If conservative churches don't "maintain the power structure" then they will be subverted by activists and diverted from their original purpose. We have seen this happen many times to both Christian and secular institutions. Keep "dissenters" far away -- they are poison to the body. "Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them." -- Romans 16:17
@@ar2851 I'm pretty sure we're in agreement. Activists rail against the structure that exists so they can move in and control things according to their nefarious progressive agenda. That's what the OP seemed to be saying, and I'm just saying what their motives are.
As a former elected official, at the time a Democrat back in 2000 and now an Independent many years later, I truly resonated with the comment "politically homeless."
Thank you for sharing this honest approach to this subject and historical education on church history. I appreciate all your videos and learn so much from them. ❤
Thank you each for an interesting discussion. The topic has been front and center in my thinking since I became a Christian in the early 70’s. I had been raised in a prominent main-line, liberal church, and in many ways felt saved out of that. When I made a “decision” for Christ I was set upon by a theological world view that did not track with my experience. When I declared my intension to go to a conservative bible college instead of our denominational seminary my senior pastor counseled me against it because they probably used books like “The Battle For The Bible” in the curriculum. They did, and as a young Christian this was almost reason enough to support my choice. As I learned more I understood that there was/is a great divide between reformed Calvinist theology and Arminian theology that precedes the great divide between a liberal and a conservative theological world view. I remain today a “decisionist” and think of this as a hallmark of evangelicalism. I thought then in terms of us vs them breaking down like this: higher critical thought vs fundamentalism, socialism vs americanism, liberation theology and liberalism in general vs faithfulness to the inerrant word of God, social Christians vs transformed Christians. I subscribed to Sojourners, Charisma, and Christianity Today magazines years ago. Today I still have a blind spot where reformed teaching is concerned. I admire the scholarly, logical teaching of many preachers in the Calvinist camp, but as much as I am drawn to the style and most of the content I remain suspicious because of my formative experiences. My youth pastor looking at me like I was a martian when I said I had been born again is an image that sticks. I do think the LGBTQ movement is just piling on to theological liberalism in general. I don’t think we can consider the movement a secondary issue like say smoking or drinking. It is an issue of core biblical teaching. As a short hand tool I suppose I am glad to be called an evangelical. Disciple of Christ is more accurate to me but no more sufficient. Thanks again.
Thanks, Sean! I don't have time to read all these books, but I do appreciate that you guys going through these books critiquing Evangelicalism. The point about making the Bible the authority (throughout the interview) was exactly what I would expect and it makes me want to trust what you guys are saying more. If Sola Scriptura is what Talbot and Biola hold to, then even if I don't have the same exact view, I know that the heart of these ministires/colleges is in the right place. Thanks again for being the salt and light of the world! I'm happy to see your UA-cam channel growing as well! Seems like just yesterday you had 100K less subscribers!
@SeanMcDowell Prof McDowell, Jesus is the authority. With so many Bibles/Translation versions, which scripture is authority? How is Sola scriptura authority for/to an illterate person? How is sola scriptura authoritative for the 1st 300 odd years prior to scripture being compiled? Fundamental doctrines may have been retained in mainline translations but translators DID make choices... like the that verse in Songs of Solomon "Black but beautiful", when the original text doesn't say BUT. So the human translator made a choice. Many such choices were made and now people claim Bible as authority when God/Jesus is the authority that shld inform our reading of scriptura. SOLA CHRIST FIRST. Thoughts?
Evangelicalism, in my experience, uses a simplified, easy-to-understand approach to the Bible that works as a double-edged sword; sometimes they hit the nail on the head so to speak by making theological concepts understandable by a wide audience (kudos to them for that) that would oftentimes by theologians be done in a wordy, overly complex manner; at other times there’s an oversimplification of certain theological concepts that does not do justice (ie provide a fair and balanced approach to the discussion as a product of biblical scholarship and exegesis) and leads people to take the preacher at their word vs what educated reasoning discerns. I also don’t like that if you don’t agree to the oversimplified viewpoint you’re sometimes treated as “not biblical” or “not spiritual” enough. I am ok with pastors not having training in seminary or theological college (I went to one) as it appears to me Biblically valid (Peter wasn’t trained in the Scriptures to the extent that Paul was) however I do think accepting the calling of pastor should mean a willingness to both read and study the Scripture with an open heart and mind before preaching on it.
The tent can only be bigger when what comes in isn't heresy. Whenever left influence enters a church it invariably leads to secular humanism with a Christian veneer.
The National Association of Evangelicals was founded to counter fundamentalism on the right and modernism on the left. It was intended to be a middle path - embracing and affirming the essentials of the historic Christian faith (in contrast to modernism, which denied some of them) while embracing an outward approach to culture and the world (as opposed to the rigidity and insularity of fundamentalism). Its Statement of Faith was deliberately brief and broad. People of many different traditions and denominations within the Protestant community could embrace it while still embracing and affirming their traditional creeds and catechisms. What has happened since 1942 when the movement was founded is that there has been a sea change in both the culture and the Christian community. As a result ideas which were mainstream in 1942 are now seen as “right wing” or “intolerant.” In 1942 the idea that marriage was between one man and one woman, for example, was so widely shared that it would have been incomprehensible to have to defend it. The belief that the Bible is infallible was likewise fairly mainstream. Today these views are considered reactionary or intolerant. The culture has shifted profoundly so that what was once middle of the road and mainstream is now on the fringes. Evangelicals have changed some, but the culture has changed enormously. Evangelicals have made our fair share of mistakes and will doubtless make many more, but it’s important to understand that the shift in culture has made Evangelicals look intolerant. That’s important to consider when considering the Evangelical movement.
Tragically, so many “evangelicals” have gotten so caught up in politics and the near-worship of one politician in particular they have forgotten why they are here.
Nobody actually worships him. This is simply not true. Seeing that someone is being railroaded and unfairly persecuted is not the same thing as worshiping.
This argument assume that evangelicals even know why they are here. Their whole movement is based on giving themselves ecclesiastical authority based on a universal failure to understand both who Christ was actually speaking to when He gave the Great Commission and the Great Commission itself.
@CaptainWeirdBeard69 billcook4768 did not say all evangelicals. If my inkling is correct, it sounds like we are talking about Trump here. There are some who claim to be Christian and yet have this fierce loyalty to Trump that to disagree with any of his policies or how he handles things, you get persecuted and labeled as this or that. You may not worship him but there are some who pretty much fit the bill. And I say this because I have seen it as a conservative. Even just mentioning support for another candidate like Nikki Haley will get you disgusting comments from some people. Again, some not all. But it's those "some" people that seem to be speaking louder and louder like the political extreme left.
Back in 1976, the Billy Graham crusade sent letters requesting follow-up to ministers of Catholic congregations, mainline churches, and charismatic fellowships, as well communities who call themselves evangelical. So the BIG tent was larger then. The Billy Graham organization did provide materials that were designed to help people grow in their relationships with the Lord.
We are fine in the knowledge of the Saviour! The LORD is my light and salvation. Whom shall I fear?! The LORD is the stronghold of my life - of whom shall I be afraid?!
Your critique, Sean, around the 43 minute mark where you emphasize the Bible is entirely the point. I realize, and agree, that the “evangelical movement” has used that starting point to drift into all sorts of positions (like racism) that deserve condemnation. However, as your Dad always pointed to in his apologetics work, the key issue is the Bible. All questions of theological issue must come back to the Bible singularly. If one wishes to use “the Bible plus” concept, that person is not aligned with Jesus and the historic faith. It can’t be called “Christianity.” It could be some new religion that blends some parts of the Bible with whatever new position they want to take, but that’s not where Jesus is.
Scott - you identified yourself religiously and politically exactly how I do. I thought I was so unique in my vagabond ways 😂 I'll have more confidence identifying in these ways knowing a Christian I respect like yourself does the same. Keep up the ministry, Sean and Scott!
Too many evangelists spread lies about catholicism . They 're usually pretty ignorant about the history of church and very few of them have read life of saints (edifying lives for all ) . They reject eucharisty whereas it is Jesus command Mat 26 , 26/29 , John 6 , 51/54 . A true believer in God should never reject anyone because he 's a sinner , we 're all sinners ( but some sins are more visible than others ) . Instead as christians we are told to spread the Gospel , to be good and merciful to everyone ; if someone is going the wrong way he must be corrected with love and patience without condemning him . Everyone should be welcome in church . 🙏🙏
It is for me. Over the past couple of months, I've been pulling myself away more and more from evangelicalism. I realize that a lot of it contradicts or at the very least disharmonizes with the beliefs and practices of historical and biblical Christianity. Many false doctrines. Lack of reverence. Lack of true and proper worship. Can be argued that it isn't even part of the Church that Jesus established. There are some good things about evangelicalism, but all of those are secondary things
I wonder too. I think about the modern church in general, and not just Evangelicals. There is profound evil today and the church was designed to confront it. I'm willing to, but many in the church, including so many in leadership don't seem to care.
“Evangelical” is so broad that it’s almost meaningless. In the media, it’s a synonym for Protestant. 100 years ago, it meant Protestant outside “modernist” mainline churches (now called “Progressive”). Evangelicalism split into New Evangelical and Fundamentalist. It sounds like you’re moving toward Fundamentalism. The big sticking point for Fundamentalists was over churches and pastors cooperating with heterodox and apostate churches. The watered-down gospel (“easy-believism”) was a common complaint, too. Other issues surfaced, too, but those two are the main differences. To pull away from Evangelism, you’d have to move toward one of the Catholic varieties. But to pull away from New Evangelism, you could go toward Fundamentalism.
@@ricksonora6656 Thanks for the comment. That's exactly what I've been doing as a matter of fact. I've been attending Mass for the past three weekends. I don't know where I'll be in a couple of years, but this is a "difficult" time for sure
@apracity7672 I was an Evangelical and became Catholic a little over two years ago and it was the best decision I ever made concerning my walk with Christ. The grace available in the Sacraments blows away anything you'll get in Evangelicalism.
One study said, of identifiable characteristics on domestic violence, the ONE that most accurately shows who is LEAST likely to beat their spouses, it’s evangelical Christians WHO ALSO go to church every week and are members of a local church. The MOST LIKELY to be domestic violence perpetrators: “nominal Christians” who don’t go to church every week! There’s a mile of difference between the 9% who meet the definition of “evangelical” and the 43% who self identify….
While in full agreement with the Nicene creed, a liberal Democrat would not feel welcome in many Evangelical churches. Political viewpoints are considered equal to adherence to sound doctrine.
The "big tent," identity is nothing more than permission to all to remain as we are. To continue in sin. I agree, that the behavior matters. Same-sex attraction is not the same as sexual behavior.
Polls have found that the number of Americans identifying as evangelical Christians is dropping rapidly. And it's not just the polls. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest evangelical Protestant group in the country, has lost more than 2 million members over the last decade and a half. ...Virtually every recent poll about Christianity in America has been brutal for its followers. About 64% of Americans call themselves Christian today. That might sound like a lot, but 50 years ago that number was 90%, according to a 2020 Pew Research Center study.Apr 9, 2023
Monkey boy: You come here often to attack Christians' faith, don't you?! Tell your master the Saviour destroyed his power over man's sin and death! Nothing you or other servants of the evil one can do to change that! Christus Victor!
That was a fascinating discussion. Love this kind of thing, even as an atheist. Well done. Just one point. No political platform is perfect. But then no theological platform is perfect either. I think Christians need to get away from the idea that there is Christianity and there is everything else.
I really don't see what's the problem here aside from evangelicals as a group not being aware of it. Doctrines become more clarified over time, it isn't some great hypocrisy or scandal for evangelical doctrine but become more clarified beyond the original wording of the council that formed it.
I went to Northside Chrisitan High School in the eighties. They were fundamentalist baptists Evangelical. They had kids there doing black face and they were racist WHILE they had a few black students. I was so mad. But I was a kid and my mother put me in that school.
You guys might want to do some fact-checking: Evangelicalism long preceded Fundamentalism. Indeed you called yourselves at the time "NEO-evangelicals." This is important because Fundamentalists, disliked as they might be/have been, were still Evangelicals themselves. Neo-evangelicals wanted to distinguish THEMSELVES by characterizing their new sensibilities by identifying with Billy Graham as a spokesman, "Christianity Today" as its bi-weekly publication, Fuller Sem. as its hub, and Harold Ockenga as a spokesman, etc. Their statement began with: *"The New Evangelicalism is the latest dress of orthodoxy as Neo-Orthodoxy is the latest expression of theological liberalism."* Recognizing this as historical fact is necessary before you go on here to condemn your enemies for their sins and forgive yourself of your own. It is essential to understand the precipitous decline you are pretending to explain. Do please be honest, if only to claw back some credibility.
You do know that people will lump strange people in with Evangelical like Greg Locke. People see Evangelicals as extremely legalistic as well. ...Like militant legalism.
Don't misunderstand me, because Fundamentalism doesn't automatically entail legalism, but when people think of legalism, they are probably thinking more so of Fundamentalist churches. Legalism isn't required for Fundamentalism, but there is an historical trend of the two of them going together.
gracie1316, America is my home, my house. My house is on 🔥 fire. I must save my home, my family before I save the world. 150 years ago our home was stable and strong....so we could leave our home, assured it was stable and safe while we were missionaries in other countries. That is not true today. While the church in other countries may be in trouble, I do not live there. I live here, where my American church is in serious trouble. And no, we cannot do both at the same time because the degree of trouble here is too great, the fire too large.
These guys need more research in the "black church" arena. I hate that language as well, so tribal. I think they are trying to be sensitive or appeal to a certain "non-believer" and I think I'm sounding incredibly arrogant but there is a side to the culture, that a lot of blacks subscribe to, that is not grasped by these men.
Take care with your definitions. The cultural differences between US and UK need looking at as do thecultural differences to non english speaking communities.
Modern Evangelicalism began as a middle-road between (mostly Southern) Fundamentalism with its racist history, and theological liberals. Phil Vischer from The Holy Post podcast has a good episode describing this called "What is an Evangelical?" Part of the problem with Evangelicalism is that because of politcs the distinction between Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism has been lost, thus asorbing racist (e.g. "anti-woke") elements back into Evangelicalism. There are more problems than that though. As a result of a lack of scholarship, Baptists, for example, have forgotten their history. They used to insist on the separation of church and state, but now embrace Christian Nationalism and the cult of Trump. Its not just the binary choice of Trump v. Biden - Even in the GOP primary, candidates with far better Christian character cannot gain traction against Trump. This makes so called Evangelicals the leaders of a movement that backs someone with such little support for democracy that he staged a coup. Evangelicals have thus become anti-democratic. Another problem has been the rise of neo-puritanism - with Christ Church in Moscow, ID leading the way, and John MacArthur following close behind. These groups are also anti-democratic, anti-women, and support for covid-denialism (part of a more general anti-science aproach), even support slavery. There are additional issues with abuse and cover-up (Julie Roys has done a good job calling this out). Celebrity culture, the single-demographic approach to church growth, and other issues associated with the rise of mega-churches. Another problem has been un-restrained Charismatics and the false Trump prophets. Finally, there is a separate trend towards increased liberalism, adopting a lower view of Scripture, or leaving the faith altogether (the "emergent" and "deconstructionist" trends). Of all of these, I see Christian Nationalism as the biggest threat to Evangelicalism in the U.S. today. These days, someone who whats to embrace a high view of Scripture, and because of that rejects Christian Nationalism is going to have a difficult time finding Christian community in the United States at least. So where do we go?
Being anti-woke doesn't equal being racist. Not everyone agrees with the far left fascist ideologies. Christians are going to jail because they don't affirm transgender people. That's not okay.
The Catholic Church teaches you have to work for your Salvation which is False nowhere in Scriptures does it actually state you have to work for your Salvation Which is false cause nobody on their own can do enough good works to secure their own Salvation only through Lord jesus can Salvation be offered.
In Philippians 2:12-13, Paul writes, “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed - not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence - continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his purpose.”
@Thatstheticket The First thing We must acknowledge is What are we understanding by the term Working out Your Salvation cause as I stated earlier We can never do enough deeds to truly save Ourselves if that is the case then Jesus would never have had to die on the Cross for our Sins You Working to earn Your Salvation contradicts that Fact but I could be wrong.
@@D.W.C935 we can’t over come our sins, and do selfless good deeds for others (as opposed to self righteous deeds that seem good) without the grace of God this is true. Our salvation is not a financial transaction that one takes part in at the moment of faith. It is on going and dynamic through our whole lives. Fasting, prayer, repentance, and rejecting the passions is the life we are called to. The healing of man’s will and heart is the essence of salvation, not a matter of legal jurisprudence as articulated in Protestant notions of “substitutionary atonement”
@Thatstheticket I agree Jesus died on the Cross for everyone and modern day Evangelicalism has become a Issue but Which Church is the true Church of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ I Personally don't think it's the Catholic Church but I could be wrong but I do not know but what I do Know is We should all come together as a Single United Church and keep one single body cause Strife and Division is causing too much issues.
Consensus building is a double edged sword. On the one hand it promotes group think, so you cannot easily see your own mistakes (bad), but on the other hand it creates a support structure for the things you have right (good).
This is the great thing about bing a lot older than most people, you seen it done it experienced it and come out the other end 😂 I can totally understand what he saying 😊
The BEST parable to explain the ridiculousness of evangelical Christianity: The rainy season that year had been the strongest ever and the river had broken its banks. There were floods everywhere and the animals were all running up into the hills. The floods came so fast that many drowned except the lucky monkeys who used their proverbial agility to climb up into the treetops. They looked down on the surface of the water where the fish were swimming and gracefully jumping out of the water as if they were the only ones enjoying the devastating flood. One of the monkeys saw the fish and shouted to his companion: "Look down, my friend, look at those poor creatures. They are going to drown. Do you see how they struggle in the water?" "Yes," said the other monkey. "What a pity! Probably they were late in escaping to the hills because they seem to have no legs. How can we save them?" "I think we must do something. Let's go close to the edge of the flood where the water is not deep enough to cover us, and we can help them to get out." So the monkeys did just that. They started catching the fish, but not without difficulty. One by one, they brought them out of the water and put them carefully on the dry land. After a short time there was a pile of fish lying on the grass motionless. One of the monkeys said, "Do you see? They were tired, but now they are just sleeping and resting. Had it not been for us, my friend, all these poor people without legs would have drowned." The other monkey said: "They were trying to escape from us because they could not understand our good intentions. But when they wake up they will be very grateful because we have brought them salvation." (Traditional Tanzanian Folktale)
Conservative politically and Christian nationally, resentful - that attitude. It's what I experience. It's not all I experience, but you can't blame people for perceiving what is there.
Revealing how you quote the Reformed Theologians, not Dispensational Armenians. Karl Barth is Neo-Orthodoxy--N.O. fits Meachams definition: "A Different (non-christian) Religion." Barth is neither Evangelical nor Orthodox.
We all fall short of Jesus teaching. Each person has to know Jesus and know what he wants us to be. He said if you love me , do what I tell you to do. Its easy to understand but hard to xecute. Its abattle. It has to do with knowing him and loving him.
Please stop saying "more true." Say, "truer." Yes, it's a word. Say, "broader" instead of "more broad" "fairer," etc. Use the comparative suffix, i.e., "-er." People are putting "more" in front of words that can take the suffix. Try it. You'll like it! Also, "sunk" is not a verb--it's a verbal. The verb is "sank." Otherwise, I liked the discussion, especially "be politically homeless." Amen.
38:20 The major metropolitan areas are overwhelmingly run by democrats, but you make it sound like the mistreatment of homeless and poor is coming from the same side that opposes abortion.
Evangelicalism could die. In Revelation, the church in Ephesus is warned that they are in danger of having their lampstand removed (this symbolizes the death of the church as an authentic witness). But God would raise up a true light somewhere else.
It’s failing because more people are reading the entire Bible for themselves while also becoming more and more knowledgeable about history, science and psychology, as well as what we now know about how the brain works. When you do that, it all falls apart. I don’t say this lightly or flippantly, as I was once a Christian who taught Bible Study, Sunday School, VBS (Vacation Bible School), gave my testimony and lead others to Christ.
The saddest thing about Evangelicals is their inability to allow the gifts of the Holy Spirit to flourish (such as speaking in tongues, prophecy, and healings).
@@Hannovah the Church isn't only about evangelism, that is only one part of the Church. Read Acts, all of these things were happening any time people received the Holy Spirit.
@@Hannovah"Creepy and offputting" in regards to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, yet sexual perversion is being "normalized". The Bible is our authority on what ought to be normal, not the democratic consensus of modern society. True Christianity preaches the true Gospel that leads to the REPENTANCE of sin, not the acceptance of sin as normal, otherwise, it's a false gospel.
@@Hannovah which is why we have seeker sensitive churches who have placed evangelism as the main role of the Church, and then you have millions of believers who have no understanding on how God moves.
I am Muslim and I respect Christians they are my brothers and sisters. I have met many Evangelical fundamentalists fanatics who hate Islam and other religions. Christianity is about love and compassion. I don’t understand why they hate others. The Bible says to love your neighbors that means love them no matter who they are. I hope one day Muslims, Christians, Jews and people who practice other religions get along and live in harmony and peace with one another.
According to the Pew Research Center: In the next half century or so, Christianity’s long reign as the world’s largest religion may come to an end, according to a just-released report that builds on Pew Research Center’s original population growth projections for religious groups. Indeed, Muslims will grow more than twice as fast as the overall world population between 2015 and 2060 and, in the second half of this century, will likely surpass Christians as the world’s largest religious group. While the world’s population is projected to grow 32% in the coming decades, the number of Muslims is expected to increase by 70% - from 1.8 billion in 2015 to nearly 3 billion in 2060. In 2015, Muslims made up 24.1% of the global population. Forty-five years later, they are expected to make up more than three-in-ten of the world’s people (31.1%).
Islam has been growing. But is it correct about the book, the man, and the city of Mecca? See what Jay Smith has found. Was Mecca in existence at the time that Mohammad is said to have lived there? Why has the orientation of mosques changed from what it was in Mohammad's time? Why does much of the Quran make more sense if you take off the Arabic vowel markings and put on Aramaic markings instead? Jay Smith can help you answer these questions.
@@roblangsdorf8758 I don't believe the Koran is truth any more than I think the Bible is truth. Neither grasp reality. The Bible is TEEMING with fairytale, superstitious nonsense.
So if you continue to add water to juice, at what point does the whole glass become water? From Martin Luther on we seem to be watering down Christianity. Dont agree with teaching, no problem start a new church. I have seen this sooo many times. This is why the evangelical church is shrinking. We set up a failure mode from the start.
@@w4rsh1p No one knows that, dude. You can only know what's true, by definition of 'knowledge' as justified true belief. Nor does it say that in the Bible, either, though. So I think your point is rhetorical rather than perspicacious. But some of the rhetoric may find its target, who knows?
Sean. I saw those triceps. You are "Jacked for Jesus" arent you! Yes you may use that, and if you would like a shirt designed for that catch phrase, I can give you our website😂
Not sure how useful any of this is w/o a definition of what the essential criteria for even who is going to be in heaven w Jesus before defining the tent inside that. It can't be perfect theology... otherwise there would be at most a single true Christian!
In Geneva in the middle age, if you weren't a Calvinist you would have been burned at the stake for heresy... I would have been one of the ones tortuted and burnt alive! Personally I think that if John Calvin is in heaven it is proof of God's grace towards the most evil of people if they repent. The records about Calvin make me wonder if he was a meglomaniacal psychopath - that's what they sound like to me. The Calvinists on here I'm sure would disagree. Maybe I should be burned at the stake for insulting their hero?
Keifer Sutherland's maternal grandfather, Tommy Douglas, lead the first socialist government in North America. He was from Scotland and was the pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in Saskatchewan. In 1944 the lead the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and was voted in a Premier of Saskatchewan. He was Premier from 1944-1960. He brought in socialized medicine. The federal Liberal government brought it in for the whole country in 1969. In 1961 the CCf met with trade unions from eastern Canada and formed the New Democratic Party. Tommy Douglas their federal leader from 1961-71. People in the British Empire used to say that socialism owes more to Methodism than Marxism.
@@roberteaston6413 Thanks. Yes. I think the welfare state in Britain, including the National Health service was a result of the activities of Christians too. When people get excited about a topic, they tend to become increasingly loose in their use of language, unfortunately.
@@grantbartley483 Tommy Douglas was not going to run in the 1931 election. But a man told him that if he ran every Baptist church in the province would boycott him. He told the man "You have just given the CCF it's first candidate". Baptists are not as numerous in Canada as they are in the USA but the vast majority of Canadian Baptists did not care for Tommy Douglas. What is hard to believe is that the second Prime Minister of Canada was a Scotsman named Alexander MacKenzie(1873-78). He was a devout Baptist who did not drink. Today no devout Baptist who did not drink would vote Liberal. In the 19th century the Liberals believed in self determination for the colonies. They believed every colony should be free to chart it's own destiny. Whereas the Conservatives believed in solidarity of the Empire. They believed that the colonies should be there to support Mother England. Liberals were pro-American whereas the Tories were pro-British. In 1873 I might have voted Liberal but not today. The Liberal Party in Australia is the only Liberal Party I would vote for.
@@roberteaston6413 I think historically the term 'liberal' had more of a free-trade connotation, whereas recently is has come to take on more of a social meaning, as 'licence' or 'absolute (and demanded or not-free) toleration'. These are significantly different positions.
@@grantbartley483 The 1911 federal election was fought over reciprocity(another term for free trade). The Liberals wanted reciprocity whereas the Conservatives did not want it. The Conservatives campaign slogan was"No truck or trade with the Yanks". The Conservatives won. What is ironic is that in 1988 the election was fought over free trade. This time it was the Conservatives that wanted free trade with the USA while it was the Liberals that did not want it. In 1911 the Liberals wanted closer ties with the USA while the Conservatives rejected that. In 1988 the Liberals said that free trade with the USA would sell Canada out to the USA.
I agree with that many do not want to identify with being evangelical because I am pro-life, but pro-immigration, pro-women pastors/leaders but vehemently pro-Bible. (vehemently AGAINST Trump because he definitely does not act, talks like an imitator of Christ). So what does that make me??
The flood of illegal immigration isn't exactly biblical. All the talk of being compassionate to foreigners in the Bible was about those who were passing through your town and allowing them to stay in your house. Do you allow them to come stay with you?
Trumps issue was border control. Do you want drugs to be brought into the country? Do you support human trafficking? Specifically, do you want little kids to be brought into this country so they can be sexually abused? Do you support the activity of the cartels in this country? I believe that we need to import lots of young workers to replace the large number of people who were aborted. But we need to screen them and train them in the concept of American citizenship. Only then should we plug them into our communities.
I have heard people ask Trump when he became a Christian. He skillfully avoided answering the question. The current president and vice are clearly not believers. The current governor of California isn't one. What we need is a solid Christian who can stand up against the Washington establishment and who has the ability to follow through on what he or she has begun. Do you have any suggestions?
@@roblangsdorf8758 Blessings to you. Statistics say that the biggest consumer of drugs are America-so drugs were not brought here and introduced to Americans by the Mexicans and other central Americans. Human trafficking happens here in the USA -these traffickers of diverse nationalities take OUR children and take them down to Florida and out of the country. Please do not be mistaken by mr. Trumps self indulgent claims. Whereas, Mr. Trump did some good things-he is DEFINITELY NOT the picture of a righteousness. Scripture specifically tells portrays how a man of God should talk, act and behave. Let’s not kid ourselves please. With that being said-this podcast was not about trump support nor immigration, it was about the many Christians that are being lumped into those that claim to be evangelical but are legalistic, unloving, judgmental and critical.
Some people say they are evangelical because they vote Republican or support Trump. I am not sure if it’s always been that way but to many I think it’s that way now.
I hear the making of another Matt Walsh movie- “What is an Evangelical?” You are saying that even though someone thinks they’re an Evangelical and calls themself an Evangelical, they probably aren’t a real Evangelical. They should show their Christian birth certificate before participating in Evangelical activities.
Interesting and thoughtful discussion. The Bible is being used to justify homophobia. Conversely some could consider it to be hypocritical to ignore the Bible when considering how it supports slavery and genocide which most believers would not today condone.
Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Wow you guys ignore this scripture all the time. You pick and choose what you want to follow. You don't do that let's go to scripture thing on divorce do you? I have seen many people in evangelical churches that are even living together. Yet you think a monogamous homosexual committed relationship is where your going to draw your "sola scriptura" line. That is hypocritical. Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Oh wait so you can screw someone who is not a wife. Like a concubine. no wonder Bill Gothard had all those women around him. He was completely biblically justified to have concubines.
So basically what you're saying is that the Church is failing for refusing to be apostate and bowing to the "progressive" world's idols and agendas. Might as well start a church based on the teachings of Aleister Crowley instead...
First of all ,I'm not here to offend anyone, but give you a challenge. Instead of just quoting the bible and praising god, why doesn't one of you prove it? First, you need to show the other 2999 registered religions are all fake. Second, prove every single scientific paper that has been through a peerage system is fake. Then you won't have to try and justify yourselves on channels like this. By the way I was a Christian, I tried this myself, thats why I'm now an Atheist. Prove me wrong.
What do you mean by proof? What's your definition of that? Do you think science proves that God does not exist? I could go on with an extensive essay on why belief in God is rational. But I just want to ask you these questions first. May I ask how long you were a Christian for? And how old are you? You don't have to answer that if you don't want to. And what reasons caused you to disbelieve? Specific reasons, I mean. I really like that you're challenging others. And I like that you're asking questions. I believe we can both grow and learn from this interaction.
All that has to be proven is that the God of the Bible is the real God. Google Cold Case Christianity to discover what a real cold case detective has discovered. Check him out.
Ian, give an account of freewill. On what scientific basis can you justify that anyone makes choices to begin with, whether that’s to be athiest or religious.
I think you've designed a criteria that you don't apply in any other area of your life. You've set your "skeptical sensitivity" to the max on Christianity whereas "science" you probably believe almost reflexively without reading the actual studies. BTW, the peer-review process has come in for a lot of criticism lately because it is not weeding out a lot of truly bad research.
If conservative churches don't "maintain the power structure" then they will be subverted by activists and diverted from their original purpose. We have seen this happen many times to both Christian and secular institutions. Keep "dissenters" far away -- they are poison to the body.
"Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them." -- Romans 16:17
You are exactly correct
Which is exactly why they protest the "power structure" - they want the power all to themselves.
@brenthardaway3704
Why is it about power and not subversion of rhe word by activists? That seems a lot more important right now
@brenthardaway3704
Actually I think I misunderstood you, but please feel free to elaborate if you'd like to
@@ar2851 I'm pretty sure we're in agreement. Activists rail against the structure that exists so they can move in and control things according to their nefarious progressive agenda. That's what the OP seemed to be saying, and I'm just saying what their motives are.
If you two ever host a book club that can be attended by zoom count me in.
Interesting idea!
As a former elected official, at the time a Democrat back in 2000 and now an Independent many years later, I truly resonated with the comment "politically homeless."
Thank you for sharing this honest approach to this subject and historical education
on church history. I appreciate all your videos and learn so much from them. ❤
Thank you each for an interesting discussion. The topic has been front and center in my thinking since I became a Christian in the early 70’s. I had been raised in a prominent main-line, liberal church, and in many ways felt saved out of that. When I made a “decision” for Christ I was set upon by a theological world view that did not track with my experience. When I declared my intension to go to a conservative bible college instead of our denominational seminary my senior pastor counseled me against it because they probably used books like “The Battle For The Bible” in the curriculum. They did, and as a young Christian this was almost reason enough to support my choice. As I learned more I understood that there was/is a great divide between reformed Calvinist theology and Arminian theology that precedes the great divide between a liberal and a conservative theological world view. I remain today a “decisionist” and think of this as a hallmark of evangelicalism. I thought then in terms of us vs them breaking down like this: higher critical thought vs fundamentalism, socialism vs americanism, liberation theology and liberalism in general vs faithfulness to the inerrant word of God, social Christians vs transformed Christians. I subscribed to Sojourners, Charisma, and Christianity Today magazines years ago. Today I still have a blind spot where reformed teaching is concerned. I admire the scholarly, logical teaching of many preachers in the Calvinist camp, but as much as I am drawn to the style and most of the content I remain suspicious because of my formative experiences. My youth pastor looking at me like I was a martian when I said I had been born again is an image that sticks. I do think the LGBTQ movement is just piling on to theological liberalism in general. I don’t think we can consider the movement a secondary issue like say smoking or drinking. It is an issue of core biblical teaching. As a short hand tool I suppose I am glad to be called an evangelical. Disciple of Christ is more accurate to me but no more sufficient. Thanks again.
I love these thoughtful discussions between these two gentleman. Thank you for sharing these with us.
Thanks, Sean! I don't have time to read all these books, but I do appreciate that you guys going through these books critiquing Evangelicalism. The point about making the Bible the authority (throughout the interview) was exactly what I would expect and it makes me want to trust what you guys are saying more. If Sola Scriptura is what Talbot and Biola hold to, then even if I don't have the same exact view, I know that the heart of these ministires/colleges is in the right place. Thanks again for being the salt and light of the world! I'm happy to see your UA-cam channel growing as well! Seems like just yesterday you had 100K less subscribers!
Thank you!
@SeanMcDowell Prof McDowell, Jesus is the authority. With so many Bibles/Translation versions, which scripture is authority? How is Sola scriptura authority for/to an illterate person? How is sola scriptura authoritative for the 1st 300 odd years prior to scripture being compiled? Fundamental doctrines may have been retained in mainline translations but translators DID make choices... like the that verse in Songs of Solomon "Black but beautiful", when the original text doesn't say BUT. So the human translator made a choice. Many such choices were made and now people claim Bible as authority when God/Jesus is the authority that shld inform our reading of scriptura. SOLA CHRIST FIRST. Thoughts?
Evangelicalism, in my experience, uses a simplified, easy-to-understand approach to the Bible that works as a double-edged sword; sometimes they hit the nail on the head so to speak by making theological concepts understandable by a wide audience (kudos to them for that) that would oftentimes by theologians be done in a wordy, overly complex manner; at other times there’s an oversimplification of certain theological concepts that does not do justice (ie provide a fair and balanced approach to the discussion as a product of biblical scholarship and exegesis) and leads people to take the preacher at their word vs what educated reasoning discerns. I also don’t like that if you don’t agree to the oversimplified viewpoint you’re sometimes treated as “not biblical” or “not spiritual” enough. I am ok with pastors not having training in seminary or theological college (I went to one) as it appears to me Biblically valid (Peter wasn’t trained in the Scriptures to the extent that Paul was) however I do think accepting the calling of pastor should mean a willingness to both read and study the Scripture with an open heart and mind before preaching on it.
If you convince someone that 3 = 1, you can convince them of anything.
The tent can only be bigger when what comes in isn't heresy. Whenever left influence enters a church it invariably leads to secular humanism with a Christian veneer.
Great conversation - thank you both!
The National Association of Evangelicals was founded to counter fundamentalism on the right and modernism on the left. It was intended to be a middle path - embracing and affirming the essentials of the historic Christian faith (in contrast to modernism, which denied some of them) while embracing an outward approach to culture and the world (as opposed to the rigidity and insularity of fundamentalism). Its Statement of Faith was deliberately brief and broad. People of many different traditions and denominations within the Protestant community could embrace it while still embracing and affirming their traditional creeds and catechisms.
What has happened since 1942 when the movement was founded is that there has been a sea change in both the culture and the Christian community. As a result ideas which were mainstream in 1942 are now seen as “right wing” or “intolerant.”
In 1942 the idea that marriage was between one man and one woman, for example, was so widely shared that it would have been incomprehensible to have to defend it. The belief that the Bible is infallible was likewise fairly mainstream. Today these views are considered reactionary or intolerant. The culture has shifted profoundly so that what was once middle of the road and mainstream is now on the fringes.
Evangelicals have changed some, but the culture has changed enormously.
Evangelicals have made our fair share of mistakes and will doubtless make many more, but it’s important to understand that the shift in culture has made Evangelicals look intolerant. That’s important to consider when considering the Evangelical movement.
Great comment. It's time to get rid of the NAE; it's probably corrupt beyond curing.
Tragically, so many “evangelicals” have gotten so caught up in politics and the near-worship of one politician in particular they have forgotten why they are here.
Nobody actually worships him. This is simply not true. Seeing that someone is being railroaded and unfairly persecuted is not the same thing as worshiping.
This argument assume that evangelicals even know why they are here. Their whole movement is based on giving themselves ecclesiastical authority based on a universal failure to understand both who Christ was actually speaking to when He gave the Great Commission and the Great Commission itself.
@CaptainWeirdBeard69 billcook4768 did not say all evangelicals. If my inkling is correct, it sounds like we are talking about Trump here. There are some who claim to be Christian and yet have this fierce loyalty to Trump that to disagree with any of his policies or how he handles things, you get persecuted and labeled as this or that. You may not worship him but there are some who pretty much fit the bill. And I say this because I have seen it as a conservative. Even just mentioning support for another candidate like Nikki Haley will get you disgusting comments from some people. Again, some not all. But it's those "some" people that seem to be speaking louder and louder like the political extreme left.
Back in 1976, the Billy Graham crusade sent letters requesting follow-up to ministers of Catholic congregations, mainline churches, and charismatic fellowships, as well communities who call themselves evangelical. So the BIG tent was larger then.
The Billy Graham organization did provide materials that were designed to help people grow in their relationships with the Lord.
Really good program! Thanks
Really good discussion
Sean, can you get the actual author of this book on one of your shows? I'm really interested in hearing from him since he conducted all the research.
I am once again begging people like Sean to ACTUALLY talk to former Evangelicals when talking about them.
Hi everyone 😊 how's everybody doing?
We are fine in the knowledge of the Saviour! The LORD is my light and salvation. Whom shall I fear?! The LORD is the stronghold of my life - of whom shall I be afraid?!
I love your thoughtful vidéos. Keep up the good work
Sean, how much do you think your conversation here is entirely about American Evangelicalism?
In the 90's psychological therapeutic deism took over and still prominent.
Your critique, Sean, around the 43 minute mark where you emphasize the Bible is entirely the point. I realize, and agree, that the “evangelical movement” has used that starting point to drift into all sorts of positions (like racism) that deserve condemnation. However, as your Dad always pointed to in his apologetics work, the key issue is the Bible. All questions of theological issue must come back to the Bible singularly. If one wishes to use “the Bible plus” concept, that person is not aligned with Jesus and the historic faith. It can’t be called “Christianity.” It could be some new religion that blends some parts of the Bible with whatever new position they want to take, but that’s not where Jesus is.
Scott - you identified yourself religiously and politically exactly how I do. I thought I was so unique in my vagabond ways 😂 I'll have more confidence identifying in these ways knowing a Christian I respect like yourself does the same. Keep up the ministry, Sean and Scott!
Too many evangelists spread lies about catholicism . They 're usually pretty ignorant about the history of church and very few of them have read life of saints (edifying lives for all ) . They reject eucharisty whereas it is Jesus command Mat 26 , 26/29 , John 6 , 51/54 . A true believer in God should never reject anyone because he 's a sinner , we 're all sinners ( but some sins are more visible than others ) . Instead as christians we are told to spread the Gospel , to be good and merciful to everyone ; if someone is going the wrong way he must be corrected with love and patience without condemning him . Everyone should be welcome in church . 🙏🙏
It is for me. Over the past couple of months, I've been pulling myself away more and more from evangelicalism. I realize that a lot of it contradicts or at the very least disharmonizes with the beliefs and practices of historical and biblical Christianity. Many false doctrines. Lack of reverence. Lack of true and proper worship. Can be argued that it isn't even part of the Church that Jesus established. There are some good things about evangelicalism, but all of those are secondary things
I wonder too. I think about the modern church in general, and not just Evangelicals. There is profound evil today and the church was designed to confront it. I'm willing to, but many in the church, including so many in leadership don't seem to care.
“Evangelical” is so broad that it’s almost meaningless. In the media, it’s a synonym for Protestant.
100 years ago, it meant Protestant outside “modernist” mainline churches (now called “Progressive”).
Evangelicalism split into New Evangelical and Fundamentalist. It sounds like you’re moving toward Fundamentalism.
The big sticking point for Fundamentalists was over churches and pastors cooperating with heterodox and apostate churches. The watered-down gospel (“easy-believism”) was a common complaint, too. Other issues surfaced, too, but those two are the main differences.
To pull away from Evangelism, you’d have to move toward one of the Catholic varieties. But to pull away from New Evangelism, you could go toward Fundamentalism.
@@ricksonora6656 Thanks for the comment. That's exactly what I've been doing as a matter of fact. I've been attending Mass for the past three weekends. I don't know where I'll be in a couple of years, but this is a "difficult" time for sure
@apracity7672 I was an Evangelical and became Catholic a little over two years ago and it was the best decision I ever made concerning my walk with Christ. The grace available in the Sacraments blows away anything you'll get in Evangelicalism.
@@ricksonora6656
Good summary
One study said, of identifiable characteristics on domestic violence, the ONE that most accurately shows who is LEAST likely to beat their spouses, it’s evangelical Christians WHO ALSO go to church every week and are members of a local church.
The MOST LIKELY to be domestic violence perpetrators: “nominal Christians” who don’t go to church every week!
There’s a mile of difference between the 9% who meet the definition of “evangelical” and the 43% who self identify….
42%….just after 8:50
As a woman when I see Evangelical the word you would be ashamed to use it if you knew my experience as an Evangelical.
While in full agreement with the Nicene creed, a liberal Democrat would not feel welcome in many Evangelical churches. Political viewpoints are considered equal to adherence to sound doctrine.
Neither would a conservative Republican feel welcome in very many emergent churches or liberal Protestant churches
Some of what you call political viewpoints actually are doctrinal viewpoints and that is the problem
The "big tent," identity is nothing more than permission to all to remain as we are. To continue in sin.
I agree, that the behavior matters.
Same-sex attraction is not the same as sexual behavior.
Polls have found that the number of Americans identifying as evangelical Christians is dropping rapidly. And it's not just the polls. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest evangelical Protestant group in the country, has lost more than 2 million members over the last decade and a half.
...Virtually every recent poll about Christianity in America has been brutal for its followers. About 64% of Americans call themselves Christian today. That might sound like a lot, but 50 years ago that number was 90%, according to a 2020 Pew Research Center study.Apr 9, 2023
Monkey boy: You come here often to attack Christians' faith, don't you?! Tell your master the Saviour destroyed his power over man's sin and death! Nothing you or other servants of the evil one can do to change that! Christus Victor!
@@Bullcutter lol wow. That was dark. Eek.
@@monkkeygawdYes, Darkness is an entity that leads the unaware in his service, whether they realise it or not!
@@Bullcutter all is Consciousness... reality is Nondualism... breathe easy, my friend.
That was a fascinating discussion. Love this kind of thing, even as an atheist. Well done.
Just one point. No political platform is perfect. But then no theological platform is perfect either. I think Christians need to get away from the idea that there is Christianity and there is everything else.
Thanks for watching!
I really don't see what's the problem here aside from evangelicals as a group not being aware of it. Doctrines become more clarified over time, it isn't some great hypocrisy or scandal for evangelical doctrine but become more clarified beyond the original wording of the council that formed it.
It would be refreshing to be known as a Christian first and foremost rather then Christian "plus".
What about “Southern Evangelical Seminary” where I go? 🤔lol
I went to Northside Chrisitan High School in the eighties. They were fundamentalist baptists Evangelical. They had kids there doing black face and they were racist WHILE they had a few black students. I was so mad. But I was a kid and my mother put me in that school.
You guys might want to do some fact-checking: Evangelicalism long preceded Fundamentalism. Indeed you called yourselves at the time "NEO-evangelicals." This is important because Fundamentalists, disliked as they might be/have been, were still Evangelicals themselves. Neo-evangelicals wanted to distinguish THEMSELVES by characterizing their new sensibilities by identifying with Billy Graham as a spokesman, "Christianity Today" as its bi-weekly publication, Fuller Sem. as its hub, and Harold Ockenga as a spokesman, etc.
Their statement began with: *"The New Evangelicalism is the latest dress of orthodoxy as Neo-Orthodoxy is the latest expression of theological liberalism."*
Recognizing this as historical fact is necessary before you go on here to condemn your enemies for their sins and forgive yourself of your own. It is essential to understand the precipitous decline you are pretending to explain.
Do please be honest, if only to claw back some credibility.
“Certain views with a certain attitude”. Welcome to your comment section !!
You do know that people will lump strange people in with Evangelical like Greg Locke. People see Evangelicals as extremely legalistic as well. ...Like militant legalism.
Which is odd because evangelicals typically have a very low opinion of human ability and the divine requirements for them.
Don't misunderstand me, because Fundamentalism doesn't automatically entail legalism, but when people think of legalism, they are probably thinking more so of Fundamentalist churches. Legalism isn't required for Fundamentalism, but there is an historical trend of the two of them going together.
Evangelicals have poked God in the eye through partnering with unbelievers.
I sometimes believe you (as in many Americans) are too centered on the US and forget there's a whole world of Jesus followers outside.
gracie1316, America is my home, my house. My house is on 🔥 fire.
I must save my home, my family before I save the world.
150 years ago our home was stable and strong....so we could leave our home, assured it was stable and safe while we were missionaries in other countries.
That is not true today. While the church in other countries may be in trouble, I do not live there. I live here, where my American church is in serious trouble.
And no, we cannot do both at the same time because the degree of trouble here is too great, the fire too large.
These guys need more research in the "black church" arena. I hate that language as well, so tribal. I think they are trying to be sensitive or appeal to a certain "non-believer" and I think I'm sounding incredibly arrogant but there is a side to the culture, that a lot of blacks subscribe to, that is not grasped by these men.
I’m interested to hear more. What “side” is that?
Take care with your definitions. The cultural differences between US and UK need looking at as do thecultural differences to non english speaking communities.
Truth and grace are always hard to balance. Jesus is the example of how to do it!
Modern Evangelicalism began as a middle-road between (mostly Southern) Fundamentalism with its racist history, and theological liberals. Phil Vischer from The Holy Post podcast has a good episode describing this called "What is an Evangelical?"
Part of the problem with Evangelicalism is that because of politcs the distinction between Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism has been lost, thus asorbing racist (e.g. "anti-woke") elements back into Evangelicalism.
There are more problems than that though. As a result of a lack of scholarship, Baptists, for example, have forgotten their history. They used to insist on the separation of church and state, but now embrace Christian Nationalism and the cult of Trump. Its not just the binary choice of Trump v. Biden - Even in the GOP primary, candidates with far better Christian character cannot gain traction against Trump. This makes so called Evangelicals the leaders of a movement that backs someone with such little support for democracy that he staged a coup. Evangelicals have thus become anti-democratic.
Another problem has been the rise of neo-puritanism - with Christ Church in Moscow, ID leading the way, and John MacArthur following close behind. These groups are also anti-democratic, anti-women, and support for covid-denialism (part of a more general anti-science aproach), even support slavery.
There are additional issues with abuse and cover-up (Julie Roys has done a good job calling this out). Celebrity culture, the single-demographic approach to church growth, and other issues associated with the rise of mega-churches.
Another problem has been un-restrained Charismatics and the false Trump prophets.
Finally, there is a separate trend towards increased liberalism, adopting a lower view of Scripture, or leaving the faith altogether (the "emergent" and "deconstructionist" trends).
Of all of these, I see Christian Nationalism as the biggest threat to Evangelicalism in the U.S. today. These days, someone who whats to embrace a high view of Scripture, and because of that rejects Christian Nationalism is going to have a difficult time finding Christian community in the United States at least. So where do we go?
Being anti-woke doesn't equal being racist. Not everyone agrees with the far left fascist ideologies. Christians are going to jail because they don't affirm transgender people. That's not okay.
Is Sean a silver fox?
The Catholic Church teaches you have to work for your Salvation which is False nowhere in Scriptures does it actually state you have to work for your Salvation Which is false cause nobody on their own can do enough good works to secure their own Salvation only through Lord jesus can Salvation be offered.
In Philippians 2:12-13, Paul writes, “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed - not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence - continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his purpose.”
“I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified” (1 Corinthians 9:27)
@Thatstheticket The First thing We must acknowledge is What are we understanding by the term Working out Your Salvation cause as I stated earlier We can never do enough deeds to truly save Ourselves if that is the case then Jesus would never have had to die on the Cross for our Sins You Working to earn Your Salvation contradicts that Fact but I could be wrong.
@@D.W.C935 we can’t over come our sins, and do selfless good deeds for others (as opposed to self righteous deeds that seem good) without the grace of God this is true. Our salvation is not a financial transaction that one takes part in at the moment of faith. It is on going and dynamic through our whole lives. Fasting, prayer, repentance, and rejecting the passions is the life we are called to. The healing of man’s will and heart is the essence of salvation, not a matter of legal jurisprudence as articulated in Protestant notions of “substitutionary atonement”
@Thatstheticket I agree Jesus died on the Cross for everyone and modern day Evangelicalism has become a Issue but Which Church is the true Church of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ I Personally don't think it's the Catholic Church but I could be wrong but I do not know but what I do Know is We should all come together as a Single United Church and keep one single body cause Strife and Division is causing too much issues.
Concensus? How likely and much does the "other side" tolerate?
Consensus building is a double edged sword. On the one hand it promotes group think, so you cannot easily see your own mistakes (bad), but on the other hand it creates a support structure for the things you have right (good).
This is the great thing about bing a lot older than most people, you seen it done it experienced it and come out the other end 😂 I can totally understand what he saying 😊
If Jesus returns how do we know he won't leave again?
The BEST parable to explain the ridiculousness of evangelical Christianity:
The rainy season that year had been the strongest ever and the river had broken its banks. There were floods everywhere and the animals were all running up into the hills. The floods came so fast that many drowned except the lucky monkeys who used their proverbial agility to climb up into the treetops. They looked down on the surface of the water where the fish were swimming and gracefully jumping out of the water as if they were the only ones enjoying the devastating flood.
One of the monkeys saw the fish and shouted to his companion: "Look down, my friend, look at those poor creatures. They are going to drown. Do you see how they struggle in the water?" "Yes," said the other monkey. "What a pity! Probably they were late in escaping to the hills because they seem to have no legs. How can we save them?" "I think we must do something. Let's go close to the edge of the flood where the water is not deep enough to cover us, and we can help them to get out."
So the monkeys did just that. They started catching the fish, but not without difficulty. One by one, they brought them out of the water and put them carefully on the dry land. After a short time there was a pile of fish lying on the grass motionless. One of the monkeys said, "Do you see? They were tired, but now they are just sleeping and resting. Had it not been for us, my friend, all these poor people without legs would have drowned."
The other monkey said: "They were trying to escape from us because they could not understand our good intentions. But when they wake up they will be very grateful because we have brought them salvation." (Traditional Tanzanian Folktale)
Total failure => if 97 to 98% are still going to Hell.
How does anyone believe Satan isn’t winning in your scenario?
Hi George
Conservative politically and Christian nationally, resentful - that attitude. It's what I experience. It's not all I experience, but you can't blame people for perceiving what is there.
Greetings Friend 🙏
So basically no one knows what an evangical is, but we all know what it isn't
Revealing how you quote the Reformed Theologians, not Dispensational Armenians. Karl Barth is Neo-Orthodoxy--N.O. fits Meachams definition: "A Different (non-christian) Religion." Barth is neither Evangelical nor Orthodox.
We all fall short of Jesus teaching. Each person has to know Jesus and know what he wants us to be.
He said if you love me , do what I tell you to do. Its easy to understand but hard to xecute. Its abattle. It has to do with knowing him and loving him.
Please stop saying "more true." Say, "truer." Yes, it's a word. Say, "broader" instead of "more broad" "fairer," etc. Use the comparative suffix, i.e., "-er." People are putting "more" in front of words that can take the suffix. Try it. You'll like it! Also, "sunk" is not a verb--it's a verbal. The verb is "sank." Otherwise, I liked the discussion, especially "be politically homeless." Amen.
38:20 The major metropolitan areas are overwhelmingly run by democrats, but you make it sound like the mistreatment of homeless and poor is coming from the same side that opposes abortion.
Imagine if it died; what then?
Freedom❤
Evangelicalism could die. In Revelation, the church in Ephesus is warned that they are in danger of having their lampstand removed (this symbolizes the death of the church as an authentic witness). But God would raise up a true light somewhere else.
A deep breath of relief.
It’s failing because more people are reading the entire Bible for themselves while also becoming more and more knowledgeable about history, science and psychology, as well as what we now know about how the brain works. When you do that, it all falls apart. I don’t say this lightly or flippantly, as I was once a Christian who taught Bible Study, Sunday School, VBS (Vacation Bible School), gave my testimony and lead others to Christ.
The saddest thing about Evangelicals is their inability to allow the gifts of the Holy Spirit to flourish (such as speaking in tongues, prophecy, and healings).
Most of the public finds these things creepy, and off putting. They would definitely NOT help make more converts.
@@Hannovah the Church isn't only about evangelism, that is only one part of the Church. Read Acts, all of these things were happening any time people received the Holy Spirit.
@@Hannovah"Creepy and offputting" in regards to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, yet sexual perversion is being "normalized".
The Bible is our authority on what ought to be normal, not the democratic consensus of modern society. True Christianity preaches the true Gospel that leads to the REPENTANCE of sin, not the acceptance of sin as normal, otherwise, it's a false gospel.
@@renegadeoftruth2891 I’m saying, you can believe that, but it will scare most people off and will not have the outcome you want.
@@Hannovah which is why we have seeker sensitive churches who have placed evangelism as the main role of the Church, and then you have millions of believers who have no understanding on how God moves.
*I Grew up evangelical. Now I will join the Eastern Orthodox Church.*
I am Muslim and I respect Christians they are my brothers and sisters. I have met many Evangelical fundamentalists fanatics who hate Islam and other religions. Christianity is about love and compassion. I don’t understand why they hate others. The Bible says to love your neighbors that means love them no matter who they are. I hope one day Muslims, Christians, Jews and people who practice other religions get along and live in harmony and peace with one another.
According to the Pew Research Center: In the next half century or so, Christianity’s long reign as the world’s largest religion may come to an end, according to a just-released report that builds on Pew Research Center’s original population growth projections for religious groups. Indeed, Muslims will grow more than twice as fast as the overall world population between 2015 and 2060 and, in the second half of this century, will likely surpass Christians as the world’s largest religious group.
While the world’s population is projected to grow 32% in the coming decades, the number of Muslims is expected to increase by 70% - from 1.8 billion in 2015 to nearly 3 billion in 2060. In 2015, Muslims made up 24.1% of the global population. Forty-five years later, they are expected to make up more than three-in-ten of the world’s people (31.1%).
Islam has been growing. But is it correct about the book, the man, and the city of Mecca?
See what Jay Smith has found. Was Mecca in existence at the time that Mohammad is said to have lived there?
Why has the orientation of mosques changed from what it was in Mohammad's time?
Why does much of the Quran make more sense if you take off the Arabic vowel markings and put on Aramaic markings instead?
Jay Smith can help you answer these questions.
@@roblangsdorf8758 I don't believe the Koran is truth any more than I think the Bible is truth. Neither grasp reality. The Bible is TEEMING with fairytale, superstitious nonsense.
I’m pretty sure all Christians are evangelical
So if you continue to add water to juice, at what point does the whole glass become water? From Martin Luther on we seem to be watering down Christianity. Dont agree with teaching, no problem start a new church. I have seen this sooo many times. This is why the evangelical church is shrinking. We set up a failure mode from the start.
The Bible is a research based book too. How else would we know the earth is flat and 6,000 years old?
ho
@@grantbartley483 ly
@@w4rsh1p No one knows that, dude. You can only know what's true, by definition of 'knowledge' as justified true belief. Nor does it say that in the Bible, either, though. So I think your point is rhetorical rather than perspicacious. But some of the rhetoric may find its target, who knows?
@@grantbartley483 it's a joke
@@w4rsh1p ho
Sean. I saw those triceps. You are "Jacked for Jesus" arent you! Yes you may use that, and if you would like a shirt designed for that catch phrase, I can give you our website😂
Be carefull who you follow and always test the truth.
I dont think its hard to figure out. This world is always trying to confuse you.
I'm afraid to tell you that the evangelicals have already failed and did so from inception.
Tribes? Two kingdoms! God's and Satan's"
Not sure how useful any of this is w/o a definition of what the essential criteria for even who is going to be in heaven w Jesus before defining the tent inside that. It can't be perfect theology... otherwise there would be at most a single true Christian!
In Geneva in the middle age, if you weren't a Calvinist you would have been burned at the stake for heresy... I would have been one of the ones tortuted and burnt alive! Personally I think that if John Calvin is in heaven it is proof of God's grace towards the most evil of people if they repent. The records about Calvin make me wonder if he was a meglomaniacal psychopath - that's what they sound like to me. The Calvinists on here I'm sure would disagree. Maybe I should be burned at the stake for insulting their hero?
Socialism is not the same concept as communism, though
Keifer Sutherland's maternal grandfather, Tommy Douglas, lead the first socialist government in North America. He was from Scotland and was the pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in Saskatchewan. In 1944 the lead the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and was voted in a Premier of Saskatchewan. He was Premier from 1944-1960. He brought in socialized medicine. The federal Liberal government brought it in for the whole country in 1969. In 1961 the CCf met with trade unions from eastern Canada and formed the New Democratic Party. Tommy Douglas their federal leader from 1961-71. People in the British Empire used to say that socialism owes more to Methodism than Marxism.
@@roberteaston6413 Thanks. Yes. I think the welfare state in Britain, including the National Health service was a result of the activities of Christians too.
When people get excited about a topic, they tend to become increasingly loose in their use of language, unfortunately.
@@grantbartley483 Tommy Douglas was not going to run in the 1931 election. But a man told him that if he ran every Baptist church in the province would boycott him. He told the man "You have just given the CCF it's first candidate". Baptists are not as numerous in Canada as they are in the USA but the vast majority of Canadian Baptists did not care for Tommy Douglas. What is hard to believe is that the second Prime Minister of Canada was a Scotsman named Alexander MacKenzie(1873-78). He was a devout Baptist who did not drink. Today no devout Baptist who did not drink would vote Liberal. In the 19th century the Liberals believed in self determination for the colonies. They believed every colony should be free to chart it's own destiny. Whereas the Conservatives believed in solidarity of the Empire. They believed that the colonies should be there to support Mother England. Liberals were pro-American whereas the Tories were pro-British. In 1873 I might have voted Liberal but not today. The Liberal Party in Australia is the only Liberal Party I would vote for.
@@roberteaston6413 I think historically the term 'liberal' had more of a free-trade connotation, whereas recently is has come to take on more of a social meaning, as 'licence' or 'absolute (and demanded or not-free) toleration'. These are significantly different positions.
@@grantbartley483 The 1911 federal election was fought over reciprocity(another term for free trade). The Liberals wanted reciprocity whereas the Conservatives did not want it. The Conservatives campaign slogan was"No truck or trade with the Yanks". The Conservatives won. What is ironic is that in 1988 the election was fought over free trade. This time it was the Conservatives that wanted free trade with the USA while it was the Liberals that did not want it. In 1911 the Liberals wanted closer ties with the USA while the Conservatives rejected that. In 1988 the Liberals said that free trade with the USA would sell Canada out to the USA.
I agree with that many do not want to identify with being evangelical because I am pro-life, but pro-immigration, pro-women pastors/leaders but vehemently pro-Bible. (vehemently AGAINST Trump because he definitely does not act, talks like an imitator of Christ).
So what does that make me??
A Christ follower I think.
The flood of illegal immigration isn't exactly biblical. All the talk of being compassionate to foreigners in the Bible was about those who were passing through your town and allowing them to stay in your house. Do you allow them to come stay with you?
Trumps issue was border control.
Do you want drugs to be brought into the country?
Do you support human trafficking?
Specifically, do you want little kids to be brought into this country so they can be sexually abused?
Do you support the activity of the cartels in this country?
I believe that we need to import lots of young workers to replace the large number of people who were aborted. But we need to screen them and train them in the concept of American citizenship. Only then should we plug them into our communities.
I have heard people ask Trump when he became a Christian. He skillfully avoided answering the question.
The current president and vice are clearly not believers. The current governor of California isn't one.
What we need is a solid Christian who can stand up against the Washington establishment and who has the ability to follow through on what he or she has begun.
Do you have any suggestions?
@@roblangsdorf8758 Blessings to you. Statistics say that the biggest consumer of drugs are America-so drugs were not brought here and introduced to Americans by the Mexicans and other central Americans.
Human trafficking happens here in the USA -these traffickers of diverse nationalities take OUR children and take them down to Florida and out of the country.
Please do not be mistaken by mr. Trumps self indulgent claims.
Whereas, Mr. Trump did some good things-he is DEFINITELY NOT the picture of a righteousness. Scripture specifically tells portrays how a man of God should talk, act and behave. Let’s not kid ourselves please.
With that being said-this podcast was not about trump support nor immigration, it was about the many Christians that are being lumped into those that claim to be evangelical but are legalistic, unloving, judgmental and critical.
Great conversation. But enough with the tent annoying analogy.
don the con is scamming the saints and proving who aint
Some people say they are evangelical because they vote Republican or support Trump. I am not sure if it’s always been that way but to many I think it’s that way now.
I hear the making of another Matt Walsh movie- “What is an Evangelical?” You are saying that even though someone thinks they’re an Evangelical and calls themself an Evangelical, they probably aren’t a real Evangelical. They should show their Christian birth certificate before participating in Evangelical activities.
Let’s hope it’s failing….
I like, "politically homeless"
Interesting and thoughtful discussion. The Bible is being used to justify homophobia. Conversely some could consider it to be hypocritical to ignore the Bible when considering how it supports slavery and genocide which most believers would not today condone.
There are as many opinions about Scripture as there are Protestants 😅
Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Wow you guys ignore this scripture all the time. You pick and choose what you want to follow. You don't do that let's go to scripture thing on divorce do you? I have seen many people in evangelical churches that are even living together. Yet you think a monogamous homosexual committed relationship is where your going to draw your "sola scriptura" line. That is hypocritical.
Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Oh wait so you can screw someone who is not a wife. Like a concubine. no wonder Bill Gothard had all those women around him. He was completely biblically justified to have concubines.
The evangelical movement saying "we have to go back to scripture" on every issue is a huge turn off...maybe that's why it's failing...
You may be right, but that is a non-negotiable piece of being evangelical!
Did you want to form your own religion then? Christianity is based on the revelations found in the scriptures.
@@SeanMcDowell Surely you've observed the church long enough to know that "bible-believing" or "bible-based" is extremely malleable.
So basically what you're saying is that the Church is failing for refusing to be apostate and bowing to the "progressive" world's idols and agendas. Might as well start a church based on the teachings of Aleister Crowley instead...
First of all ,I'm not here to offend anyone, but give you a challenge.
Instead of just quoting the bible and praising god, why doesn't one of you prove it?
First, you need to show the other 2999 registered religions are all fake.
Second, prove every single scientific paper that has been through a peerage system is fake.
Then you won't have to try and justify yourselves on channels like this.
By the way I was a Christian, I tried this myself, thats why I'm now an Atheist.
Prove me wrong.
What do you mean by proof? What's your definition of that? Do you think science proves that God does not exist?
I could go on with an extensive essay on why belief in God is rational. But I just want to ask you these questions first.
May I ask how long you were a Christian for? And how old are you? You don't have to answer that if you don't want to. And what reasons caused you to disbelieve? Specific reasons, I mean.
I really like that you're challenging others. And I like that you're asking questions. I believe we can both grow and learn from this interaction.
All that has to be proven is that the God of the Bible is the real God. Google Cold Case Christianity to discover what a real cold case detective has discovered. Check him out.
Ian, give an account of freewill. On what scientific basis can you justify that anyone makes choices to begin with, whether that’s to be athiest or religious.
I think you've designed a criteria that you don't apply in any other area of your life. You've set your "skeptical sensitivity" to the max on Christianity whereas "science" you probably believe almost reflexively without reading the actual studies. BTW, the peer-review process has come in for a lot of criticism lately because it is not weeding out a lot of truly bad research.
@@bobthrasher8226 Lancet got caught publishing fake research and are still in business'.
Union Theological.seminary is a pit of liberalism, Black Liberation Theology.