Ligonier: www.ligonier.org/ Michael Horton's Lecture: • Union with Christ and ... Reformed Forum: / @reformedforumorg Theology Matters: theologymatters.com
I just went to church for the first time since I was very little today, at age 16, and I would not have done it if not for this channel. I had already drank of spiritual milk, but this was the solid food that I needed to continue to grow in my faith. I will now be attending the small Presbyterian Church just down the street from me, though I lean more towards Lutheranism. They seem to be somewhat theologically liberal, as they have a female interim pastor, but they certainly affirm the sacraments in a reasonably literal sense, and the sermon there made me tear up, frankly. So thank you very much, Redeemed Zoomer.
@@redeemedzoomer6053I think I am going to have to read the bible all the way through first, before I get too far into the details lol. Also, this might not be practical for you, I'm not sure, but it would be awesome if you could remaster the Kingdomcraft videos you made about the basics of Christianity, but without the awkward pauses, low resolution, and slideshow framerate that you have moved beyond as a creator. Thank you so much for all of the content you have made, it's really a blessing.
@@LukeTheGreat1 ah, schismatic. Funny you're throwing that word around. Tell me, friend, which denomination, religion, or belief is it that you hold that we are in schism from?
@@throwaway-9825 it's certainly not the best but not the worst, sure you cannot voice your opinions freely without being stamped a kafir or support Israel without having yourself beaten and possibly mugged However as long as you know your place and not publicly declare your faith you should be fine. We are very much limited in terms of constricting churches as the local people will call it "christianization" despite Indonesia being one of the countries who were a part of Islamization.
@@throwaway-9825 very, especially the poor people. I've lived through many stages of the economy in Indonesia and give or take 10 years ago, where I lived (Depok) my house kept getting thrown at with stones by the Muslim kids simply because I have a dog, it damaged a lot of my backyard and I pretty much wasn't allowed near mosques due to the fact I was Christian. The more well off family can be said to be more tolerant although not as much as I would want
My dad’s side of the family were thrown into concentration camps in Indonesia because they were half dutch. They had to flee to the netherlands. Indonesia is not friendly to Christians, probably not very friendly to the dutch either. God bless you bro and may God strengthen and encourage you and other Christians every day
There are two types of Reformed Baptist: Calvinistic Baptists and confessional Reformed Baptist. Confessional Reformed Baptist hold to a modified version of the Westminster Confession know as the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (sometimes called the Second London Baptist Confession). Yes, their sacramental theology is questionable, but they get most things correct concerning historical Reformed theology. Theocast is a great website/podcast if you want to learn more from them. I would generally view these Baptists as Reformed (I attended one of their churches which was very liturgical, including us reciting the Nicene Creed together). Calvinistic Baptists will hold to a soteriology similar to what John Calvin taught. A few will even hold to covenant theology (although many like John MacArthur hold to dispensationalism instead). However, a lot of them are Premillennialists. Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology is a great text to understand where they stand on issues. I would consider these Baptists too far outside historic Reformational churches to ever be called Reformed in any meaningful way.
Yes! I completely agree. I am a confessional Reformed Baptist and was hoping someone would realize the difference! The only thing i really completely disagree on here is the infant baptism part which confessional Reformed Baptists consider it a part of Reformed tradition more than theology. Also I think in this video there was a bit of mixing John Calvin's exact beliefs with calvinism, because Armenians don't believe everything Jacobus Arminius believed. It's just both of their salvation.
That math iceberg literally only scratches the surface, it's literally like just what you would do to get an undergraduate or masters and there's so much more to math than just the iceberg suggests but it does seem to lay out the general parts of math which mathematicians care about.
As a Baptist who was educated at a Baptist seminary, I was taught (and I can agree with) essentially all of these except infant baptism and Neo-orthodoxy (i.e. the reformed view of the covenants). I would guess even Piper would embrace most of these except amil, paedobaptism, and Neo-orthodoxy. I don't think your assessment of the baptists is quite right
I was watching one of your videos (I believe the one about how to take back "woke" churches) and I saw that you briefly mentioned liberation theology in the form of an iceberg, depicting liberation theology, among other things, as being what truly underlies "woke" Christianity. If you're open to suggestions at all, I would really like to see you elaborate on your views on liberation theology and why you reject it. Liberation theology is an interesting subject -- it dates back to the '60s, it originated in Latin America, and the "wokeness" of liberation theology is more about class than it is about gender, sexuality or race, which in my opinion sets it apart from ordinary American progressive liberalism.
@gerald.bostian I know that a lot of people don't like wikipedia very much, but this article basically explains everything you need to know about liberation theology: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology
I mean, go ahead and enlighten us! However, the simple fact that break with such ingrained tradition as infant baptism and stand apart from all other Protestants and other Christians on this indeed makes them far outside the mainstream.
I got married at an OPC church and attended for a long time, its the best church I've ever been a part of. And they do preach that we need to go out into the world and not stay in our own little bubbles. While it is true that these people have much stronger circles that they stay in, they also do a better job than any "missional" church at bringing Christ into whatever occupation they do, and they preach this so strongly because they are so passionate about doctrine, and this is doctrine. It's a church that is separate from the world, but from what I've seen does a very good job at engaging the world and spreading the message of Christ compared to other churches.
That's what they used to call themselves. Then they hijacked the word Reformed, now most people think being Reformed is being a baptist who is a Calvinist 🙄
Learned so much about Reformed history and beliefs from this video! It's so interesting and easy to digest. And I completely agree with what was said at 9:00 how it all is intricately connected.
Went with my friend to try out a new church yesterday and we got to talking afterwards about reformed theology… get home and this was uploaded “7min ago” 🤣
Those 'TULIP' Baptists are quite different from Reformed Baptists and the latter term shouldn't be used to describe them. RBs descend from the Particular Baptist who definitely considered themselves part of the Reformed tradition. Their sacramentology is barely modified Calvinism, f.e. Their origination is distinct from that of the general Baptists.
Some Calvinists do not like being called Calvinists because they feel that their church proceeds Calvin. He was just someone who shined light on what the historic church always believed.
Deeper Protestant Conception - This is a subject I have found myself thinking a lot about recently. It’s related to the question of: how does total depravity work? In some ways it’s a moot point, because Adam always had Jesus imo. If God was a man (Genesis says God walked in the Garden), then Jesus was always there. Adam turned aside even though Jesus was there with him. The Edenic Covenant was easy (My yoke is easy, and my burden is light). Don’t eat that one fruit, and stay in Paradise! But Adam still didn’t do it. I personally believe that Adam (along with the rest of creation) was not made perfect (Genesis never says so). I do believe he was made very good (like Satan according to Ezekiel), but that he required an ongoing communion with the Lord. Almost as if you have a baby. A baby is not bad in and of itself, but it isn’t perfect. You have to raise it up, watch it grow, teach it right from wrong, etc. Then you will eventually have a good adult in its place. So I think God’s design was to eventually have Adam eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil after fully instructing him on right and wrong (teaching him to instinctively avoid wrong and do right without knowing the difference). Then Adam would have been made worthy of eternal life through Jesus. So you could say withholding knowledge of good and evil from Adam was a form of God’s grace. It was all originally grace.
If predestination is true, then I see no reason to go any further down the iceberg. I want no part of God or faith if he's already chosen whether I'm saved or lost before I was born. Never seen a better reason to play ring around the throaty, if you know what I'm sayin'. Don't read into that, I'm just expressing how disappointed and hopeless that idea would make me feel if Calvinism wasn't heresy.
Redeemed Zoomer overlooked something here. There's a difference from calvinistic baptists like John MacArthur, and confessional Reformed Baptists like Voddie Bachum. John MacArthur is not a Reformed Baptists, he doesn't hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession. However those that do have much more in common with reformed theology which is why we call ourselves reformed baptists. Also i call myself callvinist still because I don't hold to John Calvin's exact beliefs, i hold to his belief on predestination just as aremenians don't hold to Jacobus Arminius's exact beliefs. Hope This Helps
Excellent video. I have learned so much from you: A different strain of Presbyterian thought. I am OPC but a bit more Baptist in outlook. I believe in infant baptism & the real spiritual presence, but I don't emphasize these things with the same fervor as TULIP & the 5 Solas. One area where I think you are wrong, however, is in your conception of work in the new heaven. Man acts to improve his estate, and to satisfy unease. But man will be perfectly content in heaven. Heaven will not be able to be improved, therefore no work. And I think it is appropriate to consider Heaven "The Sabbath Realm," another reason to assume we will not work. I swear this is not just me being lazy.
The "T" stand for we deserve Hell? That's ridiculous. Everyone deserves Hell, and it's not unique to Calvinism. It's for Total Depravity, which encompasses that we are born sinful (original sin), we have a sinful nature, we ultimately cannot choose God, and we cannot understand spiritual things-that is Total Depravity, but if you didn't sugar-coat it like that most people wouldn't believe it.
No, it stands for Total Depravity, and he said “WE ALL suck”, even if you’re not a Christian. The doctrine is present in both Calvinism and Arminianism and it’s the essence of the gospel. It is not exclusive to Calvinism, so I am afraid you have missed the entire point, brother.
@@FRodriguez_, what R.C. Sproul, James White, John MacArthur, Charles Spurgeon and many other Calvinists teach is that Total Depravity encompasses those things. There's a reason they don't simply stick with original sin and sinful nature. The separate beliefs that no one will choose God and we cannot understand spiritual things are what ultimately make the doctrine of Total Depravity. Canon of Orange in Canon 7 (529) describes this. The doctrine of Total Depravity is indeed unique to Calvinism in regards to Soteriology. Everyone teaches that we are sinners, as every man has sinned against God, but that's not the essence of the gospel. The Gospel in about Jesus Christ rescuing us, and it was made necessary by that sin. What point have I missed? Every person deserves Hell, both Christian and non-Christian, but Total Depravity is an entirely different subject. Again, Total Depravity: Original Sin, Sin Nature, You Cannot Choose God, You Cannot Understand Spiritual Things. If I don't believe in these things, I don't believe in Total Depravity, so, no, Total Depravity is not for all Christians. I was correcting what Redeemed Zoomer said, where he completely misrepresented his own view to make it easier to swallow. I was not attempting a refutation, but a correction. Total Depravity is not "we all deserve Hell," but the four things previously mentioned.
@@jeremywilliams5107, not necessarily. Total Depravity's four truths are not direct effects of the fall. God outlines the curses from it (Gen 3:14-19). We all suffer physical death since the fall (1 Cor 15:22), women have pain in childbirth, the ground is cursed, we have to work on it, etc. If you read this list, not once is "All your descendants are born sinful," "You will have a sinful nature" or the other two claims mentioned said. It doesn't seem to be how God operates, because in Genesis 4:7 he tells Cain that sin is waiting at the door, and he must rule over it. The assumption God makes is that Cain understands this and that he can choose what God commands. Because of that, he is held responsible. Ultimately, we have to ask, "What were the effects of the fall?" Physical death was brought into the world (1 Cor 15:22), spiritual death reigns for that all have sinned (Rom 3:23, 5:12, 18), and there is pain in what used to be easy work (Gen 3:14-19). The fall alone does not demand Total Depravity, and it's a non-sequitur to claim that. Total Depravity is a debated topic in Christianity, but the clear effects of the fall are outlined in scripture, and Total Depravity is not something clearly outlined. Things I'd encourage you to consider are: Children don't know right from wrong: Deut 1:39, Jnh 4:11, Isa 7:15-16, 1 Cor 14:20, We must give an account for ourselves. Can children give account for themselves? 2 Cor 5:10, Rom 14:5, 12, Heb 4:13, Babies go to heaven (2 Sam 12:22-23, Matt 18:3, 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16), and God cannot overlook sin (Hab 1:13, Rom 1:18) If they are sinful and have not repented, how can God justly let them in heaven? I'm not guilty of my parent's sin: Eze 18:4, 19-20, Jer 31:29-30, Deut 24:16, 2 Chron 25:4, We are taken by sin. If we are born this way, what are we taken from? Psa 14:3, Isa 53:6, 64:6, Rom 3:12. Sin is always talked about our own, and only our own sin separates us from God. What sin have I done in the womb? Isa 59:2, Rom 5:12, Rom 7:9, Col 2:13, Rom 2:5-6, 1 Pet 1:17 Finally, God gave us our soul, and it's our soul that's sinful. Does God give us a sinful sin at emnity with him? Eze 18:4, Ecc 12:7 I agree with what Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 7:29, "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."
How does Baptismal Regeneration work with a Calvinistic soteriology? What if the baby baptized is not one of the elect? Obviously, in that case, baptism doesnt do anything, right?
29:23 to 29:37 This is still exhibiting the "magic scroll from the sky" fallacy. If your only ultimate standard is the Bible, that woule imply that there was no true authority before the Bible and thus no authority to canonise the books of the Bible. Hence, in your falsely-named neo-orthodoxy, there was no theology before the Bible was written. And this is nonsense since John was a Theologian as we all plainly confess. So how can a theologian write the gospel that would be canonised if theology is defined to be agreeing with that which has already been canonised?
The Bible is God's word regardless of what any authority says. But how should we know which books are God's word? Gee, if only we had some sort of infallible guide to help us!
@@thelonelysponge5029 You mean like the Holy Spirit guiding the Church? But --- but then we Christians would be bound in faith to actually heed and obey the precepts given by this Spirit! Then we wouldn't be saved by faith alone! No, I'm afraid the only infallible authority is John Calvin.
Who cares about theology when you have real Persons and real events? The Bible is the progressive revelation of God and the record of what men did in response, and God was around before any theologian; He also constitutes a pretty good authority, being omniscient, eternal and almighty, wouldn't you say?
@@jeremywilliams5107 the only two ways to determine what is and is not the Word of God are theology and direct interaction with God. Anyone can say that anything is the word of God. Only the Spirit-guided Church can truly divine the True Word.
hi beloved brother! love you, brother and appreciate what you are doing! your videos have been helping me learn so much and describe things i’ve never been able to explain, thank you for making them!! i love the unifying and sweet perspective you have toward all of the churches, as we are one. i think you are bearing the fruit of having this loving and kind approach💞 question: are you familiar with westminster confessional reformed baptist churches? i think you may be unaware of confessional reformed baptist churches✨- we subscribe to the ✨london westminster 1689✨ and the people, that i’ve found, in confessional reformed baptist churches, do not fit the anti-intellectual stereotype lol. very nerdy. book worms. church historians. calvin lovers/studiers (more than just tulip). luther lovers/studiers. i am wondering what you think/know about this…
Can someone comment on the validity of people like MacArthur and Piper? I just discovered a lot of these people but I don’t want to entertain heretics, which based on zoomer’s theologian tier list, sounds like MacArthur is..?
R.C Sproul denies that "God died on the cross" on a series that he did on "wisdom" because if God died on the cross, the world itself would be destroyed, because nothing can exist apart from the existence of God.
One of the arguments Muslims use against Christianity is that if God became incarnate, who then was actually running the whole universe? Death is the separation of the soul and the spirit from the body. Just like the Incarnation, nobody can really understand what this "death" was like for Jesus; the best I have ever heard was to say that Jesus's body was in the tomb, His soul was in Hades fulfilling His promise to the thief, and His spirit was with His Father on the throne - and whatever that actually means is part of the incomprehensibility of the Godhead which has not been revealed to us.
No. In terms of theology, it's just a theological system. In terms of churches and traditions, it is just a group of churches following certain traditions. You can't escape this, even by joining a non-denominational church, because you're only dividing the Church into more pieces.
@catfinity8799 Or then again, yes, and for the same reasons! Having any part of the church which calls itself after the name of a man rather than the name of Christ is suspicious in the extreme, and can lead only to division. Saying that "it's just a group of churches following certain traditions" when not only is it a distinction held up with some pride, but people have been killed over this, is like taking a 30000 feet view in order not to see the a massive crevasse in the road. Nevertheless, you cannot escape the body of Christ, call yourself what you will! I hold - maybe like you? - that any division is the work of man, not the work of God.
@@jeremywilliams5107 It is true that the Church is divided because of man. Because men are imperfect, the bishops of Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other, creating the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. The Catholic Church gradually became more corrupt, in both doctrine and practice, and when the Protestant Reformers Luther and Zwingli tried to reform the Catholic Church, they were excommunicated too, so they split off and created the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. When Luther and Zwingli met up to try to merge their movements, Luther was so enraged by Zwingli's symbolic view of the sacraments, particularly the eucharist, that he left. When the Pope wouldn't let Henry VIII get a divorce, he decided to follow the Reformers and split off, creating the Church of England. Then the British got a drinking problem, and John Wesley started a movement to be more conscientious about following Christian ethics and holding each other accountable, which became the Methodist Church. Then because of geographical differences, these Protestant Churches were split into several denominations. Afterwards, there were more splits over important theological issues, like church discipline for holding slaves, who can take communion, and theological liberalism. There were more holiness revival movements, creating the Pentecostals and the Church of the Nazarene, similarly to how the Methodist Church was started, but more radical. Around the time of the mainstream Protestant Reformation, there was also a more radical reformation, creating the Baptists, Anabaptists, and Quakers. So clearly, we do have a very real problem. The solution to the problem is to make peace between the denominations, not go off and create your own Nondenominational church, which is actually a mini denomination unto itself. Until the problem is solved, there is no escaping the problem. And with the names, the names don't matter. We have to have a way to distinguish between the different groups that have formed, and names like Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed work just fine. There is nothing wrong with having a name like Lutheran or Wesleyan. They still call themselves Churches, recognize Christ as their head, and recognize each other's baptisms. Even the Eastern Orthodox Church, the most exclusive denomination, will recognize Protestant and Catholic baptisms.
9:53 Abandoning Ecumenical Creeds seems to be typical of Evangelicalism to sound less Catholic, like denying Mary is the Mother of God, or that God died on the cross, but it is not just Baptist, it is a low-church thing. Catholics keep a very high Mariology to keep a very high Christology (even the Hail Mary, except for the last two verses, is in the Bible; although, thinking better, these last verses could be implicit), but in doing so they make too high a view of Mary, I think you would agree, through the dogmas of "Immaculate Conception" and "Ascension to Heaven".
this is a very anachronistic understanding of the reformed tradition. i don’t even think any of these men on the iceberg would’ve been considered reformed by the actual reformed orthodox theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries.
I would say that I believed in autotheos when I was a Christian. It always rubbed me the wrong way when people kind of overlooked the god-ness of Christ and especially the Holy Spirit. That subordination, if you will. I never thought about jesus being begotten as a reason for thinking otherwise but I used to think most Christians believed in something like autotheos. I'm surprised it's not as common. Probably would have known this but CoC does not care for in-depth theology.
Is it weird that the extra Calvinisticum and Spiritual Real Presence make sense to me, but so does Neo-Chalcedonianism, which is Alexandrine in nature and accepts Theopaschism and the communicatio idiomatum? Am I alone in this regard?
Orthodox do no believe that Christ and the HS get their divinity from the Father. They are the same essence. The Orthodox believe that the Son is begotten of the Father and that the HS proceeds from the Father and they would never state anything about their relationship beyond that (because that is all scripture states about their relationship). I assumed all Christians agreed with the Cappadocian explanation of the Trinity and am surprised to learn that Calvinists don’t. Very interesting.
Glory to Jesus Christ! As Christian of autocephalic Orthodox Church of Ukraine I want to ask you about Charismatic Christians. I haven't seen them in your's denomination explanations, so who are they? It's denomination or interdenominational movement or irdenominational Christians (with bad music)?
I just read out about the puritan/calvinist bans on Christmas in America and in europe. They argued that it was a Catholic invention not found in scripture.
Yes, one of the problems with the Puritans is that they went overboard and wanted to get rid of everything that was considered "Catholic", like Christmas and other holidays. However, nowadays this is not the case. I belong to the Presbyterian Church of Brazil, the largest reformed and conservative denomination in my country and my pastor, who is traditional, celebrates Christmas and spends the entire month of December talking about it and even has a Christmas tree at home. and nativity scene. We will have a special service for Christmas. Other important pastors, however, see the celebration as optional.
@pedroguimaraes6094 Yeah I don't think any of our churches are like they were 500 years ago. Calvin believed in many things modern calvinists reject, same with Lutherans and luther. I just found out how anti catholic things were here. I always thought it was basically like "freedom of religion" the whole anti catholic history of this country is mind blowing.
It’s so funny when extremists say certain things aren’t “found in Scripture” in this literal sense. We can use our common sense to want to celebrate the birth of Christ; this is obvious! The Trinity isn’t explicitly mentioned in Scripture, either … but you can use your reasoning to clearly see it.
@@timboslice980 The big reason the Protestants were anti-Catholic was that they were having wars with the Catholics, both in Europe and in North America. And, America was taking in persecuted Protestants from French and Spanish countries in the New World as well as the old.
Its an extension of the regulative principle, that the only forms of worship that are licit are those that are explicitly enjoined by scripture. Nothing is allowed except thah which scripture commands. That includes holy days and other feasts and fasts.
Could you do a video covering the more conservatively confessional Presbyterian denominations? I would be interested in seeing you take on denominations such as the PRC (Presbyterian reformed church), free Church of Scotland, RPCNA, etc.
Great Video! Only thing I'd like to add to the Reformed Theology iceberg.... Reformed Arminianism 😎 The Reformed camp is larger than just Calvinism, my brother.
Really makes me sad that you're on the barth/wright train. It really saddens me that pcusa is considered the deepest part of the iceberg. The Already Not Yet kingdom theology is taught by Pca and Opc. Look into the split between Princeton and WTS
PCA and OPC's kingdom theology is suspect due to them not having even 10% of the social programs for the poor that the PCUSA does. They tend to think that's "not the church's job" which flows from their R2K theology
If there is one thing which becomes very clear when you read the actual disputes between the Arminians and the Calvinists, it's that the Calvinists had no idea what the Arminians were on about, and the Arminians only had little idea of what the Calvinists were on about. Each side accused the other of all sorts of things which they didn't hold.
The CRC/Dutch Reformed are definitely into Kingdom Theology, did you mention the Netherlands Reformed Church being at the bottom or the "Reformed Amish" (anti kingdom theology extreme)
I wish the Presbyterian churches I used to be a member of in my region adhered to John Calvin or the WCF when it came to the sacraments. Around here, "Presbyterian" = "inconsistent Baptist," the only distinction being that infants are allowed to be baptised via sprinkling. But baptism and communion are still treated merely as signs, not as effectual means of grace and not as something Christ is substantially present in. I was stunned the first time I explained what my church taught to an American Presbyterian online and he pointed out how far removed it was from Presbyterian orthodoxy.
@@joshuadonahue5871 to the best of my highly unreliable understanding, in Presbyterian theology baptism is an effectual means of grace for making someone a member of the new covenant, but not for granting regeneration, thus even the non-elect receive what it effectually does (although the non-elect baptised will inevitably perish as covenant-breakers rather than as restored children of God). If someone better versed in Presbyterian orthodoxy wants to correct me on any of the above, they are certainly welcome. It's been 5 years since I set foot in a Presbyterian church and 8 years since I was any form of Calvinist, and again the Presbyterian churches I was a member of didn't even teach Presbyterian orthodoxy on this matter, so I wouldn't trust me as a reliable resource on this front.
If I was predestined to have faith then what is the point of choosing faith and also how can you reconcile people who are predestined to NOT have faith as being eternally condemned? Doesn't seem just.
There are many videos dealing with these "difficult" issues in Reformed Theology, just as there are videos dealing with "difficult" issues in Christianity in general (e.g., The Problem of Evil and Christian Exclusivism). Pastor Gevin Ortlung (Truth Unites) made a very good and honest video clarifying the Reformed vision, it's called "Calvinism isn't Crazy!" I highly recommend it.
The short, polemical answer is that it's not just, but fortunately Calvinism's conception of God isn't true. Feel free to listen to the Calvinists' explanation, but if you feel like theh dont really resolve that central problem (among others), you're not alone.
If God is able to utterly save whomever he wants, why wouldn't he? He says that he doesn't want anyone to perish but that all should be saved.. Something I can't understand in the Reformed position...
This is why limited atonement is a necessary part of the tulip. Without it, unlimited penal substitutionary atonement + irresistible grace would result in universalism.
@@joshuadonahue5871 Hi Josh, how would the Reformed position read 1 John 2:2: " And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." ?
@@julietcoles6245 They would probably waffle and say that "world" in this instance means only the "world system" or maybe a "representative sample" of the world as they sometimes do with regard to 1 Timothy 2:4. I am not reformed myself but that's what I would guess based on my interactions. I was just explaining why the L of the TULIP is necessary to prevent the other 4 doctrines from resulting in universalism. It's not a supposition from the text, but a logical consequence of reconciling their other presuppositions.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Totally agree. I’ve learned so much from Dr. Cooper. I should correct myself and say Christology is one of the major reasons I’m Reformed. There’s the whole LIP part of TULIP as well. Thanks for the vids. Keep up the good work 👍
Fun fact - the Westminster Confession doesn't support Calvin's view of predestination. It still ends up ascribing evil to God, which is problematic, but as in most cases when one uses the names of men to describe a particular creeds, there is the tendency to assume that if you support one thing which that person was in favour of, then you support the lot.
My hang up with Calvinism has been that it ascribes evil to God. I was a Calvinist for a while, and then ran upon this issue. What are your thoughts on the matter?
@colereece3902 God is good, and as such, can not be the author of evil. Therefore, any way of looking at things that makes Him such must be wrong somewhere. "Calvinism", as it is called, does contain good stuff, but this is not part of it. I have the rule that anything ending in ISM should be taken outside and shot; it locks you into accepting absolutely everything that this bit of theology states, and rejecting even the good parts when you hit a snag. Without any right to advise you, I would say hang on to those things that are good, wholesome, and solid, and forget the rest. Call yourself by the name of Christ, and not by the name of a man. If you're up to it, could I suggest reading this book? books.google.be/books?id=PJM4AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Published in 1889, it is a comprehensive review of predestination, election, and grace. The author has gone through everything that was available on this subject up to that date, presumably reading the originals in Latin, and has managed to show what people actually meant, what influenced them, and whether they changed their minds. This is not a simple subject, and the author takes 800 pages to do his work. I'm up to page 280 so far, and it is an absolute blast.
No the WC clearly states that God ia not the author of evil (it does It literally tbh). Whats more predestination ia really clear in the Bible and we can say with certanty that election and inresistible grace were taught by Augustine and Aquinas (see "Truth Unites" vídeo called Calvinism isn't crazy for more of that).
@pedroguimaraes6094 You're quite correct to say that there is an explicit denial of God as the author of sin in the Westminster Confession. It's also clear from the writings of those that took part in the debates leading to the Foundation of the Westminster Confession that they did not want to end up with this. However, the paragraphs which follow that statement (chapter 3, "God's eternal decrees") practically refute this, in the following way. Reprobation (damnation) is declared to be an effect of God's justice (Calvin makes it an effect of God's sovereign will); sin exists not because God is the author of it, but because He permits it. Therefore preordaining to reprobation is a result of the criminality of the actions, words, and thoughts of a person which are foreknown by God; but it also depends on the grace extended by God to men individually and as He pleases (para. 7). But it is God who defines what sin is, and attributes criminality to an act; the will and intention of any man in doing any act are judged; God in permitting this is playing to a higher and greater good. Yet that act is foreordained, with the intention that accompanies it; and those from whom, according to the scheme, He withholds His grace, are forced to commit acts that are sinful. Therefore they are not the originators of these acts which are defined to be sinful, for how can they be condemned for something from which they have no possibility to escape, since the grace to do so is deliberately withheld? This makes God the originator of sin. The Westminster Confession is a pretty good approach to the subject - it is just inconsistent.
I just went to church for the first time since I was very little today, at age 16, and I would not have done it if not for this channel. I had already drank of spiritual milk, but this was the solid food that I needed to continue to grow in my faith. I will now be attending the small Presbyterian Church just down the street from me, though I lean more towards Lutheranism. They seem to be somewhat theologically liberal, as they have a female interim pastor, but they certainly affirm the sacraments in a reasonably literal sense, and the sermon there made me tear up, frankly. So thank you very much, Redeemed Zoomer.
God bless you! Let me know if you have any questions about Christianity or more specifically Presbyterianism
@@redeemedzoomer6053I think I am going to have to read the bible all the way through first, before I get too far into the details lol. Also, this might not be practical for you, I'm not sure, but it would be awesome if you could remaster the Kingdomcraft videos you made about the basics of Christianity, but without the awkward pauses, low resolution, and slideshow framerate that you have moved beyond as a creator. Thank you so much for all of the content you have made, it's really a blessing.
@@KingArthurWsMy brother in Christ, reading the entire Bible is probably one of the best things you could do for yourself right now =)
@@KingArthurWsI Just advise you to start from the News Testament or at least read both at the same time (1 chapter from OT and then one from NT).
God bless
We need more religious icebergs 😎
Kek wouldn't it be heretical or blasphemous to make an iceberg about any other religion than Calvinism? 🤔
@@loganstrait7503the guy who made this comment made one on traditional Catholicism
@@LukeTheGreat1 so what are you wishing to accomplish here, spreading your opinions to people you know won't agree or be swayed by them?
@@ForGondor-cv4jf The truth has to be spread, u guys are schismatic
@@LukeTheGreat1 ah, schismatic. Funny you're throwing that word around. Tell me, friend, which denomination, religion, or belief is it that you hold that we are in schism from?
as an indonesian reformed christian, thank lord im not that deep
Seperti apa itu menjadi orang kristen di Indoesia? (Maaf, bahasa indonesia aku tidak bagus).
@@throwaway-9825 it's certainly not the best but not the worst, sure you cannot voice your opinions freely without being stamped a kafir or support Israel without having yourself beaten and possibly mugged
However as long as you know your place and not publicly declare your faith you should be fine.
We are very much limited in terms of constricting churches as the local people will call it "christianization" despite Indonesia being one of the countries who were a part of Islamization.
@@jabodetabek1337 ohhhh aku mengerti sekarang, would you say the people individually are prejudiced againt Christians
@@throwaway-9825 very, especially the poor people.
I've lived through many stages of the economy in Indonesia and give or take 10 years ago, where I lived (Depok) my house kept getting thrown at with stones by the Muslim kids simply because I have a dog, it damaged a lot of my backyard and I pretty much wasn't allowed near mosques due to the fact I was Christian.
The more well off family can be said to be more tolerant although not as much as I would want
My dad’s side of the family were thrown into concentration camps in Indonesia because they were half dutch. They had to flee to the netherlands. Indonesia is not friendly to Christians, probably not very friendly to the dutch either. God bless you bro and may God strengthen and encourage you and other Christians every day
There are two types of Reformed Baptist: Calvinistic Baptists and confessional Reformed Baptist.
Confessional Reformed Baptist hold to a modified version of the Westminster Confession know as the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (sometimes called the Second London Baptist Confession). Yes, their sacramental theology is questionable, but they get most things correct concerning historical Reformed theology. Theocast is a great website/podcast if you want to learn more from them. I would generally view these Baptists as Reformed (I attended one of their churches which was very liturgical, including us reciting the Nicene Creed together).
Calvinistic Baptists will hold to a soteriology similar to what John Calvin taught. A few will even hold to covenant theology (although many like John MacArthur hold to dispensationalism instead). However, a lot of them are Premillennialists. Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology is a great text to understand where they stand on issues. I would consider these Baptists too far outside historic Reformational churches to ever be called Reformed in any meaningful way.
Yes! I completely agree. I am a confessional Reformed Baptist and was hoping someone would realize the difference! The only thing i really completely disagree on here is the infant baptism part which confessional Reformed Baptists consider it a part of Reformed tradition more than theology.
Also I think in this video there was a bit of mixing John Calvin's exact beliefs with calvinism, because Armenians don't believe everything Jacobus Arminius believed. It's just both of their salvation.
me too! i hope he sees this because im wondering what he thinks of our branch/if he knows about it
Confessional Reformed Baptist here. Our confession teaches real presence and that Baptism saves
no such thing as "Reformed" baptist
That math iceberg literally only scratches the surface, it's literally like just what you would do to get an undergraduate or masters and there's so much more to math than just the iceberg suggests but it does seem to lay out the general parts of math which mathematicians care about.
Bad bot
Can you timestamp it, I'm too lazy to find it
@@loisjdncpskdjnc7786 like 15 or 16 or 17 or so seconds into the video
As a Baptist who was educated at a Baptist seminary, I was taught (and I can agree with) essentially all of these except infant baptism and Neo-orthodoxy (i.e. the reformed view of the covenants). I would guess even Piper would embrace most of these except amil, paedobaptism, and Neo-orthodoxy. I don't think your assessment of the baptists is quite right
Agreed
I was watching one of your videos (I believe the one about how to take back "woke" churches) and I saw that you briefly mentioned liberation theology in the form of an iceberg, depicting liberation theology, among other things, as being what truly underlies "woke" Christianity.
If you're open to suggestions at all, I would really like to see you elaborate on your views on liberation theology and why you reject it. Liberation theology is an interesting subject -- it dates back to the '60s, it originated in Latin America, and the "wokeness" of liberation theology is more about class than it is about gender, sexuality or race, which in my opinion sets it apart from ordinary American progressive liberalism.
He was talking about theological liberalism, not liberation theology.
@@MossW268 No, he does actually mention liberation theology. ua-cam.com/video/0RBSOGG7amM/v-deo.htmlsi=SaZHxwOKPNAFzjq4&t=6
@gerald.bostian I know that a lot of people don't like wikipedia very much, but this article basically explains everything you need to know about liberation theology: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology
Amil/postmil distinction is not imaginary my friend
Man are you really sure you understand the Baptist view on baptism?
I mean, go ahead and enlighten us! However, the simple fact that break with such ingrained tradition as infant baptism and stand apart from all other Protestants and other Christians on this indeed makes them far outside the mainstream.
@@fighterofthenightman1057they are far from the only denomination that rejects infant baptism
I got married at an OPC church and attended for a long time, its the best church I've ever been a part of. And they do preach that we need to go out into the world and not stay in our own little bubbles. While it is true that these people have much stronger circles that they stay in, they also do a better job than any "missional" church at bringing Christ into whatever occupation they do, and they preach this so strongly because they are so passionate about doctrine, and this is doctrine. It's a church that is separate from the world, but from what I've seen does a very good job at engaging the world and spreading the message of Christ compared to other churches.
I might start calling "Reformed" Baptists, Particular Baptist
Ready to Harvest has a good video on this issue
That's what they used to call themselves. Then they hijacked the word Reformed, now most people think being Reformed is being a baptist who is a Calvinist 🙄
Learned so much about Reformed history and beliefs from this video! It's so interesting and easy to digest. And I completely agree with what was said at 9:00 how it all is intricately connected.
I love your content. The way you talk about Christianity and your topics are very original
Went with my friend to try out a new church yesterday and we got to talking afterwards about reformed theology… get home and this was uploaded “7min ago” 🤣
Those 'TULIP' Baptists are quite different from Reformed Baptists and the latter term shouldn't be used to describe them. RBs descend from the Particular Baptist who definitely considered themselves part of the Reformed tradition. Their sacramentology is barely modified Calvinism, f.e. Their origination is distinct from that of the general Baptists.
KJ Drake has an excellent book on the Extra Calvinisticum! Really helpful, particularly with regards to the Spiritual presence in the Supper
Some Calvinists do not like being called Calvinists because they feel that their church proceeds Calvin. He was just someone who shined light on what the historic church always believed.
Deeper Protestant Conception - This is a subject I have found myself thinking a lot about recently. It’s related to the question of: how does total depravity work?
In some ways it’s a moot point, because Adam always had Jesus imo. If God was a man (Genesis says God walked in the Garden), then Jesus was always there. Adam turned aside even though Jesus was there with him. The Edenic Covenant was easy (My yoke is easy, and my burden is light). Don’t eat that one fruit, and stay in Paradise! But Adam still didn’t do it.
I personally believe that Adam (along with the rest of creation) was not made perfect (Genesis never says so). I do believe he was made very good (like Satan according to Ezekiel), but that he required an ongoing communion with the Lord. Almost as if you have a baby. A baby is not bad in and of itself, but it isn’t perfect. You have to raise it up, watch it grow, teach it right from wrong, etc. Then you will eventually have a good adult in its place.
So I think God’s design was to eventually have Adam eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil after fully instructing him on right and wrong (teaching him to instinctively avoid wrong and do right without knowing the difference). Then Adam would have been made worthy of eternal life through Jesus. So you could say withholding knowledge of good and evil from Adam was a form of God’s grace. It was all originally grace.
Are non-confessional Calvinistic baptists actually calling themselves reformed baptist? Or just 1689 confessional ones?
God bless everyone and have a good day ❤
Even though I strongly disagree with much of the upper levels of Calvinism, to my surprise, I agree with some of the deeper levels.
If predestination is true, then I see no reason to go any further down the iceberg. I want no part of God or faith if he's already chosen whether I'm saved or lost before I was born. Never seen a better reason to play ring around the throaty, if you know what I'm sayin'. Don't read into that, I'm just expressing how disappointed and hopeless that idea would make me feel if Calvinism wasn't heresy.
we need to call Reformed Baptists Particular Baptists again
Redeemed Zoomer overlooked something here. There's a difference from calvinistic baptists like John MacArthur, and confessional Reformed Baptists like Voddie Bachum. John MacArthur is not a Reformed Baptists, he doesn't hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession.
However those that do have much more in common with reformed theology which is why we call ourselves reformed baptists. Also i call myself callvinist still because I don't hold to John Calvin's exact beliefs, i hold to his belief on predestination just as aremenians don't hold to Jacobus Arminius's exact beliefs.
Hope This Helps
7:05 TULIP is a abreviation on Predestination, your claim on how reformed-baptists dont beleive in calvinisim is plain wrong and narrow minded
What was the video where you talked about SPACE? I’m trying to find it but I can’t seem to do so
It's called "Why Reformed Baptists are not Reformed"
@@redeemedzoomer6053 thank you! I greatly appreciate it.
Excellent video. I have learned so much from you: A different strain of Presbyterian thought. I am OPC but a bit more Baptist in outlook. I believe in infant baptism & the real spiritual presence, but I don't emphasize these things with the same fervor as TULIP & the 5 Solas.
One area where I think you are wrong, however, is in your conception of work in the new heaven. Man acts to improve his estate, and to satisfy unease. But man will be perfectly content in heaven. Heaven will not be able to be improved, therefore no work. And I think it is appropriate to consider Heaven "The Sabbath Realm," another reason to assume we will not work. I swear this is not just me being lazy.
Great video for an entry-level presbyterian. A big thank you from India
1:25 No on total depravity we don't deserve anything because we are not in control of our thoughts and actions.
The "T" stand for we deserve Hell? That's ridiculous. Everyone deserves Hell, and it's not unique to Calvinism. It's for Total Depravity, which encompasses that we are born sinful (original sin), we have a sinful nature, we ultimately cannot choose God, and we cannot understand spiritual things-that is Total Depravity, but if you didn't sugar-coat it like that most people wouldn't believe it.
No, it stands for Total Depravity, and he said “WE ALL suck”, even if you’re not a Christian. The doctrine is present in both Calvinism and Arminianism and it’s the essence of the gospel. It is not exclusive to Calvinism, so I am afraid you have missed the entire point, brother.
@@FRodriguez_, what R.C. Sproul, James White, John MacArthur, Charles Spurgeon and many other Calvinists teach is that Total Depravity encompasses those things. There's a reason they don't simply stick with original sin and sinful nature. The separate beliefs that no one will choose God and we cannot understand spiritual things are what ultimately make the doctrine of Total Depravity. Canon of Orange in Canon 7 (529) describes this. The doctrine of Total Depravity is indeed unique to Calvinism in regards to Soteriology. Everyone teaches that we are sinners, as every man has sinned against God, but that's not the essence of the gospel. The Gospel in about Jesus Christ rescuing us, and it was made necessary by that sin. What point have I missed? Every person deserves Hell, both Christian and non-Christian, but Total Depravity is an entirely different subject.
Again, Total Depravity: Original Sin, Sin Nature, You Cannot Choose God, You Cannot Understand Spiritual Things. If I don't believe in these things, I don't believe in Total Depravity, so, no, Total Depravity is not for all Christians. I was correcting what Redeemed Zoomer said, where he completely misrepresented his own view to make it easier to swallow.
I was not attempting a refutation, but a correction. Total Depravity is not "we all deserve Hell," but the four things previously mentioned.
Doesn't total depravity follow simply from the effects of the Fall, in that if we weren't fallen, none of the four would apply?
@@jeremywilliams5107, not necessarily. Total Depravity's four truths are not direct effects of the fall. God outlines the curses from it (Gen 3:14-19). We all suffer physical death since the fall (1 Cor 15:22), women have pain in childbirth, the ground is cursed, we have to work on it, etc. If you read this list, not once is "All your descendants are born sinful," "You will have a sinful nature" or the other two claims mentioned said. It doesn't seem to be how God operates, because in Genesis 4:7 he tells Cain that sin is waiting at the door, and he must rule over it. The assumption God makes is that Cain understands this and that he can choose what God commands. Because of that, he is held responsible.
Ultimately, we have to ask, "What were the effects of the fall?" Physical death was brought into the world (1 Cor 15:22), spiritual death reigns for that all have sinned (Rom 3:23, 5:12, 18), and there is pain in what used to be easy work (Gen 3:14-19). The fall alone does not demand Total Depravity, and it's a non-sequitur to claim that. Total Depravity is a debated topic in Christianity, but the clear effects of the fall are outlined in scripture, and Total Depravity is not something clearly outlined.
Things I'd encourage you to consider are:
Children don't know right from wrong: Deut 1:39, Jnh 4:11, Isa 7:15-16, 1 Cor 14:20,
We must give an account for ourselves. Can children give account for themselves? 2 Cor 5:10, Rom 14:5, 12, Heb 4:13,
Babies go to heaven (2 Sam 12:22-23, Matt 18:3, 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16), and God cannot overlook sin (Hab 1:13, Rom 1:18) If they are sinful and have not repented, how can God justly let them in heaven?
I'm not guilty of my parent's sin: Eze 18:4, 19-20, Jer 31:29-30, Deut 24:16, 2 Chron 25:4,
We are taken by sin. If we are born this way, what are we taken from? Psa 14:3, Isa 53:6, 64:6, Rom 3:12.
Sin is always talked about our own, and only our own sin separates us from God. What sin have I done in the womb? Isa 59:2, Rom 5:12, Rom 7:9, Col 2:13, Rom 2:5-6, 1 Pet 1:17
Finally, God gave us our soul, and it's our soul that's sinful. Does God give us a sinful sin at emnity with him? Eze 18:4, Ecc 12:7
I agree with what Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 7:29, "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."
Amen🙏🕊️❤️😇✝️😊😀🍷🍞🎉Repent
How does Baptismal Regeneration work with a Calvinistic soteriology? What if the baby baptized is not one of the elect? Obviously, in that case, baptism doesnt do anything, right?
The Reformed position is that it only works in tandem with genuine faith.
I wonder too...
He has a video on this
@@maxxiong great! Any way you could send a link?
@@LukeTheGreat1Nope. Not what the Bible says. Jesus is God.
Not gonna lie the whole two natures issue seems like a lot of semantics and not really substance
Why don't y'all call Marry the mother of the GOD-Man
Can you make a video on why you think your belief is true?
29:23 to 29:37
This is still exhibiting the "magic scroll from the sky" fallacy. If your only ultimate standard is the Bible, that woule imply that there was no true authority before the Bible and thus no authority to canonise the books of the Bible. Hence, in your falsely-named neo-orthodoxy, there was no theology before the Bible was written. And this is nonsense since John was a Theologian as we all plainly confess. So how can a theologian write the gospel that would be canonised if theology is defined to be agreeing with that which has already been canonised?
Incredible
The Bible is God's word regardless of what any authority says. But how should we know which books are God's word? Gee, if only we had some sort of infallible guide to help us!
@@thelonelysponge5029 You mean like the Holy Spirit guiding the Church? But --- but then we Christians would be bound in faith to actually heed and obey the precepts given by this Spirit! Then we wouldn't be saved by faith alone! No, I'm afraid the only infallible authority is John Calvin.
Who cares about theology when you have real Persons and real events? The Bible is the progressive revelation of God and the record of what men did in response, and God was around before any theologian; He also constitutes a pretty good authority, being omniscient, eternal and almighty, wouldn't you say?
@@jeremywilliams5107 the only two ways to determine what is and is not the Word of God are theology and direct interaction with God. Anyone can say that anything is the word of God. Only the Spirit-guided Church can truly divine the True Word.
hi beloved brother! love you, brother and appreciate what you are doing! your videos have been helping me learn so much and describe things i’ve never been able to explain, thank you for making them!! i love the unifying and sweet perspective you have toward all of the churches, as we are one. i think you are bearing the fruit of having this loving and kind approach💞
question: are you familiar with westminster confessional reformed baptist churches? i think you may be unaware of confessional reformed baptist churches✨- we subscribe to the ✨london westminster 1689✨ and the people, that i’ve found, in confessional reformed baptist churches, do not fit the anti-intellectual stereotype lol. very nerdy. book worms. church historians. calvin lovers/studiers (more than just tulip). luther lovers/studiers.
i am wondering what you think/know about this…
Can someone comment on the validity of people like MacArthur and Piper? I just discovered a lot of these people but I don’t want to entertain heretics, which based on zoomer’s theologian tier list, sounds like MacArthur is..?
What is a heretic, in your view? What separates heresy from mere difference in opinion?
R.C Sproul denies that "God died on the cross" on a series that he did on "wisdom"
because if God died on the cross, the world itself would be destroyed, because nothing can exist apart from the existence of God.
He believes that the Father did not die on the cross.
He believes that Jesus Christ the God man died on the cross in His human nature.
Jesus = created. One God The Father!
@@LukeTheGreat1 no, Jesus = God
30 I and the Father are one
John 10:30
@@LukeTheGreat1Aww, cute - an Arian LARPer!!
One of the arguments Muslims use against Christianity is that if God became incarnate, who then was actually running the whole universe?
Death is the separation of the soul and the spirit from the body. Just like the Incarnation, nobody can really understand what this "death" was like for Jesus; the best I have ever heard was to say that Jesus's body was in the tomb, His soul was in Hades fulfilling His promise to the thief, and His spirit was with His Father on the throne - and whatever that actually means is part of the incomprehensibility of the Godhead which has not been revealed to us.
Do you think there are similarities between saying something like “I’m a calvinist” and “I am of Appolos” (1 Cor 1:12)
No. In terms of theology, it's just a theological system. In terms of churches and traditions, it is just a group of churches following certain traditions. You can't escape this, even by joining a non-denominational church, because you're only dividing the Church into more pieces.
@catfinity8799 Or then again, yes, and for the same reasons! Having any part of the church which calls itself after the name of a man rather than the name of Christ is suspicious in the extreme, and can lead only to division. Saying that "it's just a group of churches following certain traditions" when not only is it a distinction held up with some pride, but people have been killed over this, is like taking a 30000 feet view in order not to see the a massive crevasse in the road. Nevertheless, you cannot escape the body of Christ, call yourself what you will! I hold - maybe like you? - that any division is the work of man, not the work of God.
@@jeremywilliams5107 It is true that the Church is divided because of man. Because men are imperfect, the bishops of Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other, creating the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. The Catholic Church gradually became more corrupt, in both doctrine and practice, and when the Protestant Reformers Luther and Zwingli tried to reform the Catholic Church, they were excommunicated too, so they split off and created the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. When Luther and Zwingli met up to try to merge their movements, Luther was so enraged by Zwingli's symbolic view of the sacraments, particularly the eucharist, that he left. When the Pope wouldn't let Henry VIII get a divorce, he decided to follow the Reformers and split off, creating the Church of England. Then the British got a drinking problem, and John Wesley started a movement to be more conscientious about following Christian ethics and holding each other accountable, which became the Methodist Church. Then because of geographical differences, these Protestant Churches were split into several denominations. Afterwards, there were more splits over important theological issues, like church discipline for holding slaves, who can take communion, and theological liberalism. There were more holiness revival movements, creating the Pentecostals and the Church of the Nazarene, similarly to how the Methodist Church was started, but more radical. Around the time of the mainstream Protestant Reformation, there was also a more radical reformation, creating the Baptists, Anabaptists, and Quakers.
So clearly, we do have a very real problem. The solution to the problem is to make peace between the denominations, not go off and create your own Nondenominational church, which is actually a mini denomination unto itself. Until the problem is solved, there is no escaping the problem.
And with the names, the names don't matter. We have to have a way to distinguish between the different groups that have formed, and names like Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed work just fine. There is nothing wrong with having a name like Lutheran or Wesleyan. They still call themselves Churches, recognize Christ as their head, and recognize each other's baptisms. Even the Eastern Orthodox Church, the most exclusive denomination, will recognize Protestant and Catholic baptisms.
This iceberg vid was fire 🔥
Great video as always!👍
I’m an atheist, but this is interesting
9:53 Abandoning Ecumenical Creeds seems to be typical of Evangelicalism to sound less Catholic, like denying Mary is the Mother of God, or that God died on the cross, but it is not just Baptist, it is a low-church thing. Catholics keep a very high Mariology to keep a very high Christology (even the Hail Mary, except for the last two verses, is in the Bible; although, thinking better, these last verses could be implicit), but in doing so they make too high a view of Mary, I think you would agree, through the dogmas of "Immaculate Conception" and "Ascension to Heaven".
Wow! Im only 20 seconds in so far and its lovely!
this is a very anachronistic understanding of the reformed tradition. i don’t even think any of these men on the iceberg would’ve been considered reformed by the actual reformed orthodox theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries.
I would say that I believed in autotheos when I was a Christian. It always rubbed me the wrong way when people kind of overlooked the god-ness of Christ and especially the Holy Spirit. That subordination, if you will. I never thought about jesus being begotten as a reason for thinking otherwise but I used to think most Christians believed in something like autotheos. I'm surprised it's not as common.
Probably would have known this but CoC does not care for in-depth theology.
Is it weird that the extra Calvinisticum and Spiritual Real Presence make sense to me, but so does Neo-Chalcedonianism, which is Alexandrine in nature and accepts Theopaschism and the communicatio idiomatum? Am I alone in this regard?
Orthodox do no believe that Christ and the HS get their divinity from the Father. They are the same essence. The Orthodox believe that the Son is begotten of the Father and that the HS proceeds from the Father and they would never state anything about their relationship beyond that (because that is all scripture states about their relationship). I assumed all Christians agreed with the Cappadocian explanation of the Trinity and am surprised to learn that Calvinists don’t. Very interesting.
Glory to Jesus Christ! As Christian of autocephalic Orthodox Church of Ukraine I want to ask you about Charismatic Christians. I haven't seen them in your's denomination explanations, so who are they? It's denomination or interdenominational movement or irdenominational Christians (with bad music)?
Prior to watching the video: Two Kingdoms is a wildly false doctrine.
Now, let's watch the video...
Isn’t Jurgen Moltmann an outright liberal? Wouldn’t his panentheism alone make him not a neo-orthodox?
Good works arnt needed, from us.
They are from Jesus.
The man next ti Jesus on the cross had no good works. All are works are corrupted.
30:25 the kingdom theology
I just read out about the puritan/calvinist bans on Christmas in America and in europe. They argued that it was a Catholic invention not found in scripture.
Yes, one of the problems with the Puritans is that they went overboard and wanted to get rid of everything that was considered "Catholic", like Christmas and other holidays. However, nowadays this is not the case. I belong to the Presbyterian Church of Brazil, the largest reformed and conservative denomination in my country and my pastor, who is traditional, celebrates Christmas and spends the entire month of December talking about it and even has a Christmas tree at home. and nativity scene. We will have a special service for Christmas. Other important pastors, however, see the celebration as optional.
@pedroguimaraes6094 Yeah I don't think any of our churches are like they were 500 years ago. Calvin believed in many things modern calvinists reject, same with Lutherans and luther. I just found out how anti catholic things were here. I always thought it was basically like "freedom of religion" the whole anti catholic history of this country is mind blowing.
It’s so funny when extremists say certain things aren’t “found in Scripture” in this literal sense. We can use our common sense to want to celebrate the birth of Christ; this is obvious! The Trinity isn’t explicitly mentioned in Scripture, either … but you can use your reasoning to clearly see it.
@@timboslice980 The big reason the Protestants were anti-Catholic was that they were having wars with the Catholics, both in Europe and in North America. And, America was taking in persecuted Protestants from French and Spanish countries in the New World as well as the old.
Its an extension of the regulative principle, that the only forms of worship that are licit are those that are explicitly enjoined by scripture. Nothing is allowed except thah which scripture commands. That includes holy days and other feasts and fasts.
Is the Rapture and Second coming something Jesus spoke of while he was alive or is it the disciples or prophets telling?
Why is it that at, or near the bottom, of every iceberg for groups that split off from the catholic or orthodox is a redefinition of the Trinity.
By what authority do you or anyone have to reform? On basis can you make reforms? Is everything up for reform?
I am just finally going underwater of this iceberg. Thank you
Could you do a video covering the more conservatively confessional Presbyterian denominations? I would be interested in seeing you take on denominations such as the PRC (Presbyterian reformed church), free Church of Scotland, RPCNA, etc.
I've gotten to the 2 kingdoms/ Extra Calvinisticim layer of the iceberg. But tell me, what you know about that Leiden Synopsis hommie?
Even though at the near top of the iceberg the most dense and important topic is Christology.
Great Video! Only thing I'd like to add to the Reformed Theology iceberg....
Reformed Arminianism 😎
The Reformed camp is larger than just Calvinism, my brother.
Ayyyy sick gang, where y’all at? 🤒
very unrelated - have you listened to the dkc series' music? its soooooooo good, especially DKCTF and dkc1 + 2
Really makes me sad that you're on the barth/wright train.
It really saddens me that pcusa is considered the deepest part of the iceberg.
The Already Not Yet kingdom theology is taught by Pca and Opc.
Look into the split between Princeton and WTS
PCA and OPC's kingdom theology is suspect due to them not having even 10% of the social programs for the poor that the PCUSA does. They tend to think that's "not the church's job" which flows from their R2K theology
All of these are pretty much the same, and especially schismatic
James 2:24
I wonder if you've heard of David Wilkerson and his prophecy called The Vision that prophecy is in full swing
7:25 the second level of iceberg: R. C. Sproul
Arminians: Calvinists suck
Calvinists: At least we admit it #TotalDepravity
If there is one thing which becomes very clear when you read the actual disputes between the Arminians and the Calvinists, it's that the Calvinists had no idea what the Arminians were on about, and the Arminians only had little idea of what the Calvinists were on about. Each side accused the other of all sorts of things which they didn't hold.
@@jeremywilliams5107many such cases
Glad I don't need to care since they are all heretics.
10:33 I got you John Macathur, you're a heretic.
The CRC/Dutch Reformed are definitely into Kingdom Theology, did you mention the Netherlands Reformed Church being at the bottom or the "Reformed Amish" (anti kingdom theology extreme)
haha they ARE an interesting bunch
I dont believe Carl Bart is Christian.
Yo, can you talk about philosophies like Epicureanism and Stoism and such? Itd be interesting seeing you talk about that.
Pragmatism too
Great diagrams. As usual your insights are keen. I agree that the Baptists are not fully in the Calvinistic camp.
7:05 a comparative table of Calvinist and Calvinistic
Was this vid basically just a 30+ minute ad for the PCUSA? (lol)
No it was not.
7:30 comparative table of Presbyterian
Great summary as always. I'm Dutch Reformed and even I have not gotten to the bottom layer!
4:20 they are not "reformed". OK.
13:05 theosis and union with Christ
I wish the Presbyterian churches I used to be a member of in my region adhered to John Calvin or the WCF when it came to the sacraments. Around here, "Presbyterian" = "inconsistent Baptist," the only distinction being that infants are allowed to be baptised via sprinkling. But baptism and communion are still treated merely as signs, not as effectual means of grace and not as something Christ is substantially present in. I was stunned the first time I explained what my church taught to an American Presbyterian online and he pointed out how far removed it was from Presbyterian orthodoxy.
I dont know much about Presbyterian orthodoxy. Is baptism an effectual means of grace even if the recipient is not elect?
@@joshuadonahue5871 to the best of my highly unreliable understanding, in Presbyterian theology baptism is an effectual means of grace for making someone a member of the new covenant, but not for granting regeneration, thus even the non-elect receive what it effectually does (although the non-elect baptised will inevitably perish as covenant-breakers rather than as restored children of God).
If someone better versed in Presbyterian orthodoxy wants to correct me on any of the above, they are certainly welcome. It's been 5 years since I set foot in a Presbyterian church and 8 years since I was any form of Calvinist, and again the Presbyterian churches I was a member of didn't even teach Presbyterian orthodoxy on this matter, so I wouldn't trust me as a reliable resource on this front.
How would you divide once saved always saved vs perseverance of the saints
"Make your calling and election sure."
Great timing bc I am finishing my second part to my iceberg video!
12:27 3rd level: Michael Horton
If I was predestined to have faith then what is the point of choosing faith and also how can you reconcile people who are predestined to NOT have faith as being eternally condemned? Doesn't seem just.
There are many videos dealing with these "difficult" issues in Reformed Theology, just as there are videos dealing with "difficult" issues in Christianity in general (e.g., The Problem of Evil and Christian Exclusivism). Pastor Gevin Ortlung (Truth Unites) made a very good and honest video clarifying the Reformed vision, it's called "Calvinism isn't Crazy!" I highly recommend it.
The short, polemical answer is that it's not just, but fortunately Calvinism's conception of God isn't true. Feel free to listen to the Calvinists' explanation, but if you feel like theh dont really resolve that central problem (among others), you're not alone.
Your description of total depravity 👌
18:00 4th level: Lane Tipton
Love is the best religion in the world 🌎
luke wrote acts.... right... 10:39
I have thought about suggesting this for so long.
Learning. I’m Arminian but have some agreements with reform theology
Arminius was Reformed. He shared 98% of his faith with Calvin.
This is excellent - Thanks for uploading!
14:51 Covenant theology
Wait, so can I believe in premillennialism and still be reformed. Even if I’m not dispensationalist?
Are you part of a Presbyterian or Dutch Reformed Church? Or are you Baptist/Nondenominational
@@redeemedzoomer6053: Baptist
If God is able to utterly save whomever he wants, why wouldn't he? He says that he doesn't want anyone to perish but that all should be saved.. Something I can't understand in the Reformed position...
This is why limited atonement is a necessary part of the tulip. Without it, unlimited penal substitutionary atonement + irresistible grace would result in universalism.
@@joshuadonahue5871 Hi Josh, how would the Reformed position read 1 John 2:2: " And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." ?
@@julietcoles6245 They would probably waffle and say that "world" in this instance means only the "world system" or maybe a "representative sample" of the world as they sometimes do with regard to 1 Timothy 2:4. I am not reformed myself but that's what I would guess based on my interactions. I was just explaining why the L of the TULIP is necessary to prevent the other 4 doctrines from resulting in universalism. It's not a supposition from the text, but a logical consequence of reconciling their other presuppositions.
@@joshuadonahue5871 Ok, I see your point. Thanks for clarifying🙏
Enjoyed your commentary on Christology. This is why I am Reformed and not Lutheran. Have you watched Cooper’s Christology series? It’s excellent.
Yup! I've learned so much about REFORMED theology from him, more than any actual Reformed pastor
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Totally agree. I’ve learned so much from Dr. Cooper. I should correct myself and say Christology is one of the major reasons I’m Reformed. There’s the whole LIP part of TULIP as well. Thanks for the vids. Keep up the good work 👍
Fun fact - the Westminster Confession doesn't support Calvin's view of predestination. It still ends up ascribing evil to God, which is problematic, but as in most cases when one uses the names of men to describe a particular creeds, there is the tendency to assume that if you support one thing which that person was in favour of, then you support the lot.
My hang up with Calvinism has been that it ascribes evil to God. I was a Calvinist for a while, and then ran upon this issue. What are your thoughts on the matter?
@colereece3902 God is good, and as such, can not be the author of evil. Therefore, any way of looking at things that makes Him such must be wrong somewhere.
"Calvinism", as it is called, does contain good stuff, but this is not part of it. I have the rule that anything ending in ISM should be taken outside and shot; it locks you into accepting absolutely everything that this bit of theology states, and rejecting even the good parts when you hit a snag. Without any right to advise you, I would say hang on to those things that are good, wholesome, and solid, and forget the rest. Call yourself by the name of Christ, and not by the name of a man.
If you're up to it, could I suggest reading this book?
books.google.be/books?id=PJM4AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Published in 1889, it is a comprehensive review of predestination, election, and grace. The author has gone through everything that was available on this subject up to that date, presumably reading the originals in Latin, and has managed to show what people actually meant, what influenced them, and whether they changed their minds. This is not a simple subject, and the author takes 800 pages to do his work. I'm up to page 280 so far, and it is an absolute blast.
No the WC clearly states that God ia not the author of evil (it does It literally tbh). Whats more predestination ia really clear in the Bible and we can say with certanty that election and inresistible grace were taught by Augustine and Aquinas (see "Truth Unites" vídeo called Calvinism isn't crazy for more of that).
@pedroguimaraes6094 You're quite correct to say that there is an explicit denial of God as the author of sin in the Westminster Confession. It's also clear from the writings of those that took part in the debates leading to the Foundation of the Westminster Confession that they did not want to end up with this. However, the paragraphs which follow that statement (chapter 3, "God's eternal decrees") practically refute this, in the following way.
Reprobation (damnation) is declared to be an effect of God's justice (Calvin makes it an effect of God's sovereign will); sin exists not because God is the author of it, but because He permits it. Therefore preordaining to reprobation is a result of the criminality of the actions, words, and thoughts of a person which are foreknown by God; but it also depends on the grace extended by God to men individually and as He pleases (para. 7). But it is God who defines what sin is, and attributes criminality to an act; the will and intention of any man in doing any act are judged; God in permitting this is playing to a higher and greater good. Yet that act is foreordained, with the intention that accompanies it; and those from whom, according to the scheme, He withholds His grace, are forced to commit acts that are sinful. Therefore they are not the originators of these acts which are defined to be sinful, for how can they be condemned for something from which they have no possibility to escape, since the grace to do so is deliberately withheld? This makes God the originator of sin.
The Westminster Confession is a pretty good approach to the subject - it is just inconsistent.
25:45 Neo-orthodoxy