Progressive Christianity: A Defense (w/ Randal Rauser)

[@IheartDogs55]

I was raised as a strict Fundamentalist. The church was nondenominational, but it was close in its doctrine to the Southern Baptist sect. I find these discussions fascinating.

[@greglogan7706]

Dogs, What do you mean "strick fundamentalist"?

[@cwstreeper]

It is an interesting conversation being had within the Church right now. Both Childers and Dr. Rauser raise valid points and I look forward to reading Dr. Rauser's counterpoints in his new book. That being said, I have no doubt that "Progressive Christians" do actually LOVE Jesus. The real question however is not one about devotion, but about practice... and is not an exclusive query of "Progressives" or "Liberals" but of all us in the faith who proclaim to be followers of Christ and I can only look to scripture for the answer... “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of My Father in heaven. On that day many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name? Then I will announce to them, ‘I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers! (Matthew 7:21-23 HCSB)

[@Cocomelon_baby-gr4qg]

This is exactly right. Jesus wants his followers to follow Him and live out their faith instead of arguing over doctrinal matters.

[@gulanhem9495]

Progressive christians love the image of Jesus as a human philosopher and social activist, who fought power structures in occupied ancient Palestine.

[@universalistsnape8584]

That verse is referring to false prophets. It’s perhaps the most abused verse in the New Testament.

[@nicholaspaulbeharry5779]

I love the CSB and HCSB!

[@Sauveguy]

​@@universalistsnape8584No its about those who call themselves Christians, but no fruits or good deeds showing they really are following Jesus Christ. Real faith is not only believing but by doing good towards others, as Jesus clearly proclaimed.

[@barristerh5379]

I went from indifferent about this discussion to my eyes looking at my brain when he brought up the clump of cells in response to a doctrine of assent to Christ. His summary of how he defines a christian is just restating the whole point of Childers’ book - that Jesus, salvation, sin, etc, can be redefined in progressive Christianity so much that at some point it ceases to be Christian. Someone who loves Jesus as a great moral teacher still ‘loves’ him in some sense, but as C.S Lewis so famously said, Jesus didn’t leave that door open. Therefore, the Church must exercise judgment and exclude those who assert beliefs which are at odds with it. The progressive church really doesn’t ‘include’ conservative Christianity anymore than the conservatives churches ‘include’ progressives. Let’s not pretend that progressive churches are ‘inclusive’ to beliefs which are incompatible with their theologies.

[@TheTruthseeker1231]

Yes, an attempt at sneaking into supporting abortion while trying to sound like you are having a theological debate. When one hides their agenda like this, it is a questionable practice. I don't believe this man is sincere.

[@Ttcopp12rt]

💯

[@countspamolot]

Amen to all that brother

[@daynehaworth9258]

Well Dr Rauser disagrees with Alisa but never said she isnt a Christian. So his brand of progressive Christianity is quite inclusive even if he has theological distinctions

[@jakelee7083]

@@daynehaworth9258 Fair enough, but the question is not whether the old guard of Christianity are still "Christian," it's whether this new brand conforms to the basic principles and doctrines found in the Bible.

[@reevertoun]

"he's been following me around online criticizing my book" Sounds like what you're doing to Alissa actually.

[@TheTruthseeker1231]

I love the dance around defining what a progressive is. You always know that when they don't tell you what they believe then they don't want you to know what they believe. Just tell us what you really believe.

[@IamGrimalkin]

The way he defines progressive Christian, it sounds like he's basically using it as a synonym for "critical thinking christian". The problem is, if you define it that way, it could potentially include Childers herself, and exclude vast swathes of people Childers was talking about; so going by those definitions they're basically talking past each other. I think a much better definition is one using the name: progressive Christians believe doctrine should "progress" with the wider society. In other words, a progressive Christian would believe in something akin to the "development of doctrine"; but it is mediated by society instead of the church. And unlike the development of doctrine, with the "progressive" view new ideas can contradict and supersede new ones, including ones found in the bible.

[@valthiriansunstrider2540]

@@IamGrimalkin This happens in accord with most modern progressive beliefs in things like deconstructionism, the idea that all ideas are reducible to language, language being an entity that is changeable and fluid along the course of "societal development"; therefore absolute truth and ideas that go beyond linguistics (i.e. propositions) are unknowable if they even exist. It fits well with ideas of societal "progress" determining what is true or at least what should be regarded as true by everyone. It necessarily excludes beliefs in absolute truth and objective morality.

[@IamGrimalkin]

@@valthiriansunstrider2540 Personally I would separate progressive Christianity from postmodernism. The main reason they seem to go together is that exclusivism (as defined in this video) and postmodernism really strongly and obviously contradict; but there are plenty of moderately conservative (except exclusivism) christians who sound pretty postmodern if you ask, and plenty of progressive Christians who wholly reject postmodernism. The position I was outlining is perhaps attractive to some for postmodernist reasons, others for some other reasons, but some land on that perspective for similar reasons to why some believe in the Development of Doctrine.

[@peterjs007]

He seems pretty slippery in general on his social media and passes it off as nuance. He says progressive is a relative term, but then suggests that the movement is defined as he says it is.

[@ricobonifacio1095]

If God never changes, neither does his likes and dislikes, no matter what sin is chick at the time.

[@ChristenDOM010]

A-M-E-N !

[@thethirdchimpanzee]

Really, because he changes his likes and dislikes a LOT in the Bible. Mostly between the Old and New Testaments (on things like eating pork and circumcision and the need for animal sacrifice, but also on how to treat others, especially if the slighted you - He goes from "an eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek". (And to digress, the VERY SAME book of the Bible that forbids homosexuality - also forbids tattoos. And as far as I know, a sin is a sin, God doesn't rank them by degree.)

[@jotunman627]

@@thethirdchimpanzee "You must know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is within - the Spirit you have received from God. You are not your own. You have been purchased at a price. So, glorify God in your body" (I Cor. 6:9-11, 15-20). So yes, an indecent tatoo dishonors the body, the temple of the H.S.

[@saulgoo2334]

Chic. Not trying to be rude.

[@timwilkins2008]

God changes a lot in the Bible and even "repents".

[@davidr1620]

I’m very politically conservative/libertarian and pretty theologically conservative. I’m also very concerned about “progressive Christianity” and how it can often be associated with a garbled and confused view of Christianity. Having said that, Rouser’s points are well taken and not nearly the radical nonsense that I was expecting, given the title of the video and the comments on here. We musnt be naive and assume that just because someone says they are a Christian, then they must be by definition. But Rouser seemed to deal with that anticipated objection in the talk. And we also shouldn’t misrepresent someone’s views because we disagree with them. Im not an expert on the progressive movement. I do know of some acquaintances that seemed to follow it and ended up either outright denying the orthodox Christianity or adopted very unchristian views. I also have noticed those who follow Brian McClaren to begin holding views that I find quite bizarre and they began to develop a bitter hatred toward those who defend the life of the unborn or capitalism or those who criticize BLM, what have you. But I merely know of some secondhand reports of McClaren’s personal views. I don’t know firsthand. I just have a pretty bad impression based on my experience. It just didn’t seem like Rouser is defending what some in the comment section claim he is defending. He’s not saying all of this progressive movement is authentically Christian, just that we have to be careful in our assumptions with such shoddy evidence. Haven’t read Childers’ or Rouser’s book, but at least the arguments he makes in his citations of Childers’ book do seem to be fair critiques. My impression of progressive Christianity is extremely negative, but I really couldn’t find very much in here that I saw to be extraordinarily objectionable. Perhaps I would if I read his book. But perhaps not.

[@firebynight777]

"I haven't found much here that is extraordinarily objectionable" is exactly the point. Progressive Christians are masters of the motte and bailey tactic. They will make radical or innovative claims or gain a following by "just asking questions" about historic Christian doctrine but then, when challenged, will retreat to "all I'm saying is [insert belief no one objects to]".

[@davidr1620]

@@firebynight777 that’s fine. But until I hear something explicit that I disagree with, I can’t insert words into their mouths.

[@caleb.lindsay]

I agree with Childers based on everything I’ve watched from the vast majority that claim some general affiliation with it. We need classifications to discuss anything, otherwise we’d have to state their entire belief set in completion before discussing anything. Identity of Jesus and the nature of sin, repentance, and belief in His work has been necessary basically from the very beginning; “repent and believe.” If you alter those things, you lose something paramount. Progressive Christianity, as the general term tends to imply, regularly alters those things to massive degrees.

[@peterjs007]

Still need to watch this. I've come across him on twitter, but don't understand why he feels so strongly about defending Progressives or why we need "Progressive" Christianity at all. It's just a different cultural baggage to evangelical. I've listened to Alissa and think of what she critiques is found in progressive Christian circles and is quite concerning. Sound doctrine is important.

[@greglogan7706]

Pete, Alyssa's egocentric self righteousness God complex and, to be honest, a lot of ignorance is what should be concerning you.... In addition Pete Enns did a great takedown on her whole gig

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

Sound doctrine is important. That’s why Rauser spends so much time talking about Progressive Christianity. Alissa is a really nice and caring person but she barely understands Progressive Christianity and that’s what Rauser is on here for.

[@AtomicSea]

The phrase “relationship with Jesus” can mean so many different things to so many different people. It’s ridiculous (but expected) that Randal would reduce salvation/Christianity to that. Everything depends on what “relationship” means, and the “identity” of Jesus. Progressives will use the name “Jesus” but they’ll do it in a biblically unrecognizable way, like “Christ Consciousness”, for example. By reducing it to “relationship with Jesus”, Randal is able to use words that have enough play to satisfy conservatives and progressives at the same time. It’s kinda slimy. Also, as anyone who has actually listened to Randal for a long time would know, this sort of idea that we can rely on “Jesus Alone” is how he determines what is “actually inspired” and what isn’t. Because Randal knows best about “who God is”, not the biblical writers. That’s why doctrine comes back around to being very important. If we don’t actually believe certain things about they Bible, then it becomes the Wild West of theology. One of the most important things about the Bible is that *It Is God’s Chosen Method of Revealing His Own Identity to People*. Randal, and other progressives, maneuver around that when they bypass certain parts of the Bible (Canaanite Conquest), and say that they can have a relationship with God without the whole Bible. Like obviously they’ve missed the entire point of inspiration, if they even believe in that sort of thing. Maybe they believe in “partial inspiration”?

[@Ttcopp12rt]

Well said 👌

[@jonathaneaslick3204]

I wanted to post something like this all day but came on here tonight to see you put it. A relationship with Christ means nothing if we can not settle on something concrete that Christ believed or propagated. To say every theological and philosophical conception masked in the verbiage and tapestry of Christianity is valid that is like saying none of them are valid. There is either eternal hell, annihilation, or neither, but they all cannot be equally true and valid at the same point. Each view changes how our relationship with Christ will play out, and each one will affect our understanding of concepts like the great commission. How can we have a true relationship with Christ if we cannot actually grasp certain truths about what Christ said or did.

[@xXXDeadlyHavocXXx]

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it" (Matt 7:13-14)

[@chase6579]

Many will say "lord, Lord, did I not cast out demons and prophecy in your name?" I never knew you. Depart from me. (Paraphrase)

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

I understand Dr Rauser was trying to make a point about what's necessary for salvation and inclusivism but his characterization of Vatican II through Rahner stretches too much what the Council does say. It certainly isn't the case that the Church has adopted inclusivism without any qualification but a development on the concession that invincible ignorance can't damn a person. The Catholic Church hasn't become rahnerian since 1965, that would be attributing too much to a single man. And in this sense, the Church can be both exclusive of those who reject the faith and inclusive of those who accept it but aren't in full communion. I think the distinction Dr Rauser made about soteriology and ecclesiology is a very good one.

[@chase6579]

Sanctus Unum

[@ROLLTHEMBONES]

It's interesting that repentance wasn't mentioned in explanation of soteriology.

[@Particularly_John_Gill]

Hey brother. Soteriology is the “doctrine of salvation”. Repentance is the fruit of salvation. So if we are being precise repentance isn’t what saves you, but only faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I’m sure you meant it that way, but it’s important to be precise.

[@StallionFernando]

@@Particularly_John_Gill without repentance there is no salvation.

[@daynehaworth9258]

@@StallionFernando That is called Lordship Salvationism not Salvation

[@StallionFernando]

@@daynehaworth9258 call it whatever you want but it's what the bible says. "Repent AND Believe"

[@faith9659]

I was a very progressive Christian before l truly repented

[@anthonybarber3872]

The discussion did not get into problems found within Progressive Christianity.......A lowered view of the Bible, a lowered view of Jesus Christ, redefining of terms, focus on social justice instead of sin, salvation and sanctification....but it is GOOD to ask questions!

[@alexjurado6029]

He doesn’t have a view on the issue of homosexuality? Well, that was a waste of nearly an hour.

[@Ttcopp12rt]

Yep! Shows he is compromising the word of God. He knows what it says yet he abstains from relaying what God has said.. Says it all 🤷

[@EssenceofPureFlavor]

I was following Rauser until he got to discussing the 7 essentials of the faith. I do think there are people who would fall under the "progressive umbrella" who are genuine believers, but it's a spectrum, and while you can disagree on things like the exact nature of the atonement, hell, even universal reconciliation, etc., you can't disagree on whether Jesus is fully God and fully man, whether we are all sinners in need of His grace, etc. I think it's a more complex issue than Rauser OR Childers seem to want to make it out to be. If you hold to the essentials, you can be wrong on a LOT and still be saved, but just saying "I am a Christian" isn't enough, and there are definitely "Christian" churches that are far enough out of bounds to be considered heretical, like the UCC. Even though they may call themselves Christian, they're not.

[@gospelfreak5828]

I think Mike Winger addressed how Penal Substitution is clear in scripture. And I think he also shows how essential it is to the Gospel. The cross doesn’t make much sense without it.

[@Ttcopp12rt]

Its a clear fact. Anyone who says otherwise is simply acting on behalf of satan

[@mf_hume]

I really enjoyed Randal's perspective here. I think he sets a really good example for engaging in these disagreements, so it's discouraging to see so many folks in the comments flaming him. :(

[@valthiriansunstrider2540]

Criticism is not "flaming." And the criticism in the comments is quite pertinent.

[@TheTruthseeker1231]

If he would honestly speak openly about what he believes it might be easier to have a discussion. He is clear enough about what he disagrees with. In most of his discussion, he conceals more than he reveals.

[@TheOtherCaleb]

Criticism ≠ Flaming

[@overthinkingchristian8732]

Gonna listen as soon as I can! I'm not progressive but am saddened when progressive Christians are painted with a broad brush. I have serious disagreements with my progressive brothers/sisters, but see how much so many of them *do* love Jesus. For a great voice out there who critiques both fundamentalism *and* progressive Christianity, your audience would benefit from checking out Dr. A.J. Swoboda.

[@Ttcopp12rt]

According to your reasoning - all Muslims are brothers and sisters because they too love Jesus....See? This is precisely why a line is drawn. If we use your standards then everyone is a believer - including Muslims, and Jehovah's Witnessess', and even Mormons

[@overthinkingchristian8732]

@@Ttcopp12rt I'm referring to specific brothers and sisters in Christ whom I have encountered who hold to some sort of orthodoxy. I've also met other Progressive Christians who I cannot consider Christian. My point is simple: get to know the other side just a little bit because what you find might surprise you. This is why broad-brushing should be avoided on all sides.

[@sorenpx]

@Overthinking Christian If they "hold to some sort of orthodoxy," what makes them progressive?

[@overthinkingchristian8732]

@@sorenpx It depends. Sometimes *others* label them that way because of political differences.

[@StallionFernando]

Whether they love Jesus becomes irrelevant if Christ does not know them, notice Jesus says "you will know them by their fruits" if people aren't conforming their their life towards the bible then what they feel or think becomes irrelevant. I'm sure there are a few progressives who are genuine but I honestly don't know how you can continue to be a Christian and stay a progressive, I would assume the holy spirit will eventually lead them away from those teachings.

[@JoelHenleyMusic]

Thank you so much for having this conversation!

[@amateurphilosopher4397]

His defense of Pete is merely an appeal to authority. He offered no defense of any doctrinal position he takes. Very unfortunate.

[@Ttcopp12rt]

@@BigIdeaSeeker Yeah, whatever you say can be dismissed...Nowadays "Atheist" is synonymous with "nonsensical" - so we cant take your words to be anything meaningful, sorry 🤷

[@javariusjavarlamariuslamar3759]

@@Ttcopp12rt you’re joking right

[@IamGrimalkin]

The thing is, all the ideas Alissa was apparently strawmanning are held by real people, and I have met people with these ideas. Effectively you could say that she's not wrong, she just identified the wrong ringleaders.

[@IamGrimalkin]

@@BigIdeaSeeker I can see the issue with Ken Ham, although I'm not aware if any major controversies surrounding Frank Turek. I'm not a fan of his abrasive style though.

[@IamGrimalkin]

@@BigIdeaSeeker I haven't read any of his books so I wouldn't know, my impression is based solely on a handful of KZbin videos. Many of them were Q & As, and he didn't seem to be misrepresenting his questioners as such; but he did seem a bit dismissive and confrontational which is why I'm not a fan. However, I (and I assumed you, although perhaps I misunderstood) was originally talking about ideas, not his tactics. I don't approve of Turek's tactics, but I haven't heard anything grossly wrong about his ideas, from my limited experience. When it comes to his books though, I suspect his views might representative of atheists he had personally encountered; or at least his experience to that is closer than yours. Unfortunately, this probably doesn't align well with atheists who pick up his books (as naturally an atheist who would pick up one of his books would be more open-minded and well-read than the average).

[@Ttcopp12rt]

@@BigIdeaSeeker Thats ironic given that most atheists misrepresent Christians 🤔

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

I think that’s well said. At the same time, Alissa does something very dangerous which is to strawmen some progressive views which pushes people away from understanding them. Sure, some people believe what she’s attacking but her making it seem like there’s only a black and white makes people miss the grey in the middle.

[@RickysPlums]

Dr Randal has such a nuanced and intelligently thought out position. I applaud you for having him on

[@AlexADalton]

Rauser is a bit of a mess. Bright guy with some decent ideas, so well worth exploring some of his apologetic writings, but once you get a peek into his actual theology, it's all based around his emotions. He's especially weak on historical and interpretive matters related to the Bible, often completely neglecting the contemporary social contexts of the passages he's discussing.

[@JB-ku7kv]

Cause he’s progressive…he’s a few years away from the non-Christian progressives.

[@Ttcopp12rt]

💯

[@daynehaworth9258]

Alisa Childers 8 requirements for Christian identity are deeply concerning! No need for a belief in the trinity is heretical to exclude such! Claiming that all Christian's must be exclusivists is deeply concerning. Thank you Dr Rauser for bringing this up. Also have been concerned that Childers seems to be advocating Christianity is actually her sectarian theological box not actual Christianity as defined by the Apostles Creed.

[@gulanhem9495]

"deeply concerning", that's exactly the orwellian language the woke use before they cancel somebody. 🤭 It's so obvious that woke christians don't believe in god or anything supernatural. To them it's all about human progression toward utopia on earth. To them Jesus was just a human role model.

[@daynehaworth9258]

@@gulanhem9495 🤣👀

[@gulanhem9495]

@@daynehaworth9258 You condone mass immigration, multiculturalism, universalism, globalism, covid hysteria, climate alarmism, BLM, equality of outcome and the killing of people in the womb. I am afraid that while you intellectually rerect the supernatural, you might have the soul of Satan in your heart. You are not a Christian, that I know for sure.

[@annabel6038]

His claim that he's not engaging in ad-hominem 'bashing' at 2:45 kind of rings hollow when he literally calls Alisa Childers a 'heresy hunter' on the cover of the book.

[@daynehaworth9258]

She is... that's the exact aim of her book

[@annabel6038]

@@daynehaworth9258 Examining the claims of progressive Christianity is not ad hominem. Attacking and name-calling progressive Christians would be, but I've read the book and she purely focuses on criticising the ideas. And identifying heresy doesn't automatically make you a 'heresy hunter', she even mentions actual heresy hunters in her book, those running discernment blogs in dusty corners of the internet who sit around just waiting for someone to say something wrong or delighting in pointing fingers. I don't think a fair reading of her book would put her in that camp.

[@jpielemeierpianist]

Great to see such a careful, knowledgeable, wise, and well-read thinker such as Rauser engaging with the wild drivel of this book.

[@TBOTSS]

Ah vile name-calling; the mind of a progressive in all of it's glory.

[@shannonl9633]

I deeply appreciate this conversation. It is so helpful.

[@andrewdavidson8167]

Why is Randal Rauser's material not broadly known? So good and encouraging

[@davidlopez-flores1147]

Thank you for Cameron and Dr. Rauser!

[@Matt-ck3pp]

Sounds like he’s got an axe to grind

[@deion312]

Randal Rauser found out what true Christianity means after 2,000 years of church history and 2,000 years of firmly held beliefs... lol

[@michaelharrington6698]

Lol, same for protestants but for 1500

[@deion312]

@@michaelharrington6698 Yeah, although catholics and protestants do agree on quite a bit

[@Psa22-6]

@@michaelharrington6698 indulgences wasn't held to for 1500 years before protestantism, thats like the main reason for the split

[@michaelharrington6698]

@@Psa22-6 Friend if the Eucharist is truly Our Lord I don't really care about indulgences.

[@Psa22-6]

@@michaelharrington6698 you saying it is Him or that its symbolic?

[@Particularly_John_Gill]

This guy out here defending Pete Enns and Richard Rohr? No thanks!!

[@Gumbi1012]

Nuance is not your thing, is it?

[@Particularly_John_Gill]

@@Gumbi1012 Orthodoxy isn't your thing, is it?

[@Ttcopp12rt]

Right? Lol Incredible!

[@javariusjavarlamariuslamar3759]

What’s wrong with Pete Enns? I agree with you that Richard Rohr is wrong tho but to admit the Bible isn’t infallible like Enns does it to be honest with oneself

[@Particularly_John_Gill]

@@javariusjavarlamariuslamar3759 Just about everything is wrong with Pete Enns. You stated one of the problems with both you and him. But nothing of Pete Enns beliefs is Orthodox.

[@michaelx5070]

It's tricky because Rauser seems to have some really valuable perspectives on Childer's work, but by using the rhetoric that he did in this video, he seems to be contributing to the polarized nature of the debate that he criticizes. I wonder how receptive Childers will be to discussing this with Rauser after she sees this video and hears what terms he used to describe her book. But also I understand that he really wanted CCs audience to understand the concerns he had which led him to use the language that he did.

[@StallionFernando]

Honestly most of what this dude said is pure nonsense, what point are the good points you think he was making?

[@gretareinarsson7461]

Of course progressive Christians love Jesus too. There is unfortunately too much of divisive “isms” among Christians instead of being together as Christians.

[@billyg898]

But we need to first determine what even is a Christian. One person saying "Accepting X, Y, Z makes you a Christian" and another saying "No, A, B, C makes you a Christian", which is all this is, doesn't address how we can even figure out who should be being together. Paul is clear that if people are divided, that division should be made clear so that true Christians can be recognized (1 Cor 11:18-19). Christ wants us all united in truth, he doesn't want us pretending that we are.

[@Ttcopp12rt]

So do Muslims love Jesus too - do we now sympathize for them and include them as believers?? And @Billy G has no leg to stand on, as a Catholic, progressive Christians are off to hell like Protestants and Eastern Orthodox folks because they dont affirm man-made dogmas. He is last person who should be taken seriously.

[@billyg898]

@@Ttcopp12rt Dude, I don't even know what your point against me is. Progressives don't affirm man-made dogmas? I am Catholic. My whole point is that we shouldn't pretend we are united with progressives and others. I agree about the Muslim analogy.

[@gulanhem9495]

Yes, of course progressive christians love Jesus! Progressive christians love the image of Jesus as a human philosopher and social activist, who fought power structures in occupied ancient Palestine. 🤭

[@TheCastlecrafter]

I wanted to hear him out, but if Randal took the time to listen to Alisa Childers, he would realize that 98% of his claims she would agree with. The problem remains though, although he seems to think that progressive Christianity doesn’t exist, he makes no argument in direct support of the ideology Alisa is talking about. It’s clear that he supports them, but rather he’s using an umbrella argument where he’s assuming all forms of Christianity are good and you’re not allowed to analyze differences. That’s a dangerous place to be. Read Galatians…

[@gulanhem9495]

It's a way to manipulate words and thereby infiltrate Christian circles where the woke are only a tiny minority. But before you know it, you have a church devoid of anything supernatural and divine, and it's all about creating utopia here on earth according to the socialist political ideology.

[@rw3452]

Alisa really should have been on this show for it to be fair.

[@rw3452]

@@DannySmith862 maybe fair isn’t the right word I just would have liked her clarification

[@rw3452]

@@DannySmith862 undecided, which is why I think it would have been good for them q&a each other. Do you think her book needs to be revised or do you think it holds water?

[@rw3452]

@@DannySmith862 👀

[@leluyaa]

Anyone who disagrees with Jesus and bends His word to fit his or her politically correct, trendy hipster lifestyle is not a Christian 👍🏼

[@petar_xyz]

Amen

[@roubad9034]

Did he even do that? No.

[@damerkharmawphlang4196]

I agree with him when he said that Childers' claim that you have to believe these 8 things to be saved is outrageous.

[@Ttcopp12rt]

Then you are anti-Catholic who believes keeping 20+ dogmas is necessary for salvation is also outrageous, right?

[@daynehaworth9258]

@@Ttcopp12rt both are wrong

[@daynehaworth9258]

@Damer Yes that is a huge red flag for me too

[@computernerd1392]

@@Ttcopp12rt Randal Rauser is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[@hondotheology]

i love the double talk! makes it impossible to criticize! I'll have to try that

[@leslieviljoen]

This was a great talk, thanks Cameron and Randal!

[@SniffingOutPharisees-DanielP]

👉Are you a true Christian? Take this test!👈 👉Test #1 👉How is one saved from hell? Pick one letter. A) believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for your salvation. B) repent of your sins and believe in Jesus Christ for your salvation. C) be baptized, repent of your sins and believe in Jesus Christ for your salvation. D) none of the above 👉Test #2 👉Is OSAS(Once saved always saved) true? Pick one letter. A) yes B) no C) not sure

[@cwstreeper]

1. B 2. C. I like your style. 😉

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

10min into this and can't take anymore. Randal started accusing Childers of making "dubious claims", "otherizing them", and "treats them as enemies". Two problems with that. First, Cameron if you're gonna allow that to happen on your show from ANY side then you should confront that and make sure they back that up with something. A simple "Such as? Can you give me an example of the "dubious claim" and the others. Secondly, what's wrong with any of that IF the shoe fits? Isn't that EXACTLY what we're told to do with False Teachers and Heretics? "Mark and avoid"? Then, not long after that Randal says something about the Black & White/Right or Wrong mindset and that's not Reality. Really? While that may be true of some "gray areas" of Scripture it MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT true when it comes to behaviors that God CLEARLY defines as sin. There is Truth and there is not truth and it seems to me that Randal has lost sight of that along with the spiritual warfare behind the deception found in Progressive Christianity. I mean, seriously Randal, if you can see the falsehood and DANGER of not seeing a problem with a movie that paints God as a woman then I have SERIOUS concerns about whether you're actually indwelt with the Holy Spirit. About a month ago I was doing a DDG for something and came across some seminary or institution or such that had to do with "Equality". I remember seeing three "pastors" listed on the page that I recognized right off. John Shelby Spong, Jory Micah, and Branden Robertson. That should tell you all you need to know except if I recall correctly the page and/or institution/organization had "Progressive Christianity" in the title or description. So if they use the moniker what is wrong with calling a spade a spade? Third, Randal talks as if Polarization is a bad thing. It's NOT. Jesus said Himself that he would rather one be hot or cold. And when it comes to the Kingdom you are either in or out. You're either a wheat or tare. A sheep or goat. A Christian or not. Fourth, and lastly, I know Cameron doesn't like one nitpicking someone apart by pointing out their fallacies but when one resorts to nothing but Boogeyman, Non Sequitur, Strawmen/Red-herring fallacies what is one left with? Except to resort to my own Boogeyman fallacy and say that if Randal seriously thinks that John Pavlovitz is correct in saying that "Progressive Christianity is Christianity" then there really isn't anything more to talk about except for what Randal thinks Christianity is. FWIW, I usually like to watch things with people that have opposing POVs and beliefs that my own because I find they will often open my eyes to things I didn't see before and should consider as well as often helping me to Steel Man my own arguments. But I just don't see that happening here.

[@kito-]

Great to hear that Randal is writing a book about gay relationships, very interested in what he has to say

[@jakeroberts6274]

Disappointing and not up the channel's normally quality. Did not accurately represent Alisha's views so either she needed to be here or the interviewer needs to be able to constructively challenge and call out clear falsehoods. He was just yet another "Progressive" that dances around unable to define anything and ultimately creates all this confusion to be pro-homosexuality as he started at the end. If this had been a discussion instead of a book-promo it might have been useful.

[@Ttcopp12rt]

💯💯💯

[@jpielemeierpianist]

Completely represented her views: he was literally just reading passages from her book, in their proper context (as opposed to her, pulling the worst sounding quotes from her “enemies” and stringing them together. Christianity is changing, and this is a cause of fear for people, the response of which is just to double down and create heretics out of one’s perceived enemies.

[@petar_xyz]

Randal Rauser gives me postmodernism vibes. I'm wondering how he manages to live on a daily basis with such views. Btw, progressive Christianity is wrong!

[@1991jj]

Awesome content Cameron. You should get Kieth Giles on. I dont think he identifies as "progressive" but often gets lumped in with them and hes sympathetic to progressive positions. He would be a great interview.

[@AtomicSea]

Giles has been on to debate universalism, vs chris date, I think.

[@saulgoo2334]

@@AtomicSeaThat was a great debate. I’d love to see Robin Parry, David Gushee, Brad Jersak or Tim Whitaker.

[@FrostinthePines]

Glad Dr. Rauser was able to come on the show and respond to Childers' inaccurate nonsense

[@dianebice9103]

I really enjoyed this; i learned a lot; I like Rauser’s brain! 🥰

[@cesaraugustoscur]

I find the therm definition lackluster. "To progress". In some sense that is what the Catholic Church does. In another sense is the definition of conservationism as well. Nobody is against progress in fact. The problem is not the, but the distinctions. When is progress is desirable and when it is not. And what is to be considered progress and what not. To use this therm as a blanket it to assume the political sense in my eyes, which means to change for the sake of the change itself, which is an absurd against prudence and logic. I would get away from any therm like that like it is the devil, because it really sound like devil, walks like devil ...

[@SakutoNoSAI]

Cam, I would suggest the phrase Steelmanning when dealing with more hostile apologists. And I say hostile in a morally neutral sense, theology can be insensing.

[@daynehaworth9258]

Would be fascinated to see Dr Rauser and Childers do a debate

[@nathanmarone]

The key in this debate is going to revolve around what we determine to be essential doctrines. Will God forgive doctrinal errors when he judges? I'm sure he will. But we are still going to have to determine which doctrines count as essential for the Christian and which do not. We will need to make some boundary lines. The danger of more conservative/fundamentalist approaches is that they have set up boundaries on secondary or debatable issues, and then linked those boundaries to salvation itself. Let's say that it turns out the Christus Victor approach to the atonement ends up being wrong. It's presumptuous to assume that those who hold Christus Victor (especially in opposition to Penal Substitutionary) cannot inherit the kingdom. It's hard to imagine God looking at someone who has followed his ways and submitted to his Lordship, and saying, "Sorry, bro. You checked the wrong box on atonement theory." But progressive Christians are, at times, in danger of the opposite error, one in which few meaningful boundaries are placed on Christian belief. And then "Christianity" becomes relatively meaningless except as a sort of cultural/subculture designation.

[@kito-]

Randal is awesome

[@aaronbarkley539]

The fact that he thought those 8 doctrines of belief were problematic is in fact problematic. Christianity literally doesn’t mean anything it seems to him and it’s ironic that progressive Christian’s don’t want to be called that but it’s because they know how bad that label is

[@Cocomelon_baby-gr4qg]

Randle has stated on other podcasts (Pinecreek) that he affirms the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. And his seminary has a statement of faith that he signs every year that is pretty orthodox in its content. I think he agrees with the first 7 points Alisa mentioned although he didn’t clearly affirm it because he got hung up on #8. I agree that William Lane Craig might not affirm #8, and I think Billy Graham would hesitate on #8 also. Progressives are on a spectrum, and Randal seems to lean more conservative than people like McLaren or Rob Bell, I think.

[@JC-oz6xn]

Thank God we have the opportunity to love Him, have Him animate us, have us walk this world in joy and avoid unfruitful conversations like this one.

[@rw3452]

If you look at the Christian world would you say progressive Christian is a good thing?

[@roubad9034]

Yes.

[@rw3452]

@@roubad9034 🤣

[@achristian11]

2Ti 4:3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions. - -> Progressive woke people

[@nfpbadmin5944]

Evangelicalism is a modernist heresy.

[@daviddivad777]

what Jesus do they love? 2 Co 11 : 4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received or a different gospel which you have not accepted-you may well put up with it!

[@EsraRanter]

The God who calls us to love our neighbours and proclaim good news to the poor still is the God who "tabernacled" Himself in our humanity to suffer the extreme penalty as the Atoning sacrifice for our sins. The God of compassion and social justice then arose bodily from the grave that whoever turns from sin and trusts in Him will inherit life in the eternal kingdom to come. That is the Gospel of Joshua of Nazareth. When "Progressive Christianity" raises "social" questions it is........ challenging, thought provoking and even (I'd say) rather inspiring, the big hearted compassion of Progressive Christian's gains my respect. Progressive Christian's do "love Jesus too" However when some Progressive Christian leaders can spout forth what they do then you indeed have to ask very suspicious questions of the movement. Joshua of Nazareth is "a teacher not a saviour" whose death was not the propituation of our sins but merely "tragically futile" and of course there was no third day resurrection- Joshua was dug up from his common burial pit and eaten by wild beasts or just left to rot on the cross. But all is not lost, Peter has a new-agey internal experience in which he feels Joshua is alive in some magical ethereal sense and while He is dead, his teachings remain. So Christianity is an ideology, religious humanism, not the power of God for salvation (Rom1:16). Look at Paul's letters and compare it to this "Jesus Seminar" stuff. Is it the gospel? I would say that this is not Christianity at all but "strange gods" and an invented christ of faith. "guru jesus" to replace the real Jesus they ignore because they believe he died way way back. I believe it is time to scrap the "Progressive"/ "Liberal" label and replace them with the definitions "Questioning" and "Sceptical", defined by attitude as much doctrine. To be fair to Ms Childers and other "hard" criitics of PC, some "Liberals" are not very Liberal and quite "fundy" in their militant disbelief and out to push this in the churches. That said I wish that those who come out so strongly against "Progressive Christianity" would denounce (as I would call it) the heresy of "Prosperity Gospel" teaching as strongly. And include the right wing social gospel in their denouncing of "social gospels". Progressives pose good questions, but some "Progressive" leaders provide terrible answers.

[@joshdb142]

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, even now I say again: if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! Galatians 1:8‭-‬9 NASB2020

[@JB-ku7kv]

He’s just splitting hairs, he’s in a slippery slope and that slopes only intent is to destroy the church

[@chase6579]

The slippery slope has always been real.

[@davidlopez-flores1147]

I wonder if most of the people in the comments actually watched the live-stream?

[@banmancan1894]

Same haha. I’m leaning in the no direction.

[@valthiriansunstrider2540]

"They disagree with me, therefore they didn't watch my video." Ok

[@NSAd_music]

I did....and most people disagreeing with this guy are correct...his points weren't refuting much of what Alisa said in her book....in fact he mostly proved her points lol....it was quite funny...

[@banmancan1894]

@@valthiriansunstrider2540 I don't know how that makes any sense...unless that reply is proving our point. There are clear indicators if people watched the content. Exhibit A: people will actually and accurately reflects and thinks about the content. I can't speak for David but when I hear people bring up points that only reflect the title rather than the content actually within the conversation, then I find it logical to conclude someone didn't watch the content.

[@watchman2866]

Such a discord has to establish its doctrines from the scriptures using the text. It can't be discussed at the person level because no one would claim they know everything and can't be taught new things, but the new things must be something the text have always taught two thousand plus years ago. Doctrine is essential to who and how we know and understand Jesus Christ and his will. The detector of errors and false teachings. If a student in his class rejected the resurrection, then it's justified and loving to judge and criticise them. Leaving it unchallenged isn't love and breed confusion.

[@StallionFernando]

How to speak alot without saying anything of substance.

[@blairmcian]

Bertuzzi shouldn't say "like" to introduce every second or third clause. It's epidemic these days and is like starting sentences with "So. . .," just static or filling.

[@fraserdaniel3999]

Childers is a bad actor who doesn’t really care about representing people fairly & likes to make arbitrary comments about who’s a Christian and who’s not!

[@nardforu131]

Too confusing. Good thing we have the catholic cathecism.

[@GoalkeeperzTM]

Right? 😂

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Cameron, in my opinion, your examples of people being saved *without* conscious acceptance of Christ do *not* actually prove that claim. Another possibility is that conscious acceptance IS required for aionious life in New Jerusalem, but that people are granted *postmortem* opportunities to acquire and produce such conscious acceptance of Christ. And perhaps every single person eventually will, even if their false sense has to be destroyed in the fires of the age to come. In fact, there *is* some Biblical evidence (and some good philosophical arguments …) favoring this view. See Reitan and Kronen’s 2011 “God’s Final Victory,” 2nd edition of Talbott’s “Inescapable Love of God,” Robin Parry’s “The Evangelical Universalist,” the 2003 volume “Universal Salvation? The Current Debate” edited by Parry and Partridge, and even DBH’s new book (plus commentaries in his NT translation), although the DBH book has a lot of crap and incomplete arguments in it.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

False self* not “sense.” Will edit later

[@chase6579]

No. People are damned. Our Lord himself is very clear about this.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@chase6579 Reitan and Kronen’s 2011 “God’s Final Victory,” 2nd edition of Talbott’s “Inescapable Love of God,” Robin Parry’s “The Evangelical Universalist,” the 2003 volume “Universal Salvation? The Current Debate” edited by Parry and Partridge, and even DBH’s new mixed-bag book (plus his NT translation commentaries), For starters. IF you’re interested in knowing why someone would disagree with you.

[@nfpbadmin5944]

So if someone has a severe learning difficulty, can they not be saved? Because they are actually unable to make a conscious choice, can they be saved?

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@nfpbadmin5944 of course they’d be saved. To think otherwise is objectively evil. I’m sorry if I gave you the opposite impression!

[@robb7855]

This is all low hanging fruit... Maybe get them together to make sure the important disagreements are discussed.

[@DIBBY40]

How on Earth does holding a set of mentally held beliefs "save" a person?

[@ROLLTHEMBONES]

There is only two kingdoms.

[@micahhenley589]

Absolutely! There is the kingdom of God and then there's the kingdom of man. In one kingdom there is justice and in the other one there is injustice. Holiness dwells in one kingdom and depravity dwells in the other. One kingdom promotes love and the other one promotes hatred. Last but not least, one kingdom will joyfully live forever while the other kingdom will wither away and die.

[@Joel-bg3cf]

They don’t love His word, so…

[@Benjamin-to2zq]

Bacon is actually healthy... Probably healthier than kale (unashamed keto/carnivore here )

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

does a keto diet physiologically change your digestive system? as in, does is change your stomach ph levels and stuff like that? I know this is unrelated I'm just asking out of curiosity

[@Benjamin-to2zq]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj i can't speak to that as non medical professional. It doesn't change your digestive system. The keto way of eating primarily changes our bodies primary fuel source from sugar to fat. youtu.b e/yqAEh4bb4tg

[@shannonl9633]

Valid point at 8:57

[@gideondavid30]

This guy wants to set a new paradigm by saying the binary way of looking at the world (good vs evil, truth vs lies, etc) is wrong. Why? Why should we accept his paradigm? He has a very complainy tone in his voice, and gets upset when people do classify Progressive Christians as Christians. He should at the minimum admit that people have a right to object to what they deem heresies and understand where they are coming from. He says it's a bad to use the feces in cake analogy and the bacon kale analogy. Why? Believing in lies is dangerous. The fact that we are limited in our knowledge doesn't mean we don't have the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. Truth is not relative. Correct. He makes the case that we look at scripture from a finite limited point of view and not from God's eye point of view. That is true. But there are better hermeneutics and exegesis than others. Is he suggesting that God deliberately gave scripture to man with man's incapability to property interpret it?

[@roubad9034]

If there's anything i know, i know nothing. 😢

[@tayh.6235]

Is it bad that the mention of John Pavlovitz's name almost triggers a gag relax for me? My real issue with Rauser is that he seems to be able to identify plenty of flaws outside of progressive Christianity, but has basically nothing to say about flaws within it. I've seen other videos and articles of his and he is really trying to soft pedal his actual perspectives in this. He's quite down the ballot on most things I've seen. Basically, if you like shooting guns for fun? You're a horrible Christian and a disgrace to Jesus. How can you even touch such a horrible thing as a gun!? You deny the resurrection? Well, that's not great or orthodox, but he won't say you're firmly not a Christian.

[@ROLLTHEMBONES]

He doesn't have an issue with homosexuality? Unsubscribed.

[@angelus823]

@@AwesomeWrench you don't? It's morally wrong as our God tells us... I dont hate homosexuals though, I sincerely hope they repent

[@apracity7672]

@@AwesomeWrench you dont need to be religious to know that a penis has no place in another man’s rectum and anus and that such acts are objectively disordered

[@angelus823]

@@AwesomeWrench ok

[@floydthomas4195]

@@AwesomeWrench Aristotelean metaphysics disagrees with you. You should get educated instead of blouting out nonsense.

[@floydthomas4195]

​@@AwesomeWrench Your post = something a 15 year old kid would type in the youtube comment section. I will not be more specific - go read Aristotle, or wait 10 years until you grow up.

[@SunIsLost]

Ignore the dislikes, people just like to troll and hate and criticise other people as coping for their own insecurities. Jesus loves you.

[@TacticalGibbons]

55:05 I would like to help Randall find a view of the issue of homosexuality (Although I am concerned that he would be writing a book on such a culturally significant topic without a “view” on the subject). The biblical view: “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” ‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭20:13‬ ‭NIV‬‬ “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭1:24-26‬ ‭NIV‬‬ Now, if Randall has an issue with Leviticus and Romans, then I would like to understand what parts of the Biblical cannon he does accept. Regardless, if this is the case, then the Bible is no longer his authority. You cannot simply ignore what is a harsh damnation of homosexuality in Scripture, and then try to equate it to an “in-house” issue, like pacifism and killing in war-time, especially when scripture directly speaks to the topic. You either acknowledge and submit to what Scripture forbids, or you don’t . This issue is not brought up because “conservatives” have a different “perspective”, and merely want to attack those who disagree over a non-issue. It is because what the Bible clearly calls sin, you downplay and encourage by implication. “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭6:23‬ ‭NIV‬‬ Is that love? To lie to people what scripture teaches? To ignore the very real dangers and cautions given us by the Lord (who says these things BECAUSE he loves us, and wishes that none would perish). And to go back to Randall’s emphasis on relationship with Christ: ““If you love me, keep my commands.” ‭‭John‬ ‭14:15‬ ‭NIV‬‬

[@TacticalGibbons]

@@tanner955 is it from the Bible? If you’re asking me if we should put homosexual people to death today, then no, and I would encourage you to study and understand the scope of the Levitical law.

[@TacticalGibbons]

@@tanner955 ? I’m not sure what’s supposed to mean. I edited the comment above to more accurately answer your question. I haven’t edited the original post since yesterday.

[@JSRINTX]

I had to give up after 20 minutes because this guy is just preddling on and not even saying anything substantial.

[@roubad9034]

Are you serious? Listen!!

[@whatWJDo]

This is a well done video.

[@TacticalGibbons]

Ironic that you post a video “taking about” Alisa Childers in this video, after making the same complaint about James White “talking about” you not 48 hours ago. Seems like a double standard. (And I am not a fan of James White).

[@georgwagner937]

3:56 dude. Literally a few minutes in he says he had her on the channel.

[@TacticalGibbons]

@@georgwagner937 that’s not the point. He complained about being called out by White, and now he’s doing the same thing to Childers. Were it not for his comment I would have no issue with this.

[@justsomeguywhoisntdead1158]

@@TacticalGibbons But he’s not calling out Childers. Pretty sure Cameron disagrees with this guest. How does interviewing a critic of Childers means he’s “calling out” Childers?

[@colbyhill25]

@@TacticalGibbons he somewhat disagrees with Randal Rauser here. Granted he probably should push back on *all* of his guests a bit more… but it’s important to get a wide array of differing Christian opinions on topics. That way we can better sift through what is true and what is false.

[@georgwagner937]

@@TacticalGibbons "I hereby invite Dr. James White to come on my channel to discuss Catholicism. That is, unless he’d rather talk about me than to me." I think that Cameron would be happy to talk to and about Alisa Childers. I don't get how he is showing some sort of double standard. He's not against talking about others. It should just not be the only way we talk. That's how I understand this.

[@ChipKempston]

Progressives love a Jesus that only exists in their own minds and reflects the current spirit of the age. This is obvious. You can see Randal demonstrate his blatant mishandling of Scripture in his first reference to Paul saying we see through a mirror (indirectly), but then we will see face to face (directly). Randal attempts to apply this to "progress" in our knowledge, but that's totally dishonest as Paul is referring to the eschaton or else perhaps our death when we meet God face to face. Paul is not saying that Christianity, or our understanding of it, is going to keep getting better till Jesus returns, as progressives believe. That's why they come up with nonsense like, "Revelation continues to progress, therefore, gay is OK." Further, Jesus presented binary choices repeatedly. He was incredibly exclusive. Also, it doesn't matter if a guy like Pete Enns or anybody else rejects the label "progressive." The devil parades as an angel of light. Self labels are not what we go by, rather, we go by doctrine and fruits. Anybody who thinks "gay is OK" is a progressive and is outside God's kingdom. Couldn't even get out of the first 15 minutes of the video without finding problems with everything that came out of his mouth.

[@TimothyFish]

Cameron, you seemed unprepared for this interview. This guy, clearly, has no love for Alisha Childers, but his basic objections are all strawmen. I would prefer to see you push back on this kind of stuff and force him to address her specific objections. He doesn't actually give any support for anything that he says.

[@barristerh5379]

I think he’s been preoccupied with Rome lately

[@TimothyFish]

@@barristerh5379, possibly. Interestingly, there is some similarity between Catholicism and Progressive Christianity. They both place a higher value on new revelation than on the scriptures, though Catholicism limits this revelation to the Pope, while Progressive Christianity allows for nearly anyone to claim a new revelation from God.

[@mikegski7943]

@@TimothyFish we don't place higher value on new revelation, we just believe it is possible. The main difference is that we don't allow for any one person, even the Pope, to dictate interpretations or doctrine. The problem with what Randal is saying is that he doesn't address people making their life fit Christ as opposed to Christ fitting their life.

[@TimothyFish]

@@mikegski7943, if you believe that it is possible for someone to receive revelation that changes or contradicts what is in scripture, then you place higher value on new revelation. If you placed higher value on scripture then you would reject any claimed new revelation that is inconsistent with scripture.

[@mikegski7943]

@@TimothyFish we don't believe that. Anything contrary to scripture is not compatible with Catholicism

So do you think binary mindset is wrong?

[@jonathanalfred446]

Yess ❤

[@ROLLTHEMBONES]

Either all of scripture is true or none of it is.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

Dangerous mindset. What we do hold is that the Bible is inerrant, not the same.

[@micahhenley589]

Absolutely! Either God's word is 100% true or it is 100% false. There is no in-between. You either love Jesus Christ or you hate Him. As Christ Himself said “Whoever is not with Me is against Me, and whoever does not gather with Me scatters.” Matthew 12:30

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

Fideism is a religious vice, consider that for a moment.

[@eogh]

With the way the bible was compiled I'd be careful. It has many edits even in the earliest gospel with the last few verses of mark being added later by presumably different authors.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@eogh that's not really the issue, we all agree the Bible has multiple authors but it's very different to say: "there's no error in it" as to say: "they book as is, is 100% true and the alternative is that it's a fake" because in the latter you have committed _your own understanding_ of what constitutes the Bible to inerrancy.

[@euanthompson]

I have been mulling it over for a bit wondering why the idea that the angel of death not killing the firstborn of lowly Egyptipons seems wrong to me. I think the idea sits in a really individualistic framework. "God wouldn't have punished a lower class citizen who wasn't opposed to Israel because of Pharoh". Except that God does this kind of thing all the time. He punishes all Israel with a plague when David calls a census that he was not permitted to. He punishes all Israel with a drought because of Ahab. He kills entire households in the wilderness because of the Father. In the Bible there is this idea of the head being responsible for everything under him and an archetype of the people. Jesus is responsible for all those under him and becomes our archetype. I don't think we can say that he didn't kill every firstborn in Egypt. There is just too much evidence to say that he did apply this kind of national punishment to say he didn't in this case, no matter how much we want to think otherwise.

[@AtomicSea]

TIL that Leviticus is more a book of suggestions than a book of laws, wow! Randal always delivers on the deconstruction!

[@AlexADalton]

That's John Walton, not Randal, and Randal does not actually consistently hold that view.

[@AtomicSea]

@@AlexADalton I’m gonna have to look up John Walton lol

[@AlexADalton]

@@AtomicSea see his recent book on the law....Lost World of the Torah

[@AtomicSea]

@@---wp3oc scholars say all sorts of stuff. Whether the ever obedient Israelites followed it like a code of law is entirely different than if God intended it to be a code of law. But yes, my position was over-generalizing the common view that the Torah contains 613 “laws”. Which is what most English bibles refer to when they translate the NT stuff. There is room for nuance, but Randal doesn’t stop at nuance, he wants to go further and reinterpret/rewrite/remove the “law” (certain ones). So anyway, if Paul goes around calling it the Law, then I don’t see why I can’t. And I picked Leviticus because it’s the book with little else.

[@reevertoun]

@air and rum when did Randal make the claim that Leviticus is more a book of suggestions? I watched the whole video and must have missed it.

[@OUTBOUND184]

It’s just rainbowism, let’s face it

[@1991jj]

The ironic thing about Childers is that she lumps in people like Brian Zahnd and Pete Enns who have arguably more conservative views than she does. She just thinks conservative is last couple hundred years. BZ and Pete hold positions that are consistent with patristic thought. In other words, Childers' evangelicalism is more progressive than most of the people she criticises.

[@damerkharmawphlang4196]

What are some of her "progressive" beliefs? What are the sources?

[@Ttcopp12rt]

What are some of her "progessive" beliefs Mr. Donkeyman?

[@1991jj]

@@damerkharmawphlang4196 The idea that PSA is THE gospel. Sola scriptura as well. Eastern Orthodox (of which there are 300 million E.O christians) reject both. They even consider Sola scriptura heretical. Given that it is out of the Orthodox tradition that we recieve what is considered Christian Orthodox beliefs (creeds etc) then it can be said that many of the people she labels 'progressive' are actually far more conservative than her, if by conservative we mean conserving the ancient tenets of the faith. (Btw, PSA and sola scriptura are both ideas that Pete and Brian would critique.)

[@roubad9034]

Finally a voice of reason. Thank you.

[@theologymatters5127]

Oh man!!!! This episode has me so angry!!!! Argh!

[@davethebrahman9870]

Poor old Christians! Their beliefs change every five minutes.

[@stevegeorge6131]

Progressive Christianity : Isn't

[@jonathaneaslick3204]

I think Randal Rauser makes some interesting points, and he really hit home about the story of the Franciscan priest and the conquistadors, but the acts against the natives of the America's doesn't change at all about truths of the faith, but is a judgements on the Christians throughout the centuries who failed to live up to the Christian faith. Sublimus Dei On the Enslavement and Evangelization of Indians Pope Paul III - 1537 Pope Paul III (Topic: the enslavement and evangelization of Indians) To all faithful Christians to whom this writing may come, health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction. The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good and behold it face to face; and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office ‘Go ye and teach all nations.’ He said all, without exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith. The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God’s word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith. We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect. By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, which shall thus command the same obedience as the originals, that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living."

[@The_Biblical_Layman]

This is so sad.. things I learned in this video… 1)ramble around words and escape defining them. 2) I don’t need to have an intellectual ascent to be save.. (New Age, Mormons can be saved) 3) Randal is slowly (very slowly) may well leave all doctrine behind. If doctrine really isn’t the main concern when it comes to Christianity (whatever that means today according to this video) why would Paul write letter to the Galatians and many others explaining and defending these truth… Most progressive deny resurrection, Jesus diety and so forth but for most part they are Christian’s… smh

[@The_Biblical_Layman]

Things I learned continued… 4) views on hell, homosexuality, or atonement don’t matter. 5) Jesus is all love (progressive view) and therefore the Bible in Old Testament is not literal cause love love love… This is really saddening to me.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

2) is true

[@TheTruthseeker1231]

The real goal of progressive Christianity is to allow "Christians" to go politically left without losing their "Christian" label.

[@The_Biblical_Layman]

@@TheTruthseeker1231 interesting…interesting… and I have to agree but I thinks it’s more than that as well!

[@TheTruthseeker1231]

@@The_Biblical_Layman Yes, "Hath God said..." It is always a spiritual battle that we can be sure of.

[@Mockracy]

Am agnostic but agree with Mr. Rauser with his analysis of binary thinking. Interesting that an claimed objective belief such as Christianity has so much disagreement and subjective interpretations. Why not withhold judgement until supporting empirical evidence for the Bible claims (resurrection) or any claim presents itself in more present times for us all to see? Why start with believe first? Does the book being older somehow make it more true? Why with the thousands of denominations with people saying “were the real christians” or they are “not real Christians” not a red flag at its objectivity? Many people have personal subjective experiences of UFOs, Bigfoot, ghosts, etc in more modern times, do we believe that? Why would god care about financial investments or competition? Wouldn’t he want homeless and all people to have access to a decent life, healthcare? Why are most humans on this planet not Christian? They also have similar strong basic beliefs and think they are correct, are they doomed? Why are all the modern US Christian presidents and govt officials, warmongers and enrich themselves. Randall’s approach however, seems more reasonable to an outsider. At 47:10 evidence of binary thinking and a disturbing question. Pretty sure Jesus would sign off on healthcare for all people. Indoctrination is a powerful but dangerous thing.

[@jotunman627]

yes, that is true, it is sad that Christianity has dissolved into thousands of sects...the devil sow confusion....progressive Christianity is just another new addition...

[@frosty_soda]

What a load of nonsense