical appearance code (“holiness standards”), teach that salvation can be lost (“backsliding”), teach that both tithes *and* offerings are necessary (and they’ll be on you about it), teach that they are the true church and that everyone else has it wrong and has had it wrong all this time, etc. The list goes on. They behave more like a cult than a church. As a Protestant, I’d rather someone be Catholic than Oneness Pentecostal. Pretty sure Zoomer would agree with me.

[@justevan877]

I see bishop barron I like

[@Taterstiltskin]

"no it's ok, I have a black friend" ROTF!

[@williamburns3823]

Can you, with scripture, make a case for how sacraments save?

[@sethsasure9603]

Which reformers believed baptism saves? Perhaps im unaware, could you please point me to some resources. Also, i don't mean to offend by saying this, it would be nice if you gave hard biblical and historic proof after making some of the statements you make. Sometimes they seem to comr out of nowhere, like your own opinions. If there was evidence to back up what you say it would nake the listening experience nore enjoyable and make you more trustworthy.

[@j.prt.979]

I would amend your statement about the distinction between the law and the gospel. They are distinct, but I think the way you talk about it makes an error in the opposite direction. The way you talk about it makes it seem like Christians don’t need to feel like they should be doing good works. And I know this isn’t what you mean to do (just like you say that conflating law and gospel isn’t what Paul Washer means to do), but that’s what it sounds like! “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” ‭‭James‬ ‭2‬:‭26‬ ‭KJV‬‬ That’s a strong statement, and I think we can often qualify it away. Here’s how I would amend your distinction: The law says ‘Do until it’s done.’ The gospel says ‘It’s done, now do this.’

[@fvardona]

Well while I respect your take on most of the Baptist preachers, and some were very valid points...I do think most dominations have some deviations from what original Christianity is, the main example of that is Calvinism, which believes in predestination, based on the notion that free will was never directly quoted in the bible however there are a ton of stories and parables that only makes sense if you believe in free will. Also, a lot of Calvinists mix up the omniscience of God with He directing everything, however, omniscience does not make him a direct subject in an action, he can be if He wants, but is not a must. Is like someone watching TV, not necessarily the person seeing what is going on is part of it. While this in itself is not a condemning heresy per se, it is biblically and logically incorrect. At least that is my take on this subject, the important thing, in the end, is that the denomination shares the gospel and its main message that we are sinners who need a savior, and this savior is Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Messiah. Having this message while not adding or taking anything more to it is fine.

[@wordforever117]

Original Christianity is well documented in the Church Fathers. It is essentially the same as modern day Catholicism.

[@fvardona]

@@wordforever117 actually no since modern catholicism comes from traditional Catholicism which comes directly from the organization created by the roman emperor Constantine, which appointed its leaders according to his agenda of avoiding a conflict between the growing christian faith and the roman pagans. Almost all the story that Catholics believe about their church history is wrong and is based on the narrative built by the roman church fathers. In actuality the Catholic church after their establishment started to persecute and finish off any christian that dared to oppose their authority. There is a reason why many christians questioned the pope’s authority and legitimacy over its existence. PS: a lot of the imagery and symbols used in Catholicism comes from the roman pantheon.

[@noahallen4113]

I go to the university of Idaho in Moscow and Doug Wilson’s church is seen as a cult because of its more extreme views. I’ve gotten the chance to interact with a few members of the church and I see a lot of good in the people. I did a prayer meeting with them about praying for ALL the members of the local/national governments regardless of cultural and religious leanings, which is more than I can say for some of my cultural Christian friends. Would you recommend I check them out more in-depth while I’m still in Moscow?

[@BasiliscBaz]

Its ironic how baptists dont belive in power of baptism

[@SigmaPB777]

Conservatism tends to idealize a return to the past, without realizing it is the same situation that lead to where we are now. We should take the positive values out of tradition and history, but move forward in a Christian futurist movement.

[@naisangamolly1788]

your mimicry of Joel Osteen is something else 😂😂😂

[@joshlarking3962]

Great vid!! Thank you for sharing too!! My two cents ;) I don't think Voddie would argue that their are three distinct wills that work through the persons of the holy trinity. I think he handles it with greater care and caution than most. My guess is that he is trying to give us insight into the inner workings which almost always leads to some discrepency or inconsistency in his efforts to simplify for our edification. Again a very difficult and fine line when teaching on the trinity. Love your work though bro!! All glory to Christ!

[@TitusCastiglione1503]

Have you considered Dean Lentini? He’s a Reformed guy here on KZbin; I like a lot of his stuff, but I’be gotten worried about him lately.

[@cruzaderawaken9600]

I love Dean Lentini! Have you noticed something?

[@TitusCastiglione1503]

@@cruzaderawaken9600 It’s more that I think he seems to capitalize a little more in church squabbling than I’m comfortable with at times.

[@elmscent]

"I am only meant to be a gateway drug to actual theology" IM HOOKED

[@kvzacomics]

The only debate James White has lost to Catholics imo is the one about justification. The others at best are a tie for the Catholics. I think it's strange that this video supposes Gavin Ortlund or Jordan Cooper have a superior understanding of Church history than James White. I absolutely love the three of them, and I truly prefer Ortlund's approach, but White's knowledge is not found wanting. Channels that criticize him, like Faith and Reason, are biased imo, because White is more direct and a bit extreme in his disdain of Roman Catholicism (he's like a guy with an axe in the forest of history, says one KZbinr). Granted, I haven't heard the series Redeemed Zoomer mentions here.

[@kiroshakir7935]

Jordan Peterson 😂

[@kvzacomics]

@@kiroshakir7935 I realized that mistake ten minutes after I posted this comment 😂, right when I checked a notification to watch his Unitarianism in America video. Sorry about that, I didn't know how to find my comment and edit it.

[@jrrgotmemes8835]

Bro really said James white doesn't understand that much of church history. My guy, he teaches church history at seminary.

[@sorrytodisappointyouwhy586]

I would love if you could do about ARKADY KHEMCHAN

[@mikecasey9346]

Imagine saying James White, someone who teaches church history, that he doesn't know church history.

[@wordforever117]

He certainly does not know church history. I am not sure what he does can really be called "teaching" in the true sense of the word haha

[@Joostin8]

I laughed at the Chick fil a part

[@davidfitzpatrick6535]

So i have friends who are evangelical Lutheran and they told me that in their church they don't believe that baptism saves.

[@Star_Kay]

@Redeemed Zoomer Now super curious, what do you think of Tony Evans?

[@matthewsoules7193]

Baptism, in blood and spirit, saves.

[@CaptainYesz]

Appreciate the balanced take on things!

[@ismailtaskran9740]

Hi👋 I really enjoy watching your videos. I don’t know if you are taking video requests but there is an issue which I trouble wrapping my head around. If Jesus resurrected three days after his crucifixition, how can his death even be considered a sacrifice? I’m sure there are logically sound answers for this but none that I am aware of. I think this is a subject which would amuse and take interest of both Christians and non-christians alike.

[@toilet_cleaner_man]

Because He still was terribly humiliated and did suffer death. Just because He conquered said death, that doesn't make the death any less real, God died on the cross. The death itself served two primary purposes: 1) using Christ as a sacrifice, God atoned for the sins of all man, and made salvation possible through faith in Christ, He took the depraved state of man, and with the blood of Christ, cleaned us. 2) To fulfill the OT prophesies of Christ, He had to die to fulfill those prophesies, prove the Pharisees wrong, and solidify the faith of the disciples; His death was necessary for all of this, and Praise be that He did that for us.

[@MAMoreno]

He still experienced death. The resurrection conquers death without avoiding it in the first place.

[@forthelord]

@ismailtaskran9740 It is a sacrifice as he took the punishment we deserve upon himself. It's not just about his physical body dying but also an emotional aspect of a perfect God lowering himself to us and being tortured and humiliated by their own creations. Think about it like this if you were about to be killed let's say by being shot and someone steps in front of the bullet but they survive would that not still be a sacrifice.

[@ismailtaskran9740]

@@MAMoreno What does experiencing death mean exactly? Can you elaborate on that? Note: Oh, I forgot to add this part but I especially would like you to explain in a way that makes clear how experiencing death must be considered a sacrifice

[@ismailtaskran9740]

@@forthelord It would be a sacrifice if he just ended up surviving the bullet. If he knew somehow that he will just stay in an hospital for three days, I don’t get how this would be a sacrifice(apart from the pain of taking the bullet).

[@MaitlandJones]

Where part 1? Edit, didn't read description thoroughly enough. derp. It's there. Gonna watch that first.

[@CoreyTippets]

I want to u derstand the reformed view ofcommunion, but my question before that is where calvin even got his view, because i dont know if it was held by anybody before him, which to me is suspicious.

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

It was. It was taught to him by Peter Martyr Vermigli, and some church fathers held to it as well

[@CoreyTippets]

@@redeemedzoomer6053 id request your take in something, currently I'm going to a nondenom church, but I'm getting more and more presbyterian, yet the only presbyterian church in my area I think, has a female pastor. Which one should I go to, the presbyterian church has a pretty much whole female staff, pcusa and I think 125 years old.

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

consider this: the issue of female pastors is less important the issue of sacraments. Now, if that pcusa church is super woke or heretical, don't go, but if a female pastor is the only problem, then go

[@jonathanlochridge9462]

So, on the issue of retreating to the country. I think that can be an issue sometimes. Although, I also think there are good elements of that. One thing I have been thinking of is perhaps trying to live around a smaller city or forming a satellite village near a larger town. I do agree that cities are generally where culture happens. Although, on the other hand. I think that modern cities are fundamentally broken places. But humans are supposed to be in community. And more generally the community of the church is supposed engage with their local culture. So, being too far away from cities substantially limits our ability to interact with them. However, I do think there is plenty of room in or nearby smaller cities as well. I also think there is a lot of benefit and power that comes from being able to make an intentional community. Historical cities had a synegistic relationship with the villages sorronding them. But now, we mostly just have suburbs where people live and commute from. And food is shipped in from thousands of miles away to bear the weight of so many people. I am a bit concerned about how many people have become alienated from the land. To an extent, tending to the land along with creating things are part of what we were made to do.

[@burritoman2957]

Great video! I You mentioned it super briefly, but would definitely love to hear your thoughts on psychology. I'm getting my doctorate in Clinical Psychology and have thought a lot about how my faith and studies interact. I find the study and application of psychology to be highly compatible with a Christian worldview. Curious to hear your thoughts and your take on it!

[@spookyzoom]

Do you take stats classes with psychology?

[@burritoman2957]

@@spookyzoom Yeah! Stats is a pretty big part of psychology training so being proficient in data analysis and working with programs like R and SPSS is def emphasized.

[@Jo-xf3kw]

Think: which philosophical underpinnings are you accepting? Is the human made of just body (neorons cause all sorts of diseases; schools of thought that follow behaviorism largely hold to this anthropology). Is the human made of four parts - body, id, ego, superego? Although usually not stated outwardly, any school of thought deeply influenced by the psychoanalysts will inadvertently cling to this anthropology and attribute all sorts of things not to sin but to deep unconscious or subconscious urges beyond an individual's control. Idk which school of thought you subscribe to (most are taught a mishmash of contradictory philosophical foundations and presented as fact and coherent) but these are just top-level examples. There are many more presupositions that are held in the arena of psychology. The study of the psyche *is* deeply Christain. But if one adopts a non-Christain anthropology, a therapeutic system that downplay or rejects sin, and methods of helping/change that reject the God of the Bible, how Christain has it now become?

[@friendlyolbum]

James White is extremely well read in church history, wouldnt dismiss the possibility just because hes Baptist.

[@timothyvenable3336]

100%

[@dustintaber]

I’d be interested to hear your views on John Barnett

[@mmtoss6530]

Catholic view: Baptism saves the child at moment of baptism Reformed view: Baptism saves (because of covenant theology)

[@RedeemedReformedRenewed]

Baptism with water does not save. In the passage you mentioned, Peter is describing what it means to be a follower of Christ. He says, "you were baptized into Christ Jesus, therefore you were saved." This is a common tactic that proponents of the baptismal salvation theory will use in order to make their argument. However, the passage is clearly not speaking of baptism itself saving us, but rather of the work of Christ on our behalf through His death and resurrection. In short, baptism is an outward expression of the salvation that Jesus has already granted to us through His sacrifice.

[@kiroshakir7935]

​@@RedeemedReformedRenewed exactly the same type of mental gymnastics he talked about

[@mmtoss6530]

@@RedeemedReformedRenewed baptism doesn’t save in of itself. I totally reject the Catholic view of baptismal regeneration. Baptism of water also doesn’t save. However baptism of the Spirit does. However we must not radically separate the sign from the sign signified. Also, in baptism, a child is given covenant promises. When the child comes to faith in the Lord, weather it be 5, 15, or 105, the promises made at baptism is made effective to the person baptized (what the WCF calls baptismal efficacy). Again, baptism does not regenerate in the Catholic sense, and baptism in of itself does NOT save. Baptism of water also doesn’t save. But since baptism of water is tied to baptism of the Spirit which does save (although the efficacy of baptism is not always tied to the time it is administered, a person who is baptized is not automatically a believer) and the two are same sides of the same coin, and since baptism is tied to being part of God’s covenant community (because baptism is a replacement of circumcision), we can say that baptism saves in some sense, while it doesn’t save in others. Also, people who are baptized as believers are saved before their baptism, but baptism will follow for a true believer.

[@Skibidivm_Latrinae]

[Music] 0:07 baptism 0:08 saves dude you ever heard of the thief 0:10 on the cross 0:11 yes uh he wasn't baptized so how can you 0:14 say that baptism saves 0:15 look if you want to know what baptism is 0:17 and what it does 0:18 you really should look at the bible 0:20 verses that tell us what baptism 0:22 is and what it does and the thief on the 0:25 cross bit isn't talking about baptism so 0:27 that passage won't tell us whether 0:29 baptism saves baptism saves 0:32 come on dude you ever heard of the thief 0:34 on the cross yes but instead of 0:36 determining our baptismal theology based 0:38 on the thief on the cross which is not 0:40 about baptism we should look at 0:42 titus 3 where paul tells us that the 0:44 washing of regeneration and renewal of 0:46 the holy spirit 0:47 aka baptism has saved us we should look 0:49 at romans 6 where he tells us that 0:51 baptism makes us dead to sin and alive 0:54 to christ which is 0:55 another way of saying baptism saves and 0:58 i don't know maybe we should look at 1:00 first peter 3 1:01 where the apostle explicitly says 1:03 baptism 1:04 now saves you so regardless of the thief 1:08 on the cross because the bible clearly 1:11 says that baptism 1:12 saves we should also be able to say 1:15 baptism saves baptism saves no not again 1:19 dude you ever heard of the thief on the 1:20 cross look just because someone can be 1:22 saved apart from baptism doesn't change 1:25 the fact that baptism saves baptism 1:27 saves 1:29 dude you ever heard of the thief on the 1:30 cross oh you mean the guy who died 1:31 before jesus instituted the means of 1:33 grace we call baptism that saves baptism 1:35 says 1:36 stop it stop it stop it dude you ever 1:38 heard from the cross yes i've heard of 1:39 the thief on the cross i've also heard 1:41 of the rest of the bible which very 1:42 clearly teaches that baptism 1:44 saves and because the bible doesn't 1:46 contradict itself 1:47 here's what we have to conclude on the 1:48 matter baptism saves because it is a 1:50 means of grace that christ 1:52 instituted that delivers the benefits of 1:54 his saving death and glorious 1:55 resurrection to us but while baptism 1:58 saves it is not the 1:59 only thing that saves people the thief 2:01 on the cross 2:02 can still come to saving faith through 2:04 the word even if they can't receive the 2:06 waters of baptism that's saved 2:08 likewise it has not always been the case 2:10 that baptism saved 2:12 this didn't become the case until after 2:14 the thief on the cross died 2:15 when in matthew 28 jesus instituted the 2:18 sacrament known as baptism 2:20 that saved so god says that baptism 2:23 saves and he also says that not 2:25 only baptism saves and therefore the 2:27 existence of people who are saved apart 2:29 from baptism doesn't change the fact 2:31 that baptism 2:33 saves baptism saves come on 2:37 dude you ever heard of the thief on the 2:38 cross i've heard of the thief on the 2:39 cross i was there when it happened 2:41 whoa you're the thief on the cross wait 2:43 where am i then 2:44 this doesn't look like paradise i'm the 2:46 other thief on the cross 2:48 oh oh no yeah what's up dude hey how's 2:51 this a customized eternal damnation 2:53 experience working out for you oh the 2:55 one where i spend the rest of eternity 2:56 having an endless loop argument with a 2:58 baptist about whether the repentant 2:59 thief on the cross disproves baptismal 3:01 regeneration yeah that one not very fun 3:03 dude kind of want to stab myself in the 3:05 soul right now 3:06 awesome 3:08 [Music] 3:14 wait are you the devil yeah i got 3:16 something to say to you buddy 3:18 this guy's never heard of the thief on 3:20 the cross oh come on 3:21 [Music] 3:28 hey dude about your punishment here i 3:30 think i was being kind of unfair 3:31 oh sweet so you're gonna ease up on me 3:34 oh no i'm 3:34 unfair the other way oh so i guess you 3:37 think jesus 3:37 is literally a door STOP END OF TRANSCRIPT MADE BY LUTHERANSATIRE @@RedeemedReformedRenewed

[@RedeemedReformedRenewed]

@@kiroshakir7935 It's not mental gymnastics, its taking the verse in context. He uses the term "mental gymnastics" as a way of dodging our valid arguments. I find it annoying when Presbyterians (some not all) act as if they have the only right view and stick up their nose in a non-Christ honoring way at others. I'm not attacking his view, i'm defending mine. So if anyone's doing gymnastics it's you for dodging my point

[@kheprishorn6092]

you had me at paul washer on the thumbnail

[@Morethangood.]

James white doesn’t have a good grasp on church history?!?!???!?!!??! I love you btw Redeemed zoomer

[@JacobJohnsen-nu7nl]

Can you do jack hibbs for part 3