Randal Rauser & Doug Groothuis - Is Progressive Christianity a false Gospel?

Theologian Randal Rauser defends 'progressive' Christians such as Rob Bell, Richard Rohr and Brian Mclaren, against 'heresy hunters' in his new book 'Progressive Christians Love Jesus Too' a response to Alisa Childers' book 'Another Gospel?'.
Christian philosopher and apologist Douglas Groothuis explains why he thinks some progressive Christians are outside the bounds of orthodoxy and shares Childers' concerns about their influence.
For Randal Rauser: randalrauser.com/
For Doug Groothuis: douglasgroothuis.com/
• Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: pod.link/267142101
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelievable.com
• For live events: www.unbelievable.live
• For online learning: www.premierunbelievable.com/t...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...

[@peterbruderer1088]

Mr. Groothuis displayed everything that I expect from a mature apologist: differentiation, clarity, logical argumentation, discernment.

[@ElijahOfMalachiand-]

Lev. was translated wrong billy graham. Refering to pedophilia. "Men shall not molest young boys." Delete or reject the messages sent from the messenger of Malachi 3:1 and you reject Jesus Christ Herself and choose to die with the wicked. Malachi 2 proves Malachi 3:8 is prophetic instruction for the thieving church leaders to bring back the money they were never supposed to take for ministering and God will end Covid. Every major church around the world knew this since August of 2020 but they LOVE MONEY so much they chose to kill everyone with Covid instead of returning it! James 5:2 Rich people are NOT Christians and the wealth they selfishly kept to themselves will only be used as evidence to burn them. The 2 witnesses are righteousness and judgement, not actual people. There is no ONE antichrist; it was made up by people that worship money. Stay out of the fake churches or you will die with them and their lies. In order to be a church, the place must house people inside it. Otherwise it's another private money-making business serving satan and part of Babylon. There is no such thing as rapture. Jesus comes back to rule. God's people are caught up spiritually... Romans 1:27 is not referring to Eunuchs where one partner is transgender. 🏳️‍🌈 Mathew 19:12: Eunuchs that are born that way are transgender. Eunuchs made that way by others were abused (it doesn't happen to everyone that is abused). Those that choose to live like Eunuchs FOR THE SAKE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN are bisexual people that choose partners of the same sex characteristics but opposite in regards to gender. Notice, God PREFERS for people to be in LGBT relationships. Eunuchs are same sex couples. One partner is transgender. Transgender is when someone is born with a gender opposite the sex characteristics normally associated with that gender. God made us male or female, determined by gender, located in the brain. Your gender is located in your brain and determined at birth. I have an identical twin sister that is female in gender. I am male in gender. I am Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6 and that means any discrepancies in the bible are ultimately decided by me. Plus, it states in Deuteronomy that nobody was castrated back then. And that doesn't make sense anyhow. No one is born castrated and no one is born making the decision to be celibate. But, that is what God wanted the lying preachers to think so they wouldn't take it out of the bible. Intersex people still have one gender or another because gender is located in your brain. And Acts 3:22-23 says it will come to pass that anyone that fails to listen to me will be utterly destroyed from among the people. So anyone that says different than this won't be here much longer. It's everyone's choice. Anyone teaching the LIE of monetary tithing or getting paid in any way to minister will also die with the wicked. That includes people selling worship songs, books, prayer cloths, conferences, absolutely anything at all in the name of God. Peter 2:9 says we are ALL ministers . . . . Jesus was transgender and will return as a woman..... Remember, Malachi 3:8-12 is talking to the thieving church leaders. It's the answer to end Covid and every major church around the world has known this since August of 2020 but they LOVE MONEY so much, they INTENTIONALLY CHOSE to kill everyone instead of returning it. My preaching will lead to a universal monthly income for everyone. If church leaders dont repent, they won't be here to see it. Their choice........

[@greglogan7706]

Peter I did not see any of that I just heard the same standard mumbo jumbo that we hear and have heard for decades or centuries nothing new just mumbo jumbo

[@scottbuchanan9426]

@@greglogan7706 Keep saying "mumbo jumbo". Maybe a persuasive argument will eventually emerge from it.

[@GregAlterton]

@@scottbuchanan9426 How about "boilerplate theological bromides"? So much of theological pronouncements are simply formulaic.

[@scottbuchanan9426]

@@GregAlterton Well, unless you're willing to be more specific and show where Groothius has gone wrong, you're just doing propaganda.

[@JRJMC]

This was a very good and respectful dialogue. I enjoyed both Doug and Randall's point of view and insights on the subject and would happily listen to these two again in the future.

[@clintonwilcox4690]

Alisa Childers is not a philosopher. She's a former pop singer turned apologist, which is why she was able to become so popular so quickly. So while Professor Groothuis, of course, can't speak for Childers, this will, at least, elevate the conversation to be between two professional philosophers.

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

All that said a BIG "thumbs up" to Justin, Unbelievable, and both guests. I found this to be not only entertaining but VERY thought-provoking and thus edifying.

[@littlebitsofbliss]

This comment is less in support of Alisa Childers’ book and more in support of Jesus and biblical truth. Essentially, Alisa was paraphrasing Jesus himself, when he warned us of false prophets, calling them wolves in sheep’s clothing. And Jesus also called the religious leaders of the time a “brood of vipers”. Today this is considered not politically correct enough, or not “nice & loving”, but who loved the world more than Jesus?

[@st.mephisto8564]

Maybe Jesus was warning about clowns like Childers.

[@lynne1550]

So appreciate Doug’s comments, and listening to Randall helped me understand better what some people believe.

[@Dmase316]

Great conversation. Enjoyed listening to both guests.

[@postal3212]

Alisa should have been on this show. She is the expert and should be defending her own book.

[@ramigilneas9274]

"Expert“😂

[@postal3212]

@@ramigilneas9274 Well when it comes to a book that someone writes, then I would consider them an expert on the book they wrote. Not necessarily an expert on the subject, but definitely an expert on the book that they create.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@postal3212 Oh, of course I hope that she is an expert on her own opinions. But I am also sure that you can replace her with countless other religious fanatics to get the same opinions… Groothuis is a creationist, so he probably represents the far right side of Christianity pretty well.😂

[@markfullbrighton5070]

No disrespect, but that woman is an idiot. Her entire objections to Progressive Christianity are nothing short of emotional tirades against the position.

[@dazatron1664]

I think both Randall and Doug were fantastic in their responses to each other. It was great to hear such a respectful debate that tries to get to the heart of the matter rather than spouting broad statements that create more division between progressive and evangelical camps.

[@noobsaibot5285]

Yuri B

[@7flights545]

I highly recommend Natasha Crain’s book Faithfully Different. Chapter five does a really good job of articulating the difference between the “gospel” held to by progressive Christian’s and the biblical gospel.

[@ElijahOfMalachiand-]

Anyone selling anything using the gispel will die w the wicked.

[@7flights545]

@@ElijahOfMalachiand- I didn’t buy it. It’s available at the online libraries. So if it bothers you to support someone’s work, just borrow it. I’d love to know where in the Bible you conclude someone shouldn’t get paid for their work if they are presenting the gospel. We are supposed to be presenting the gospel in everything we do, with our very lives. Are you suggesting Christian’s shouldn’t get paid for working whether it be writing books, or working in a grocery store because they articulated the gospel while they were doing it?

[@MerBlack]

Needed discussion! Thank you! And addressing Rohr’s theology is so, very important…Grateful for Dr Groothuis’s research! Romans 16:17

[@sydneyclouatre1950]

Throughout this discussion, we missed entirely the central problem facing Progressive Christianity™ . At best, many progressives outright reject God's explicit displeasure with certain sinful beliefs and behaviors (especially with regard to race and sexuality and gender politics) and at worst actively encourage their followers to engage in those behaviors and hold those beliefs. We must address those things which are relevant and necessary to a person's salvation.

[@cpt.kimintuitiondemon]

What about race, sexuality, gender politics exactly? And why "specifically"?

[@john14_63]

@@cpt.kimintuitiondemon What do you think God says about sexuality ? And gender ?

[@cpt.kimintuitiondemon]

@@john14_63 I have no idea, that's why I'm asking, 10 up votes but nobody able to clarify...

[@tiscerano]

Thank you so much for providing top notch conversations on relevant and poignant points!

[@saradh3385]

Really appreciate this conversation, thank you. I have friends who are very into Richard Rohr and Rob Bell, and I struggle with this, having looked into their teachings. But the outright “they’re heretics” online discussions are unhelpful for my conversations with them about RR and RB….this discussion gives me a bit more understanding re what they might be getting out of these teachings, while they still somehow manage to come across as real heartfelt believers. I want to respect them and their beliefs but be able to have a more nuanced approach to explaining why I disagree, lovingly, and this has given me some pointers.

[@anthonycostello6055]

Probably the main variable affecting the church today is that all of these discussion between various factions in the church used to be carried out in person, often behind closed doors, or somewhat obscured from the public eye. Now with the advent of the internet, social media, podcasting, blogging, etc., we are having the same doctrinal discussions but everywhere and all the time and with far more voices involved (not just the theologians and clergy). This makes the discussion that much more complex and also that much more emotionally volatile. Of course, it certainly is not yet as volatile as the 16th century....

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

Good and astute observation. Although I can't tell if you think that's a good or bad thing. I would add, however, that one only need read the Pauline epistles to see that "various factions" certainly weren't kept behind closed doors. I don't know how you define "often" but I do know that Paul's letters were circulated to the churches. As were the letters from Peter and others. As I read your comment I was reminded of a thought I had while watching and commenting on the video. That being the similarities between the "Progressive Christians" of today and the Gnostics that the Early Church had to deal with in their day. NO doubt the internet and all those things it brought that you listed have made it much more possible to get a message out and in the face of others but I'm not all that persuaded things are any different today than they were back then. Just on a wider scale and much faster. I'm sure we could have a good long chat about all this. I'll just end with this. It's a long story but the short of it is many years ago after taking an "internet issue" to my Elders, them seeing what was transpiring and being totally shocked and blown away by it, I was informed that I should get off Facebook. They sent the Pastor to tell me and I told him I was more than willing to submit to them though I didn't understand why and just needed them to give me a Biblical reason for such. The answer I got was "We just don't feel it's best for you." That wasn't good enough and I told them while I appreciated their concern for my well-being, I needed a Biblical reason as I requested, and I laid out an argument from pretty much what you said while saying that I had NO doubt in my mind that if Paul and the other Biblical writers could have had access to the Pony Express, Gutenberg Printing Press, or the Internet, they would have taken full advantage of them for Kingdom purposes. Just in case you're wondering, they never got back with me with a Biblical reasoning for their decision and I'm pretty sure some of them probably think to this day I was a rebellious, unteachable spirit who just wouldn't submit to them. Though in fairness I will say the Pastor who delivered the message for the Elders did come back to me a couple years later and tell me that he was wrong,.

[@williambillycraig1057]

Randal Rauser could have good points, but he failed to land any of them. His main argument is that of distractions, pointing to issues others have without dealing with reasons for his position.

[@peterjs007]

I've noticed he has a tendency to do that

[@jon_doran]

Great conversation. Nuanced and respectful, about a subject that is hard to clarify and pin down. I think the question about sources of theology and whether experience is legitimate, would be a great direction to take it.

[@jakeroberts6274]

Doug was amazing dealing with Randal's strange ideas to sell his book, with excellent moderation as always

[@therougesage7466]

No you got it backwards

[@macummings7818]

This is a snarky repulsive comment, in line w the very poisonousness of in-faith fighting that has very nearly destroyed the Church.

[@CaliforniaForever]

I'm not a progressive but I agree that Childers' book is too broad a condemnation of those who are. Beasts? Not helpful. She displays her ignorance and is uncharitable on many subjects as I've listened to her podcast. Thank you to the guests and Justin for this discussion.

[@lauragiles5193]

Very well articulated discussion. Thank you Justin. Tend to agree with Randal more.

[@darrellanderson6650]

My limited experience regarding progressive Christianity is that they want to use Jesus as a marketing tool but reject Him as God. They say He is one of many gods. This is my limited experience and it is indeed not Christianity. Maybe my experience is with someone on the far edge. They use parts of scriptures or scriptures out of context to push the belief that we are all gods.

[@Mannyk36able]

I really enjoyed this conversation, thank you Randal and Doug for the respectful, nuanced way you discussed the topic. And thanks Justin for your able hosting. I think one nuance that might help is that North American Protestant Christianity has a particularly conservative flavour, compared to orthodoxy Christianity in other parts of the world. Furthermore, it is helpful to differentiate conservative reformed evangelicalism (the Doug represents) from the broad stream of orthodoxy that holds to a creedal faith but does not hold to Reformed doctrine. I am thinking of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Protestants who are not "Calvinists" etc. Within this broader stream, there are many conservative Christians who do not hold to a reformed doctrine of penal substitution but still have a strong atonement theology. Moreover, Randal referenced the Manhatten declaration on biblical Ineaarancy. But, the authority of scripture and biblical Inearncy tends to be interpreted more narrowly in the USA, compared to other countries. Some "progressive" impulses have been over against overly narrow concepts of orthodoxy held by some conservative evangelicals but still lie within the breadth of historic orthodoxy.

[@gretareinarsson7461]

Spot on. There is quite a stark contrast between for example North European churches and North American.

[@mazza8408]

Exactly CS Lewis was an embodiment of your comment.

[@martinploughboy988]

Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox I would not consider true Christians. Likewise, many of the UK Protestant denominations, CoE, URC, BU and Presbyterian, have lapsed into liberalism. There are plenty of UK Reformed folk who are just as 'narrow' as their counterparts in the US when it comes to biblical inerrancy as well as penal substitution.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@mazza8408 Which is why C S Lewis should not be your guide.

[@mazza8408]

@@martinploughboy988 if you don't think Lewis is a good guide then I might not trust your judgement sorry mate.

[@lorrainehuff2703]

Jesus accused false prophets of being like wolves - if Alisa thinks wrong teaching is harming rather than helping believers in the body of Christ, I think she's only echoing that metaphor. I get Randal's point also that harm can be of different kinds, not only ideological; elders in the church should note 1 Peter 5:1-4, willing servants, being an example to the flock.

[@tahjsimon9058]

I think that Jesus can actually see people's hearts though.

[@jeffreywp]

I appreciated this discussion but didn’t find Randal Rauser’s arguments to be as compelling as I had thought they might have been. I also thought the subtitle of his book (I.e., A Response to Alisa Childers (and the heresy hunters)) seemed ironic considering his push for civil discourse versus demonization.

[@greglogan7706]

Why... he seemed quite civil here

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

@@greglogan7706 - Really? You have to ask why Jeffrey thought the subtitle to be ironic? You seriously don't see the "and the heresy hunters" as demagoguery and a flaming arrow or jab at anyone who dare call out someone as a heretic? Wrt to "civil discourse" vs "demonization", would you say the same about Jesus when He called some "sons of the Devil"? And are you at all aware of what an "angel of light" is? I would submit to you and I think I can provide a solid Biblical argument for backing up the claim that these "Progressive Christians" ("angels of light", wolves in sheep clothing, etc.) are FAR more dangerous to The Body, The Gospel, and to Unbelievers than the rankest of heretics.

[@jazzffer]

Any doctrine outside Evangelical Theology is heresy. There, I said it for you guys. That's what you believe and and you're even shy to say it.

[@keithcalder521]

This was an interesting conversation, and I applaud the respect that Doug and Randall demonstrated for one another. Although I would certainly come down on Doug’s side of the issue, Randall brought up some important points about Childers’ book and in general that conservative evangelicals need to acknowledge - especially the relationship between belief and practise. I know that many people have been hurt in evangelical churches by dislocations between these two elements of the Christian life and the hypocrisy that results from it. But as Doug said, it must be both/and for the practising Christian, not either/or, and just because there are plenty of unbelievers whose praxis outshines those who profess Christ with their tongues, ultimately it is not simply praxis that leads to salvation according to Scriptures. Jesus Himself said “the work of God is to believe” . Thanks again, and Doug you are a monster of the apologetics world; thank you for your ministry.

[@john14_63]

Certainly (as the book of James especially describes) we should see a result of our faith IN the works that we do. However, when you received Jesus as Lord ... were you INSTANTLY changed and no longer sinned ? (Of course not.) Did you immediately and radically change EVERY aspect of your life ? (Likely not). What stories like Randal's don't account for -- when comparing people -- is that we don't know how much MORE WRETCHED the "Christian" in the story was over his lifetime. In my life, before I received Jesus and trusted in Him, I was WAY MORE impatient, unkind and other undesired characteristics ... and now I'm dramatically LESS those things.... but I object to the story being used as a means to identify WHO was more likely to be saved. Many other points to make re: Randal's argument....which (thankfully) Doug brilliantly and succinctly responds to during that 55:10 to 59:10 segment ....

[@sbwetherbe]

Great conversation. I've been waiting to hear this topic debated in a serious way for a while. (PS. I am a former fundamentalist evangelical. Now an agnostic atheist.)

[@mizlpix4027]

Likewise

[@user-ke9je9zp4u]

I respect your views, but I would really hope you would reconsider Christianity. I don't know your reasons for leaving the Christian faith, but if Christianity is true, and after serious and prolonged study I believe it is, there is a lot at stake--both for your life and your eternity. God bless you.

[@7flights545]

At its core progressive Christian puts the self as god. The self defines what parts of the Bible resonates to them as true. The self defines what love and justice is. One example of this is: Christian’s with a biblical worldview understand love to be the act of wanting what God wants for them, whereas progressive Christians believe love is an act of wanting for others what they want for themselves. (From Natasha Crain’s Faithfully Different).

[@someonethatisachristian]

nothing wrong with either, but here's the problem: "progressive" is closely tied to destructive politics and I see that go together with progressive christians. Being woke etc is very common in the church now from what I hear.

[@7flights545]

@@someonethatisachristian the latter seems harmless until the thing people want for themselves doesn’t align with the thing God wants for them.

[@Naomi_OB]

Natasha Crain is a fantastic resource in this space right now. Her writing really helps to explain the real problems of the "progressive" church movement, and the ways it can twist or cherry pick Scripture to fit its beliefs. I've found it quite telling that many question the authority of the Bible, which ultimately allows them to use what they like ( often out of context) and toss the rest.

[@cord11ful]

@@Naomi_OB Yes, I've noticed that even in the comments here - they seem to have woefully inadequate biblical literacy.

[@john14_63]

CRUX of the discussion comes at 55:10 to 59:10 (approximately) regarding RIGHT ACTS vs BELIEFS. Randal tells a true story of an event in which a NON-Christian did GREAT DEEDS while the Christian does not. To which Randal asks, "What person would you rather be when standing before God on judgment day?" On judgment day, I hope that I would NOT claim any righteous deeds for my salvation, but instead rely 100% on the blood of Christ. Randal's question/commentary on this topic sure appears to suggest his DEEDS are more important this his BELIEFS. Our own words convict us, don't they ? My questions to Randal or any person proclaiming to follow Christ as Savior and Lord: (1) WHO is Jesus to you ? (2) WHY did Jesus die....and did he HAVE TO die ? (3) What DOES John 14:6 mean to you ? (4) Do you believe that there are MULTITUDES of seemingly "nice people" in the world who do good deeds but may not be saved?

[@SusanMorales]

Great conversation. Good food for thought 😊

[@typicalKAMBlover21]

"focus on right actions instead of right belief. " why do they have to be separated? according to James, right actions are an expression of right beliefs.

[@mindymild]

Apparently anything can be justified by faith

[@zzzaaayyynnn]

Great responsible and polite discussion. It made me think reconsider my own beliefs about the Progressive versus Evangelical debate.

[@karl323]

Simple answer. Choose to follow the word of your culture or the Word of God. Matthew 7:13 ESV - “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.

[@dellwright1407]

I appreciate Justin's non-biased approach.... helpfully summarising both positions in a sympathetic understandable way.

[@joshuavanniekerk5055]

Once we start to move from Jesus did __, to I did__, we have a problem.

[@lynne1550]

Randall comparing John MacArthur and Hamitic myth to error on penal substitution is crazy

[@jmorra]

He is jumping on the racism hysteria bandwagon, even though I think MacArthur is a nasty and arrogant man.

[@Mark_Dyer1]

Richard Rohr has certainly helped me to study my faith; although I have only read one of his books (THE UNIVERSAL CHRIST). In the words of Karen Armstrong, human beings are "meaning-seeking creatures", and I find the Hebrew analysis of the Jews' relationship with their God, culminating in the adult life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, sufficiently convincing that it provides meaning for me. However, as a homosexual man (I have shared life with a gentle atheist for forty years) I have had to live my seventy years, outside of any denomination, and devoid of sacrament or 'koinonia'; because I do not read our scriptures in exactly the same way that a devout Muslim reads his Koran. The difference is that, whereas the devout Muslim is REQUIRED to read his Koran literally (see Koran, The Imrans: 3;5ff), there is no equivalent set of verses in the entire bible, which require a literal reading. I believe in INCARNATION: not INLIBRATION. Unfortunately, far too many Christians appear to believe in 'Biblianity'; rather than 'Christianity'. When Paul is teaching me about Jesus, I respect him: but when he seeks to micro-manage my love-life, then I defer to what we have learned in the two thousand years since Paul was writing. Likewise, I start with the human being, Jesus of Nazareth: and I accept the testimony of my 'Primitive' forebears who claim to have SEEN him after they knew him to be dead and buried. However, I am convinced that it was this conviction which led those Jewish Christians to look to THEIR scriptures (solely, the Hebrew Tanakh) to ascertain whether the 'type' of Messiah they believed to have been with them prior to the Passion, was the 'type' of Messiah they should have been expecting. Does this make me a "progressive Christian"? I have no idea. All I know is that I KNOW Jesus, and the GOD he called 'Father'. As for 'life-after-death'? Who cares? Whatever happens (IF anything 'happens') it will be about GOD: not us!

[@eyesee9715]

i think i’m understanding you. i had these reactions…sad feeling when you said you have had to live without koinonia… because everyone needs communion… communion with God…through the Holy Spirit. I felt frustrated when i read it doesnt matter what hapoens after death, even though you have experienced Christ. He is alive today, and wants us to know him closely like we know our beloveds. He has defeated death. In him we have eternal life. This is the true gospel

[@Mark_Dyer1]

@@eyesee9715 I agree with all you have written 'eyesee'; but my point about what happens after our death is that it will be about GOD, and not OUR expectations or hopes. I can trust the God I see in Jesus: and that is the only hope I have, or need have. How I behave toward my fellow-man is vastly more difficult. THAT is where it is difficult to follow the teachings of Jesus.

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

"When Paul is teaching me about Jesus, I respect him: but when he seeks to micro-manage my love-life, then I defer to what we have learned in the two thousand years since Paul was writing." Replace the word "Paul" with "God" and you may see what you are really saying. What you have enumerated there and in the rest of your post is no different than any other Idolater practicing whatever form of Idolatry they do. Jesus is Lord of all your life or He is Lord of none of your life. You have made Sex your lord. "All I know is that I KNOW Jesus, and the GOD he called 'Father'. " The question is NOT whether you "know" God. The question is whether Jesus/God knows you,. See Matt. 7:21-23 for more on that. And that hasn't changed in 2000yrs. No matter how much one thinks they've learned since it was said. Are you a Progressive Christian? Well, as you probably are well aware, you can call yourself whatever you wish these days. Progressive Christian, Gay Christian, or whatever you want,. There is NO such thing, There is Christian and Not. Just like there is Man and Woman. You’re just like the full-grown naked man standing in front of a mirror saying, "Boy howdy, I am one good lookin' woman!" In fact, you’re worse! You’re in the crowd of folks standing behind him saying, "You sure are!!" In the end, when you boil down everything you said to its purest form, it all comes down to the same thing. Idolatry,.

[@Mark_Dyer1]

"Replace the word 'Paul' with 'God' and you may see what you are really saying." Are YOU aware of what you are saying? This is my entire point: Christians who regard the words of our scriptures as the God of Israel in written form: exactly like a devout Muslim regards his Koran. What you believe-in is INLIBRATION (God in writings); not INCARNATION (God enfleshed). You are saying that Paul speaks for God; and vice versa. This is nonsense!

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

@@Mark_Dyer1 - Oh yes, I'm VERY aware of what I said. Every word. Just as I'm aware that you made yourself an abomination to God (Pro. 6:16-19) when you exercised your faux-omniscience from your self-built throne crafted outta your self-imposed god-complex. "You are saying that Paul speaks for God; and vice versa. This is nonsense!" Your OPINION is duly noted and summarily dismissed because, well, it's just that and MORE IMPORTANTLY God says otherwise.

[@yahccs1]

Well since I had not heard the term 'progressive Christianity' before, without knowing anything about it, I guessed what it meant from the word... a few ideas - How many are right?! And how much of these do I agree or disagree with? 1) Christian groups that aspire to attract people from today's culture by trying to be more like it or more relevant to it by not getting stuck in traditions and church culture from the past (emerging/emergent church?) (I.e. make church more accessible and acceptable for 'progressive people') 2) Christianity emphasizing moving forward, making progress, growing the church - by various organised methods - ie programmed events and evangelism strategies 3) Christianity that says it's OK to be involved in general 'human progress' in the world and that Christians can and should be part of it even if that means compromising (moral standards or ideals) to go along with whatever direction that progress is going in... (or trying to change it when we think it's going wrong?!) 4) Christian theology that is moving on from traditional views and rewriting Christian jargon in terms modern and postmodern people can understand - perhaps incorporating new ways of thinking from science or our multifaith society, seeking to make the faith make sense to people with secular scientific or other faith worldviews 5) A term invented in hope to attract those who think the church is too 'aggressive', 'regressive', 'restrictive' or 'old-fashioned' or 'culturally stuck in a rut' 6) Churches that are very much into making a difference in the world and their local communities not just be a religious social club. 7) Experimental groups pioneering new ways of doing and being church without being too stuck to a prescribed system - outside of 'religion' and all its trappings and connotations or the word. 8) Redefining Christianity and its teachings to make it make more sense especially to highly educated people who might have become put off by parts of it that seem like irrational ancient superstitions or just a story that aims to make people feel better or live better lives 9) Christian groups that are all about motivating people to action on certain moral political issues and/or wishing to impose Christian views (or views of a certain type of Christianity) on society in general 10) Christian groups seeking to reform church in a particular direction (towards someone's agenda or some idealistic view of what church should have been like in the first place) I know some of these ideas may be a bit repeated or influenced by listening to this video, but pehaps you get the idea - that I think there are both positive and negative aspects of the word 'progressive' I generally think 'progress' is a term we use for the direction the world, or our own society or modern/postmodern culture, and that is human-made progress which is not necessarily healthy in the long run and not necessarily in a direction God would want for building His kingdom. Sometimes 'going with the flow' might help us understand other people going with the flow, sometimes we need to swim against the flow or just stand on a rock! If it means the church aims to make more of a difference, more relevant and more caring, and less judgmental those are all good things. If it means moving away from the biblical roots of the faith it's in danger of moving away from what Christianity really means and becoming 'whatever you want it to be' like postmodern relativism might say, and might as well be 'Christianity-inspired secular humanism' or something. It seems like the church is splitting into those who love truth and moral purity but might be lacking in sensitivity and compassion and those who have a heart for caring and being kind but don't want to offend anyone by claiming to have a monopoly on the truth or push a particular view on others. It's like the head and the heart are getting further and further apart - but if we have one without the other we'll either be like coldhearted brainboxes or headless chickens. I think I might be a bit of both sometimes! Maybe it is why we get the warning to the church in Laodicea about being lukewarm when we should be either hot or cold. Hot hearts and cool heads would be good, not the other way around!

[@celebgirl7737]

"It seems like the church is splitting...." from this part through to the end is what seems to be the case.

[@trevorbates9017]

The message is clear and from Jesus Christ himself...When Wormwood is undeniably encroaching upon this planet, Revelation is here, and those with a Christan hope supported by Christian good order, should return to the original teaching of Jesus Christ, just as the Seven Churches in Asia must...only the science contained within Jesus' original righteous teaching will save us.

[@shelleythomas1046]

Lets keep in mind that not all saying they are Christians really are. Some are on a mission to bring down biblical truth, water it down, rewrite it, take all the parts out they do not like etc. and etc. Some finish their biblical studies and go on to pastor churches all the while knowing they are no longer believers, and want others to follow them in their new christianity.

[@traceyedson9652]

In this day it’s becoming increasingly impossible to have proper discussions with two voices. Eastern Orthodoxy provides a radical bridge or third option especially but not only concerning atonement. It radically affirms the sacrifice of the Son to His Father, and radically rejects that the Father poured wrath out upon His Son. And it dies so centuries before the Western debates. It was gratifying to hear Athanasius considered a firm foundation for each voice. The patristic witness can and should be a ground of both illumination as well as authentic unity. Thanks again for an intriguing and expertly done conversation.

[@tkousek1]

Nice. However any system that ignores any gospel and alters the system of beliefs about sexual immorality and abortion is another religion.

[@regpharvey]

Excellent discussion, really appreciated both Doug and Randal. An important note about Alisa in regard to her claiming that progressive pastors are wolves in sheeps clothing: first of all, this is a biblical picture of how some who claim to be Christians but are not do behave. Second, Alisa's stated reason for getting into apologetics and starting her ministry is that she was a member of a church where the pastor became progressive and proceeded to (according to her) try to undermine the faith of the people there. I've read about many other instances of this same phenomenon. Granted, she probably painted with too broad a brush in her book, but she was informed by her "lived experience" (something progressives frequently cite as more important than "truth") and it would have been good of Randal to acknowledge that.

[@EsraRanter]

I personally prefer to drop the "Liberal" description as a collective description to lump

[@JohnWMorehead]

Great conversation from both participants. I've had Randall on my podcast twice, and I've been with Doug on TV in northern California many years ago after his New Age book came out, so I'm familiar with the work of both men. I appreciate the call for nuance and not to conflate historic liberal Protestantism with the totality of progressive Christianity. My hope is that we can be careful in a desire to protect orthodoxy while also seeking to always reassess our tradition in every age in light of changing circumstances, a phenomenon we find in biblical tradition itself.

[@Astarkiller]

Yeah point was it was within biblical tradition…not a tradition to change biblical traditions.

[@JohnWMorehead]

@@Astarkiller The biblical tradition changes over time and you can see the tensions, reworking of the materials in light of changing circumstances. Has nothing to do with these dialogues, however.

[@JohnWMorehead]

@FPT Bot What does any of this have to do with a cruciform approach to interreligous relationships and conversations? I'm afraid you're missing the point!

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

You need to define your terms because as they stand now they could mean anything. Which means they are meaningless. And in taking in all you said I would say at this point that you're conflating Tradition with Truth.

[@JohnWMorehead]

@@RoyceVanBlaricome If you do a little homework you can find definitions of Protestant liberalism as engaged by J.G. Machen in a previous generation. And Progressive Christianity has a variety of definitions and expressions depending upon the individual. I am interacting with that as espoused by Rauser. And your last sentence is simply baseless. Thanks.

[@maureengallant5066]

Thank you for the conversation, I really want to find more of Randal's work. I haven't read Childers' book but I have to say it was a little smooth of Doug to refer to Alisa's work as "elastic or fuzzy" rather than it maybe being insidious quarreling within the body of faith. Lol, that's quite a difference there. Oh, and who couldn't hear Doug saying, hey, if anyone has questions read my books, or come to my classes on apologetics, then let's talk about the Jesus Seminar. At least Doug recognized that he might have created the longest footnote in history going back to Chrysostom and Augustine! :) It was a fun conversation thank you to all of you.

[@DiscoverJesus]

Rohr isnt going wrong he is wrong, put it this way if he's a Christian I want nothing to do with Christianity because he has a Christ who isn't found in the New Testament.

[@therealmrfishpaste]

The key is Rauser's opening point...who exactly do we mean when we speak of progressive?

[@jmorra]

Randall's list of objectionable evangelical beliefs at 25:19 is nothing compared to the foundational heresies in liberal protestantism and its new offspring of the hour, progressive Christianity. Additionally, he seems more distressed about people " not being nice," than anything. So Alicia used " inflammatory language?" Maybe one should understand such impoliteness when basic structures are being undermined.

[@josephevans3744]

Both guests did an outstanding job.

[@myerleegardensoffice1338]

Childers' book is quite aversive to anyone who disagrees with her theology.

[@jacqloock]

Yeah, like Jesus and Paul were

[@sanityscove8917]

Good episode. Thank you for addressing the progressive movement.

[@anthonybarber3872]

I would love to see Randal debate Alisa Childers, Mike Winger, Sean McDowell, Allen Parr, Greg Koukl and others that he has issues with.

[@Particularly_John_Gill]

Right belief informs right action. You don't have right action without right belief.

[@1991jj]

Christian colonisers had "right beliefs". Read a history book friend. Right beliefs alone is literally the issue Jesus critiqued the Pharisees for. Right beliefs were held by protestants who slaughtered Native Americans for their land following their interpretation of Joshua. Right beliefs were held by christians who supported and participated in the Jan 6 insurrection. I could go on and on

[@Particularly_John_Gill]

@@1991jj Please read my comment again.

[@1991jj]

@@Particularly_John_Gill I have. And, if im interpreting you correctly, your reply to historical atrocities would be "they didnt have right beliefs after all". If so, it seems to border on a type of no true Scotsman fallacy where you will just deny all atrocities commited by "right believing" christians weren't christians after all.

[@andreab2627]

@@1991jj you seem to be lumping together all colonisers as Christians and under a negative application of the word 'right' ie convinced they were right but they were wrong. In truth, everyone acts out of what they think is 'right' if only right for them. And everyone is inherently sinful and selfish otherwise we wouldn't need a saviour. You fixate on colonisers as the root of all evil. Although I acknowledge what you say, the truth must include the fact that territorial wars, slavery and violent inter-tribal slaughter was happening long before colonisers appeared. It's the sinful human heart that's the problem.

[@paulbracken6216]

Justin well done once again on a safe fence sitting posture.

[@bernhardkirt]

I was impressed by the fact that both Christians here spoke and listened to each other and agreed on many points. I would just want to say that if you agree that sacrifice is a part of the gospel, the angry God part that needs blood to be satisfied just morally hard to believe. That God rescues humanity and individuals from sin, death, and evil seems more inline with a loving God and savior.

[@gillespaling7039]

Personally, I find the Hippy God hard to believe. You have to accept God for who He is, not who you wish Him to be.

[@richardbowker1338]

As a progressive, the idea that John Piper's or Alison Childers religion is basically different from mine does not upset me, in fact I rather agree. And I think many progressives would agree: they may just not be aggressive as Childers. The question of when a variant of a religion becomes a different religion is academic, like when does a dialect become a language. Is it that important? What matters is what is true, and if somebody met me who had been put off christianity through reading Piper, I'd tell them to forget Piper as a valid source of christian thought. So I'm saying the same thing as Childers, really.

[@grahamwall8374]

Interesting. Randal's book title "Progressive Christians Love Jesus Too" confuses me. In what sense does "Jesus" mean the same thing if the two groups (conservatives and progressives) attach such different characteristics to that word?

[@toddcote4904]

Well, the scriptures teach of different Christ', but in the end only one of them saves...

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

Well, our beliefs about religion certainly differ, but if you're an orthodox Christian, we're technically still affirming the same religion. If you do not affirm the basic tenants of the Christian faith, you're not even a Christian anymore.

[@davidmatthews3286]

I enjoyed the discussion very much, although I can see some fundamental issues around one’s attitude to the Bible - its interpretation, etc. I would put myself on the side of the ‘progressive’ Christians insofar as I am prepared to see far more use of metaphor in Biblical writings than the traditional evangelical Christian would. I also think that , at the end of John’s gospel, where Jesus is reported as saying that the Spirit will lead us into (all) truth, he is implying that, whether any individual accepts the tenets of Christianity or not, the Spirit can and does use them/work through them in order to do good in the world. That, ultimately, is surely what God wants - people to live in the way God wants and exemplified in Jesus.

[@SelwinPrabakar]

Randal Rauser tries to justify that "the Work" in other words "the personal conduct" triumphs over "the Belief in the Scripture that the Scripture is inerrant and it is to be accepted in Full and not just pick and choose at your convenience"; Doug Groothuis has rightly put it in proper perspective that " it is not either of those or one above the other but full full belief in Historical Christianity, full reliance on the Scripture and belief that the Bible is inerrant combined with right behaviour"

[@calebsayger5824]

I really feel like the question of whether or not “progressive Christianity is a false gospel” was not really answered. I hope to see more on this in the future with prompting questions that are pushed to their end that get to the heart of the matter.

[@anthonycostello6055]

The one thing I just don't buy at all is Randall's false dichotomy of right belief versus right action, or, that it is progressive Christians that are more interested in right action instead of right belief and vice-versa conservative (or orthodox) Christians who are more interested in right belief as opposed to right action. Moreover that could be put forth as an empirical claim, one could, for example, see who gives more to charity, the conservative Evangelical or the liberal? Who actually does more acts of charity and justice, the conservative or the progressive? It seems one could do a quantitative analysis of that; my hunch is it is likely the conservatives who are actually doing the greater amount of charity.

[@DIBBY40]

Anthony, I don't think it is what we do, but the motivation by which we do it by that matters. Right action can only flow from right motivation.

[@jacqloock]

For Noah was saved through right action. His right action was counted to him for righteousness. For all of us like sheep have acted rightly.

[@cord11ful]

@@jacqloock It's the FAITH underlying the action that is counted as righteousness. The action is the evidence, not the basis. Though, to be fair, faith without action is hollow, and action without faith is empty & counts for naught. I think you mean "All of us like sheep have gone astray".

[@jacqloock]

@@cord11ful My point precisely.

[@KingdomUploader]

Thank you for not disabling comments!!!

[@russellmcdonald7777]

Great conversation

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

Doug is spot on in characterizing Randal's supposition as a false dichotomy. I submit that right Belief will be followed by right actions but the opposite does not necessarily follow. Matt. 7:21-23 makes this abundantly clear. The people standing in the Matt. 7:21-23 line say the prophesied in Jesus' name ( "Jesus says/said..."), cast out demons in His name, and even did miracles in His name but they never had saving faith. IOW, their "actions" were "good" but their "belief" was not.

[@tommycapps9903]

The problem with this discussion was they spent a lot of time talking about their differing views but not the vital points. Is Jesus Christ the only way to heaven? Was His blood and death necessary for salvation? Can people get to heaven another way other than through Jesus Christ? Is the word of God truth or is it vague and you can read any truth into that you like.

[@jmorra]

I think if Wilson's slavery ideas were spelled put in detail here, there would be no way to say that his errors are as bad as those of progressive christianity.

[@russell13904]

Complaints were made about John MacArthur's comments on the "hermetic myth". Did l mis-hear that? I've been trying to Google for more info but am coming up short.

[@TheCAMandMAC]

Look up article on Baptist News: What has John MacArthur actually said about race, slavery and the Curse of Ham? By Rick Pidcock

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

Looking forward to this. I want to pause at the 7min mark to point out a couple of things. First, Randal's "as I understand them" falls WAY short. Truth is Truth. Period. It's NOT "how I understand them" nor is one's walking away from the Truth a statement for Epistemic Humility. Second, IF Randal is correct in that Alisa claiming one who denies ECT as a Christian then I would agree that she's gone too far. It's a Level Two issue, however, that DOES often fall into Level One because of the arguments made against it. PSA is a different story, however. Randal would have to present me with an argument against PSA that is not tied directly to the Gospel. Every argument I've seen against PSA thus far has shown one to have a different Gospel. A different Gospel is anathema. (Gal. 1:8-9). A different Gospel doesn't save anyone. Ergo, Alisa would be correct there. Third, Randal just contradicted himself by claiming that Alisa says Peter Enns is not a Christian but then says he is "widely and uncontroversially considered" a Christian. Based upon what I've seen Peter say I would question that as well. Fourth, while I would say that Alisa is using hyperbole that could probably have been better said it can't be missed that what she's describing is the SAME thing that Jesus did when he called them "ravenous wolves" in sheep clothing. What Randal is failing to see is that whether the "angels of light" or "wolves in sheep clothing" are knowingly "looking" or unknowingly doing so, they are doing so nonetheless. It seems to me that Randal is just failing to heed the warnings that Jesus gave. Why that is only he and God know but my sense is that it's a misguided and over-emphasized placement on Jn. 17:11. This would not be unusual. Christians and Posers alike FAR too often fall too heavily toward the side of Love or Holiness, Grace or Obedience, Liberty or Legalism, Mercy or Justice, etc. Lastly, at least for now, I'll just say Randal's conclusion sums it up nicely. He quotes from a book other than the Bible about Quarreling. And that is the EVIDENCE for my supposition of where he is coming from. Randal would do well to ask himself this simple question: Did Jesus EVER quarrel with anyone? If so, did He kill the Church from within or did He give us an example to follow? I submit that Randal's "I agree" with the two authors supposition is the problem and NOT "quarreling". Jesus never taught against quarreling but He DID teach against letting the leaven in the loaf and to purge it out.

[@radscorpion8]

Well, it is how you understand them to some extent. There must be at least a dozen different denominations of Christianity. If there were only one truth then why are there so many seemingly equivalent interpretations of the bible? Biblical experts already have to struggle really hard to explain away why God is okay with slaughtering the Caananites INCLUDING the children. Many scholars - like William Lane Craig - say that it is a "joy" for the children to die because they get to go back to heaven! One wonders then, why its a serious moral problem to kill anyone for any reason? Craig also claims that as the babies would have grown older, they somehow would have posed a permanent threat to Israelites by pulling them towards worshipping different Gods. But this doesn't make sense. As babies, they would have no concept of a God or Gods, unless Craig is somehow suggesting that the babies are inherently evil. If that's the case, then wouldn't it be God's fault how they were designed? You see, that's why many scholars have to radically interpret this passage. They say that the deaths of children are just "exaggerations" and that "God didn't really mean this passage literally". As Craig rightly points out, this means Christians have to throw away biblical inerrancy - that every word of the bible is correct and endorsed by God. The most reasonable conclusion here, is that God is obviously a bronze age myth that unfortunately still holds sway today, especially for Christians. Progressive Christianity is a helpful movement because it pushes people away from taking the bible so seriously. That means you're only once step away from atheism :). NOW STOP DILLY DALLYING AND BECOME AN ATHEIST ALREADY :D

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

I really enjoyed this debate by both guys. No pulling punches but just having an honest discussion. I think Groothius hit the nail on the head with Rausers scenario with the Muslim and 7th day Adventist guy at 57:10. It's not an 'either or'. I don't know why folks have such a problem with 'both and's'. I know Rauser says that's not the point but he specifically said "on judgement day" which implies works. Rauser also says immediately after that is which as better evidence Christ is in their life by beliefs vs action. Again, false dichotomy. Its both and. True faith is right action. It seems he's saying the Muslim is saved because he did a Christ-like action when he rejects Christ as his savior.

[@dellwright1407]

"Salvation through Christ which is in the scripture?" - Well, kind of... Jesus was asked about this an his answer was salvation through love of God and love thy neighbour. These are what it really takes to gain eternal life according to Jesus himself.

[@cord11ful]

Jesus said '"no one comes to the Father but by me". He says in answer to an disciple's question, that the two greatest commandments are to love God & neighbour, but that is not what salvation is based on. Read ALL of Jesus' words and this is quite clear. Don't cherry pick to suit your own preference.

[@dellwright1407]

@@cord11ful Thank you for taking the time to reply. So if I understand you correctly, in your view Individual salvation and individual inheriting eternal life are not synonymous? i.e., Jesus was NOT pointing the way to salvation when he was pointing the way to eternal life? (Luke 10:25-37)

[@LifeandLifeMoreAbundantly]

The bible is the place we find the truth. If we'll read the bible with a heart willing to see what God is saying, and then do what He says, we'll know the truth, and the truth will set us free. I believe that on the subject of progressive christianity, Alisha is aligned with the truth.

[@theologymatters5127]

It's also a fallacy to say, Progressives loves Jesus too. It's not all about whether we love him or not. It's also accepting how he lived us and what his perspectives are.

[@cwstreeper]

I wouldn't say so much of a fallacy as it is bad theology. I have no doubt there is some adoration, but as is said, "Faith without works is dead. (James 2:14-19) As Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commands." (John 14:15) When we truly LOVE Jesus, we follow Him and endeavor to become more like Him daily.

[@theologymatters5127]

@@cwstreeper I agree. Wrong word choice.

[@LlarytheTN]

This is the question of which "Jesus" do we love. If we ignore pieces of His character, cherry pick verses, put our own ideas into His mouth, and disconnect Him from God, treating Him as nothing more than a wise teacher (which is what the self-proclaimed Progressives I personally know do), we don't even have the right Jesus and it doesn't matter if we love that guy or not - he has about as much power to save as the Muslim Jesus, the Mormon Jesus, or the JW Jesus, which is to say: none at all. Not the same guy.

[@markledyard]

Which of the two do we think poses the greatest danger: Applying too strict a standard, and labeling sound scriptural leaders as progressive, or applying too loose a standard, and labeling heretics as legitimate? Of course, ideally, we would be accurate in our judgments, but at this point in history, I would prefer to err on the side of strictness. We already have too many false teachers wearing the label "Christian".

[@jamesstandifer1683]

Hope these two continue to talk while being filmed

[@brewerbrewer5988]

Asking the question is answering it

[@bethgwin1921]

I think the evangelical church has minimized the Holy Spirit's role and function in our lives and thus the bent toward an intellectual faith without the works of love, We are to worship in spirit and truth...Great respectful discussion...BRAVO!!!

[@radscorpion8]

Beth Gwin its time to throw away the bronze age myth that is God and become an atheist. Join the rest of civilization in a modern, intellectual understanding of the world!! You can do it, I believe in you

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

I am pleased to see Randal mentioning the website I just cited and I'm pleased to see him say that it is "fundamentally unorthodox" but, Randal, is that a dodge? Why can't you just say they are NOT Christian? And you say "they have what they believe Progressive Christianity to be". Well, if you can't take what they say to define the term then what are you defining it based on? Your own definition? THAT is a non sequitur. If one can't take the word of the very organization that represents the "Movement" that's been around for a decade now then WHAT does one base their definition on? If Alisa is basing her book on the very organization and its claims then what are you arguing against? This portion of the discussion left me with the question: Randal, what would it take for you to tell someone professing to be a Christian that they simply aren't?

[@mountbrocken]

I was also thinking about the theology of Duns Scotus whose view on the univocity of being in contrast to Thomistic equivocity of being is interesting. I hold closer to Scotus's view, the idea that for instance the 'goodness' of God is not merely analogical to what He has created but present IN what He has created, or to better understand it, is the same as the goodness in God. I think analogical models of likenesses to being in creation with being found in God is less tenable and appealing to a scriptural and logical view on God and His creation.

[@computationaltheist7267]

At 57:00. Professor Rauser is endorsing salvation by works alone.

[@howardhilliard9286]

Dead on. The trap of leftist, progressive human virtue on display.

[@danjensen8412]

I wrote a full book response to Rauser’s book on Childers if anyone is interested. It can be found on my website under the section on progressive Christianity. I would just give the website info, but YT doesn’t allow that. With that said, if you Google my name and add the word “theology,” I pop right up.

[@mottgirl13]

Thanks for that. I did try to look… but couldn’t find it.

[@danjensen8412]

@@mottgirl13 Ugh, sorry about that. You couldn’t find my website or the book itself on my website?

[@mottgirl13]

@@danjensen8412 ah! It’s a book. I misread and thought it was an article response.

[@danjensen8412]

@@mottgirl13 Too funny. It’s a full book response on my website.

[@markfullbrighton5070]

Why would you need to write a book response to Rauser, especially his criticisms of Childers? Childers is your typical emotional Christian who doesn't offer much intellectual substance, but merely relies on emotional appeals against Progressive Christianity.

[@SterlingTate]

Of course Pete would say now he's an "adaptive" christian as progressive has become simply a broad label.

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

To Randal's comment about "trivializing" some of the errors, first of all I would say someone strongly disagreeing with a teaching of Scripture doesn't make it a "trivial" teaching. Secondly, and more to the point, there is a BIG difference between strongly disagreeing and even quarreling over a Level Two issue and taking an absolutely exception to a teaching/belief that is a Level One Gospel issue. So, IOW, ANY Level Two issue when compared to a Level One is "relatively trivial" in comparison because one depends on whether a person spends ETERNITY in Heaven or Hell and the other doesn't.

[@fourteatwo5942]

I love Rauser talking about rejecting penile substitution at at 5:28. Subtitles must be aware of the ridiculousness of the assumption that physical death is a punishment for sin.

[@jerardosc9534]

For the wages of sin is death Romans 6:23 *Penal

[@tommycapps9903]

I would choose to be neither of those men! You don't get to heaven by doing good deeds. If you reject Jesus you will be separated from him forever in hell.

[@janebaker966]

The BBC loves Jesus-lite vicars. The Rev Kate Bottley,Rev Richard Coles, Rev Peter Penry Jones. Being a Christian is about being smiley and kind and a nice person.

[@pannonia77]

Groothuis is a Dutch name, Groot means big (great), groß in German, huis means house (Haus in German.). If Brian knew a little bit of how Dutch is pronounced he would not have any difficulty with pronouncing Doug's name.

[@jasonegeland1446]

I'm fairly confident that God's wrath is misunderstood and overused in religious discussions.

[@goforthpatrick]

Good conversation. Lots of solid principals expresses, however, I wish they would have defined succinctly the beliefs progressive christianity hold that are controversial.

[@mc07]

Hypocrisy is always damaging, when one preaches one thing but does not live it out. The church is full of sinners, which is why we need a savior to redeem and transform us. And we certainly need to reflect a Christ who is grace and love. Of course, properly understood, grace and love does not sacrifice truth.

[@joshuavanniekerk5055]

The fundamental point in this discussion can be highlighted starting here 56:36 where Randal speaks about action on our part (Progressive Christianity) and then Doug answers with scripture saying we have nothing to do with our Salvation, it’s all about what Christ did. I fully agree with Doug. We are saved by grace through faith (not action) and for the wages of sin is death (our sins, which Christ died for, not us). So I’m with Doug here. I agree with what Randal said earlier in the discussion about these progressive Christians not having malicious intent. I agree. But bear in mind that the road to hell was paved with good intentions. We can be off the mark and sending people down the wrong road, with all the love in our hearts. But that is still no good. If your best friend, by accident, puts poison in your coffee and you drink it, you’ll still die. Good intentions cannot save your soul.

[@sarahsays194]

I recommend a good book called One Faith No Longer that explains pretty well what the differences between progressive christianity and historic Christianity are and how they are actually different religions.

[@micheleriley4514]

Why doesn't anyone read Proverbs, the book of Wisdom?

[@tecguySD]

Yes. But we're just old school christians. Peace and power be with you all.

[@barbarareed9308]

I was hoping to learn more of what progressive Christians believe. I felt that the progressive presenter spent most of his time being offended, defensive and accusatory. One thing I am a bit defensive of myself, is the notion that evangelicals do not promote good in the world. I have a friend that has a international ministry in Nepal, Mexico and Uganda. She was in Uganda during Covid, caring for Muslim families (the predominant religion in that village)caring for their families even in their deaths. I have seen orthodox Christians very involved in the care of those in need, and could name several example’s one of which were my parents who ministered to prisoners for 50 years.

[@alexkairis3927]

I used to like Rob Bell in the Nooma and "Velvet Elvis" era. I tried to watch his "Heretic" movie and was INSTANTLY turned off because he injected politics.

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

NOW I've come to the point of EXACTLY why I LOVE debates! Though this isn't "technically" a debate it does have some form of one. Randal REALLY made me think when he brought up Expatiation vs. Propitiation vs Christus Victor theory. THAT is what I look for when I watch these videos! Bravo Zulu!! Doug too does a good job of illuminating the mind when he brings up Lewis and what he wrote in Mere Christianity. TBH, I need to spend some time pondering all this but my initial thought is twofold. First and foremost whichever one comes down on it MUST fit with Scripture,. Secondly, it MUST tie into the WHOLE Redemption Story of Scripture. For example, whereas the Christus Victor theory can be seen as Scriptural it does NOT address the VERY clear teaching of Scripture that the wages of sin is death (Gen. 2:17, Rom. 6:23, et al) nor does it address the anger of God toward those who violate His Law (Psa. 7:11, Jn. 3:36, et al). The same could be said for each one toward the others. A clear reading of Scripture shows that God is the one who instituted the The Law and the Sacrificial System, NOT all sins carried the same penalty. Though ALL resulted in Death. And we know that the spiritually-dead will ALL be "judged" according to what they have done. And we know the judgment God hands down WILL BE a just "punishment" (Gen. 4:13, Matt. 25;46, et al) And it's pretty clear that there is a "removal of guilt". So, again, I need to ponder this more but my initial thoughts are that it is probably not an either/or but rather an "all the above". Which if that turns out be where I come down on then I would still have to say that anyone denying PSA is a heretic, has a different Jesus, and a different Gospel. But I qualify that with the caveat that there may be some who only believe in the one because that's all they've heard or thought about and thus just ignorant of the others and yet would still be Christian because they have placed their entire trust in Jesus for the one they do know. Hope that makes sense. All that said, I must come back and say that is NOT what's going on with the Progressive Christians. It's NOT a matter that they're ignorant of PSA. It's a matter that the flatly reject it BECAUSE it doesn't fit their idea of a "loving God". IOW, it doesn't fit their Idolatry. The one very sin that God hates more than any other. They've created a "God" and/or a "Jesus" in their own image according to their own ways, will, and wisdom. And if they don't confess and repent of their sin they are standing in the Matt. 7:21-23 line waiting to get the shock of their Eternity.

[@john14_63]

Right there at the end you NAILED IT (my $.02). Not sure I could have said it better. so copying your words ...... " I must come back and say that is NOT what's going on with the Progressive Christians. It's NOT a matter that they're ignorant of PSA. It's a matter that the flatly reject it BECAUSE it doesn't fit their idea of a "loving God" ... The one very sin that God hates more than any other. They've created a "God" and/or a "Jesus" in their own image according to their own ways, will, and wisdom. And if they don't confess and repent of their sin they are standing in the Matt. 7:21-23 line waiting to get the shock of their Eternity."

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

@@john14_63 - Thank you. I'm grateful that you saw the truth in that. Having just seen your post and read that, I think it only fair to point out that the Progressives are not the only camp that idolatry is practiced. In fact, based on thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands, of interactions with others who profess to be Christian, I would submit that the VAST MAJORITY of the Idolaters can most often been seen as the fruit of the Easy-Believism/Seeker-Sensitive false gospel. What's so sad is that SO many have created a Jesus in their own image according to their own ways, will, & wisdom. They’ve got their idol they’ve named “Jesus” or “God” who’s a PC, Woke, namby-pamby, panty-waisted effeminate wimp that talks with a soft-spoken lisp. It's like they've got their own Jefferson Bible only they've cut out all the parts where Jesus ever judged, raised his voice, got angry, rebuked, disrespected, insulted, mocked, was sarcastic, engaged in name-calling, mentioned Hell or eternal torment, or in any other way triggered their sensibility proclivities, was "unloving", and offended anyone. And a different Jesus is an idol that doesn’t save anyone.

[@markdaniels1730]

@@RoyceVanBlaricome When did Jesus ever mention eternal torment?

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

@@markdaniels1730 Why do you ask? Do you have a teachable Spirit? Is your desire to be edified? To know God and His Word better so that you can walk obediently with Him? To confess & repent of your falsely speaking for Him and misrepresenting Him? Are YOU WILLING to deny yourself, pickup your cross, follow Him and OBEY Him instead of your own ways? And while you're answering those questions perhaps you can answer some more such as when did Jesus ever mention the Trinity, Hypostatic Union, Paedobaptism, the Rapture, or another couple of words that are so popular with those who like to say "Jesus never said anything about..." - Homosexuality and Transgenderism.

[@markdaniels1730]

@@RoyceVanBlaricome Your deflection tells me that you know that He didn't.

[@DIBBY40]

The Good Samaritan would have been condemned by the orthodox Jews of the day. Believed all the "wrong" things. It wasn't the superstructure of mental beliefs that justified him before God, but his compassion. This is why Jesus used him as an example. Those who love Jesus are those who have the love that Jesus had.

[@givethanks6714]

Love and compassion is essential, but not the only part of the pie. Jesus also made a whip and you know. Jesus also cursed a tree. Jesus also said harsh things against sin. Etc The only true Jesus is the Jesus with all his sides to him. By logic then, the same with God. Only the True Jesus saves.

[@DIBBY40]

@@givethanks6714 Make sure you find the true version then.

[@jakeschwartz2514]

But it is belief in Christ’s resurrection that saves us. The greatest humanitarian on earth couldn’t save themselves, but indeed without love we are nothing. In fact, the first letter in revelation is to a church that lost something so important that Jesus said he’d take their lamp of its stand if they didn’t repent of it. What had they lost…. Was Love.

[@givethanks6714]

@@DIBBY40 Make sure "we" find.

[@7flights545]

““If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”” ‭‭John‬ ‭14:1 ““Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭22:36-37, 39-40‬ ‭ What it means to love others depends on what it means to first love God. We should love others in the context of what it means to love God. This is how Jesus loved people too.

[@DiscoverJesus]

Surely it would be good to get Alisa on?

[@ready1fire1aim1]

[Leibniz's contingency argument for God, clarified]: Ten whole, rational numbers 0-9 and their geometric counterparts 0D-9D. 0 and it's geometric counterpart 0D are: 1) whole 2) rational 3) not-natural (not-physical) 4) necessary 1-9 and their geometric counterparts 1D-9D are: 1) whole 2) rational 3) natural (physical) 4) contingent Newton says since 0 and 0D are "not-natural" ✅ then they are also "not-necessary" 🚫. Newton also says since 1-9 and 1D-9D are "natural" ✅ then they are also "necessary" 🚫. This is called "conflating" and is repeated throughout Newton's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic. con·flate verb combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one. Leibniz does not make these fundamental mistakes. Leibniz's "Monadology" 📚 is zero and it's geometric counterpart zero-dimensional space. 0D Monad (SNF) 1D Line (WNF) 2D Plane (EMF) 3D Volume (GF) We should all be learning Leibniz's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic. Fibonacci sequence starts with 0 for a reason. The Fibonacci triangle is 0, 1, 2 (Not 1, 2, 3). Newton's 1D-4D "natural ✅ = necessary 🚫" universe is a contradiction. Natural does not mean necessary. Similar, yet different. Not-natural just means no spatial extension; zero size; exact location only. Necessary. Newtonian nonsense will never provide a Theory of Everything. Leibniz's Law of Sufficient Reason should be required reading 📚.

[@Dmase316]

Randal asks a great question. Would you rather be the Muslim or "Christian" pastor on judgement day. My answer is wouldn't want to be either of them.

[@alastairlogan3716]

Hi Mason, what would you rather be if neither Christian or Muslim.

[@DIBBY40]

I want to be me.

[@alastairlogan3716]

@@DIBBY40 I'm not trying to be sarcastic in this response but can you not be yourself and... Muslim or Christian?

[@DIBBY40]

@@alastairlogan3716 My personal view (not the absolute truth!) is that when we stand before God and all our works are revealed in the light of his love all our labels won't mean a thing. What we really "believed" will be plain to see.

[@alastairlogan3716]

@@DIBBY40 cool, thanks for the clarification.

[@edetesara3527]

When did questioning wrong doctrines became injurious to the Faith⁉️

[@noobsaibot5285]

Progressive = Regressive This guy wants to be a victom