Love your testimony Elizabeth, don’t be sidetracked by progressive people who seem to appear to have a form of godliness yet deny it’s power 2 Timothy 3:5 Blessings and peace to you. ✌🏼
@@kelseykjarsgaard5774 Yes, I read it all and found out that God is radically misunderstood, misrepresented, much maligned and blamed for everything that goes wrong in the world, and it is not his fault. Eg, the Titanic. I saw a 1960s film of the sinking of the Titanic. At the end a survivor is asked about God in her life. I forget the exact question. She replies, “God? God went down with the Titanic!” The truth is that the ship was driven way too fast, on a glassy sea. The iceberg warnings were ignored. The owners had bragged that even God could not sink that ship, and they were racing to New York to get the name of the ship in the papers for breaking a record. An iceberg sank it. And to cap it all they had named the ship after a bunch of fallen angels. Then God gets the blame for allowing the consequences of man’s stupidity and hubris. Things like that often happen in the Bible. The truth is that God is GOOD! He is LOVE! He even took human form and allowed corrupt humanity to kill him under the influence of fallen angels, to give us salvation…..as prophesied in the OT. Have you read it all? Have you read it from God’s point of view, or just from the perspective of a created being with a 70 year lifespan? It makes all the difference. Do you want to know him, or blame him? PS the Titanic was the biggest ship ever built up to that time. The size of it, the power of its engines were celebrated in the press, but out on the Atlantic Ocean it was just a speck. So was the iceberg, but it sank the great ship. It was tragic, but it seems only the musicians understood the situation. They played Nearer My God To Thee.
@@kelseykjarsgaard5774 and God, showed much patience for them. He gave the people of the old testament plenty of time. Lets talk about what they were doing. Did you read the part about what they were doing? Child sacrifice, idols, high places devoted to false Gods. and a whole lot more. Kelsey, i highly encourage you to read it all. not just a couple of chapters. a lot of people just read a couple of verses or a couple of chapters and are overcome by offended sensibilities..so they stop reading it. which is very interesting..
Whew! That’s the bottom line for sure. “Every man does what is right in his own eyes” based on his/her own story/experience. The Bible warns over and over again about deception being a key characteristic as we move toward the beginning of the end. Jude reminds us to “contend earnestly for the faith.” Be steadfast Pas Sean! Keep the full armour of God on. Watch and pray. Be vigilant and keep doing these great podcasts. 👍🏾
I really appreciate that you bridge the gap with common ground when you have these conversations. Your channel has truly been eye opening for how I approach dialogue with some of my own friends. The best part is that you draw back to the good word. I have read my Bible a lot more these past few weeks than I have in a long time, and have a closer relationship to Christ because of that.
@@SeanMcDowell Sean you are amazing at this. I thank God for the gift he gave you in this area, and I pray for Him to put a hedge of protection around you.
Sean I like the way you have a conversation and have a respectful dialog. When I first discovered you I was very pleased that you could have a conversation without talking over the other person as so often happens. Thanks for your wonderful channel.
Spot on Dr. Sean McDowell. I am a Progressive Christian and I agree with what you said about us, Progressive Christians. Thank you for not caricaturing us. That is why even though we disagree on a lot of things I am still subscribed and listen to your channel. I also appreciate your kindness to my fellow Progressive Christian, Colby Martin. Wish you a happy and success New Year and God bless you
Any "Christian" who says, "put your damned Bible down" - even for a moment - or even simply refers to the Bible as "damned," just simply is not a Christian. Most assuredly, Jesus never said this to anyone. You cannot claim to follow Jesus while disrespecting His own Word!
Jesus answered - Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh
Thank you, Dr. McDowell, for posting this. This is articulate and very clearly explained. You are spot on and I thank you. I also appreciate that this post is short and to the point.
If people don’t want to be Christians, I would rather they actually say so and move on, as opposed to living however they want and throwing Jesus on top of it.
I can understand that sentiment. When I was an Orthodox Jew I was like- you can say you don’t agree with the Torah or rabbis, but don’t twist and pretend like the scripture is suddenly different etc.
@@4thbrooker i assume they mean people who claim to be Christians but who do not want to believe much of what the Bible says, but instead rework it to fit their own mindset.
@@4thbrooker But that is exactly what Colby thinks - the Bible was written by near cavemen, so why wouldnt we take it with a pinch of salt today. His view seems to be that we today are more 'sophisticated'. Which of course is nonsense.
I really enjoyed your convo with Colby. I have many friends that are progressive Christians, deconstructing, Evangelical, and everywhere in between. I myself would be considered theologically conservative or an Evangelical. I have quite literally spent 100s of hours with my progressive and deconstructing (I know they are separate) friends discussing these things. I think my tension with such framework lies in the fact that Progressive Christianity ironically becomes the very thing it seeks to confront. The (underlining) desire seems to make Christianity more palatable to the world for the sake of inclusion, as defined by the world. But ironically it turns into this system of “semantical gymnastics” which I think builds more unnecessary mediation between us and God. One of my dear friends who identifies as a Progressive Christian would always say “are we sure it means that?” or “how can we truly know?” every time I would bring up something from Scripture. It become nonstop acrobatics. If you were to hand this framework down to an illiterate person or an uneducated person (which my own family is full of) then you are simply handing them an overcomplicated and unnecessarily complex framework, which is truly just religiosity. There is a simplicity to the Gospel. I like to say that God is complex, but not complicated. We can apprehend the truths of Scripture, even when we cannot fully comprehend them. And in between the margins of those two things is submission to the Lord. Progressive Christianity seems to be steeped in “intellectual comfort and privilege” that the Holy Spirit transcends and cuts right through. All in all I commend Colby for continuing to engage people on the other side of the conversational spectrum. To anyone seeking and searching for the Truth, continue to do so. But remember, knowledge is not intrinsically tied to wisdom. The fear of the Lord...
Progressive Christianity is not about a desire "to make Christianity more palatable to the world for the sake of inclusion, as defined by the world." Not even slightly. It is about, to contrast this statement of yours, progressing Christian faith towards deeper and deeper truths as led by the Holy Spirit, as was directed by Jesus when He said that he would "send an advocate to guide you into all truth". Acknowledging that it actually quite difficult to know for sure the meaning of very many things in scripture does not mean that the progressive system "turns into this system of 'semantical gymnastics'". "Are we sure it means that?" and "How can we truly know?" are **fantastic** questions. Fantastic questions that the large faith institutions and the ones in power in those institutions have been trying to get everyone to not ask in order to maintain the positions of power these institutions and their leaders have. The reality is that God, for whatever reason, has shrouded Himself in mystery. And Jesus quite literally spoke in parables and regularly confused his own disciples. When you say, "there is a simplicity to the Gospel. I like to say that God is complex, but not complicated," all you are actually saying is, "My view and understanding sits well with me, and I don't really want to think about it much deeper than that."
@@4thbrooker Think god ,if he existed,and was any way reasonable,would spare a bit of time and come back (if you believe he was here before) and striaghten all these sect differences,/interpretations etc out, it is his book that people think others have got wrong,don't think it's too much to ask, even with stuff nowhere remotely near as important,(well as important to believe it) we can look for, and get clarification (plus much better explanation & evidence than for any thing written in this ancient book ,) why would a god be happy with that situation ?
@Josh Hernandez I disagree somewhat. That the Bible is an "integrated message system" is just a presupposition. Once you make this presupposition, you will find ample evidence to confirm this bias. But, view it for what it necessarily is (this doesn't mean that it necessarily isn't also an "integrated message system") - a compilation of various genres of literature written by various authors (many of whom are unknown) across thousands of years - and you suddenly realize that asserting the presupposition that it must be an "integrated message system" can easily inhibit one's ability to actually see it for what it actually is. Also, Roman Catholics would take much issue with how you just characterized their views and beliefs. And they don't see Mary as a Deity. So, when you say, "If you want to understand the Bible you have to see it as an integrated message system. God is mysterious but a lot of what he’s doing with the world, whereas past , present or future is somewhere there in the Bible", you're really only asserting your own presuppositions. In my view, these presuppositions are unnecessary and actually inhibit your ability to see scripture for what it actually is.
@Josh Hernandez How silly. Any proof that you provide would be analyzed. And, no, based on how you just responded, I wouldn't formally debate you even if I was paid to do so. I'm not trying to prove to you that the Bible isn't an "integrated message system". I'm merely breaking it down to what it necessarily is, which I described in my previous message. And then I said, once you actually acknowledge it for what it necessarily is, you can then start to see the issue with presupposing that it is an "integrated message system". So which part of that do you disagree with and why?
This is really good. I enjoyed watching both conversations and found this to be an incredibly accurate statement. Even if this had not been said, this was the sentiment I saw in these conversations.
Thank you. You’ve shown such kindness and patience with your guests where I never could. I can’t get past the arrogance that oozes from so many pastors like Colby. And it’s so obvious to me that their motivations are usually fed out of past hurt from being fired by this denomination, or being hurt by this. It’s all emotion. So reflective of the current culture.
Thanks for the presentation. You know your dad's book 'Evidence that Demands a Verdict' (the first edition I believe) was the first one that presented an intellectual case for Christianity to me & was largely influential in leading me to Christ over 40 years ago now. I just wanted to express that to you since I've never met him in person. Since that time I've always had a abiding interest in apologetics. So I just wanted to encourage you today to continue standing up for the Truth that is in Jesus!
Colby’s remarks about ancient people being unsophisticated desert dwellers with no phycological insight… CS Lewis had a term for this: chronological snobbery. It’s a poor position to take.
Inasmuch as the Word says that holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2Pt 1.21), such a statement can essentially be considered blasphemy against the Spirit.
You might be right! Perhaps I am a victim of chronological snobbery. I hold space for that. I wonder if you can also hold space for the possibility that there are, actually, things us modern folk know that ancient folk did not? By no means would I suggest we are automatically better/smarter/more right on all things simply because we’re new and they’re old… AND, at the same time, we DO know a whooooole lot more about a whole lot of things than people did 3000 years ago. On that we can agree, yes?
Colby Martin ☺️ You’d need to adjust the space you hold slightly to allow for: you’re not a “victim” of chronological snobbery. You’re a perpetrator of it. The just cave men desert dwellers you’re looking down from you’re highly evolved modern armchair are the victims :) And it’s obvious we know more “ stuff” thousands of years later. Doesn’t mean we are necessarily wiser, or more insightful cos we can now put telescopes in space. In some sense we might even say that all that knowledge has come at a price…and modern people have lost spiritual and moral intuitions that ancient people had… but maybe that’s a timeless human quality (professing to be wise, they became fools). The more things change , the more they stay the same. I often think of someone like Euclid when I encounter chronological snobbery…2300 years later, the mathematical principles he put down still apply, and in fact helped his ancestors put those telescopes in space. So yes, we agree on that.
@@mrcolbymartin God didn't need the Biblie writers to know a lot of stuff. He only needed them to be able to convey a message. And in His infinite wisdom He knew exactly whom to choose to get the message out just the way He wanted. God isn't blindsided by modern developments. He saw them coming. The Bible was written for us, “on whom the ends of the ages have come” (1Co 10.11).
There is much I COULD say about that conversation, his statements, and what this video stirred up in my mind and heart, but the one thing I know I SHOULD say as a reminder to myself and others of similar thought and feeling is Ephesians 6:12 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
If you’re implying Sean is an example of wickedness in high places, that’s a bit offensive I think. Disagreement doesn’t need to draw that distinction. Plus I think it’s somewhat egotistical to say definitely that Sean is wrong and your view is right.
@@GD-he2xj I believe that D123 is implying that the "progressive Christian" agenda is being pushed by depraved beings in high places, i.e. demonic activity.
So incredibly tragic, but so true. I have found this over and over and over again in my own experiences with progressive Christians. Thank you for your astute and grace-filled response.
I absolutely cherish you and how you approach others. You help me keep the faith. It ain’t easy. I have always wanted to do the right thing- so glad to have found Christ despite Christianity- both trad and progressive.
Hi Sean - love the way you stay strong on doctrine but in a gracious way, representing biblical Christianity properly. It would be great to hear a conversation between you and Becket Cook - God bless to you, yours and your work!
As Rosaria Butterworth said "Disagreements about what the Bible says start with disagreements about what the Bible IS". Rosaria Butterworth is the formerly lesbian tenured professor at Syracuse University who wanted to write a book against the Bible and patriarchy, but after studying it , became a Christian and left her lesbian lifestyle. You should watch her interview on the Becket Cook show.
yep. Agree 100%. I tried to watch both videos and gave up after several minutes. Pastor Colby doesn't believe the Word of God to be infallible and he stumbled at saying Christ is God and Lord. I pity him. However, I hope you begin to bring on more people who agree with us and can encourage us to seek Christ and remain faithful. I would like to see Paul Washer on here, NT Wright, Max McLean, the leader from Skillet, Andy Mineo, Bryann Trejo, Christian athletes and actors, etc. I tried to skim your other videos to make sure I didn't repeat any that you have had before. But I appreciate your work. Also, I hope you are able to make a home studio one day and start having guests in person, like Ben Shapiro or Dave Rubin interviews. If you or Mike Brown did that, it would give me incentive to be a monthly supporter. The zoom videos are okay, but the low resolution can be a takeaway, I understand that's beyond control sometimes. Anywho, good work Doc!
I really enjoyed this video. I love how Dr. McDowell can express differences like this with less emotional vigor, and admit that there are fundamental worldview differences, with each person thinking the other is in error. I once heard a progressive pastor say that part of the problem with the church was how often people without formal biblical education were opening the bible and just reading. I feel like this sums up the difference as well.
That's interesting since, as far as i've come to understand, a lot of “formal Biblical education” approaches the Bible in a skeptical manner, as a piece of human literature, to be analyzed & assesed by human standards.
@@Crich_Leslie sorry to say your understanding is obviously limited, “most” biblically based seminaries teach that the bible is the inerrant word of God and to be approached as such. The seminars your familiar with are obviously secular. ✌🏼
@@markshaneh Unfortunately this secularistic approach is indeed taught in many a Christian theological seminary. I've heard pastors in training picking apart the inspiration of the scriptures based on their scholarly instruction.
Rosie exactly! Progressives are becoming the new guardians of a new kind of Latin. I mean, hell forbid that ordinary everyday peasants should just pick up their bibles and start reading them!
Excellent! Very clear! Saying “damn Bible” rubs me so wrong. Why would someone who’s a Christian say something like that. That is immediately very telling of who that person is and it contradicts majorly how a Christian would express themselves about the Bible. You never tell someone to put their Bible down to begin with and secondly use the word damn in front of it. I think there’s a huge lack of reverence and respect that has been lost in Christianity. Call me conservative or old fashioned but I guess I am in those respects.
Thank you, thank you Sean for your firm, fair standing and understanding of the clear but difficult for some to receive the truths of the Bible. You are clear sounding bell in this age of noise.
The problem is that evangelicals don't know much about the "truths of the Bible". Most don't even seem to ever have read it. And if they do, they only follow the bits and pieces that suit them.
"Put your damn Bible down... We can do better than that!" Wow! What a perfect description of Progressive "Christianity". Could not have said it better myself.
The “barrier” Dr. McDowell’s guest is experiencing, I believe, is pride. This isn’t a bust on him but just goes to show how truly insidious the sin of pride is. Recall that it was pride, the Original Sin, that caused the Fall. Adam and Eve were directly created by God, immaculate in every way, they walked with Him and spoke with Him almost daily. Even with all that going for them they still could not withstand the sin of pride, which proves the incredible power of that most evil sin. So it cannot be much of a surprise that pride is the one sin that we suffer with and from the most. How does this pertain to this video? From the article Dr. McDowell read it sounds like Kobbe is not in any meaningful way a Christian. For him the Bible, it’s teachings, philosophy, authors, history, and insights are not only flawed and retarded but dangerous obstacles to his feelings and sense of self. Considering his belief that the Bible’s authors as well as all persons living in and around Jerusalem at that time were barely a notch above cave dwelling knuckle-draggers, I’m truly curious to know why he claims to have anything in common with them at all - especially something as monumental, awe inspiring, and glorious as the “Good News” of our blessed savior, Jesus Christ. After all, it was Jesus and the Apostles who described much of the teaching Kobbe despises most. I cannot imagine any lover of Jesus and the Gospel ever uttering the words “put your (bleeping) Bible down and listen to MY truth instead (because I am VASTLY superior to the illiterate, irrational, unsophisticated, patriarchal, Neanderthal-like desert dwellers of Jesus’ time)”. Yup… pride. Satan’s most favorite, most successful, most devastating weapon - EVER!!
Firstly, the "Original Sin", as you call it, was caused by God allowing a talking serpent into Eden and then allowing this serpent to literally trick Eve. Why wouldn't God ensure that Eve couldn't be tricked? Why wouldn't God say to Eve, "Hey, tomorrow a serpent is going to talk to you. Ignore it. It has no good intentions for you"? Adam and Eve were not prideful. They were gullible - like children - and easily tricked. Secondly, Colby didn't say the Bible is "flawed and retarded" nor that it contains "dangerous obstacles to his feelings and sense of self". Thirdly, Colby saying "a notch above cave-man" was, I believe, a reference to the people who the levitical laws were written to in the OT times. Not to the people during the times of the NT - during and after Jesus being on earth. Fourthly, Colby doesn't despise any of the Bible. But, going with what you are saying, even if he did "despise" certain parts, it absolutely would not be what Jesus and the Apostles said/wrote. Fifth, Colby absolutely did not say, "Put your (bleeping) Bible down and listen to MY truth instead." Just... no. He is saying, "Put your damn bible down for one second and actually look up and pay attention to the people who your dogmatic decrees are actually affecting. pay attention to the suffering, the longing, the love of the people around you. For once would you stop presupposing that you have the best and perfect understanding of scripture and actually experience the reality that we are all cohabiting in way that allows you to actually 'do life' with those who you think are just prideful, sinful, lustful outcasts who have rejected the truth."
@@4thbrooker Firstly, God had already told Adam not to eat the fruit of that tree. Adam was with Eve. He should have spoken up at the very least, but he stood there and said nothing. God allowed Adam and Eve freedom of choice ….. to believe him or not to believe him; to obey him or not to obey him. They were warned of the consequences and so are we. Secondly, I agree that Colby did not say the Bible was flawed and retarded, or that Jesus and his disciples were just above cave dwellers…..just that Moses et al were. It did seem that Colby was coming from an evolutionist worldview with the assumption that “science” is truth and trumps the Bible. The cave dwellers in the Bible were not Neanderthals. Adam was not a Neanderthal. Thirdly, Jesus had compassion on all manner of sinners and died to set us free from sin and it’s consequence, which is death. When one has friends and family who are homosexual the issues are painful. There are several incidents in the Bible of people committing adultery …… that is also very painful. Herodotus was in an awful situation, apparently she loved Herod, and Herod loved her, and John the Baptist was pretty clear that she and Herod were breaking the laws of God. She had John killed, via Salome. Murder is also understandable in some situations ……. The answer is not to put down the Bible, but to understand it better, and to better understand why God says and does the things in it. Adam and Eve wanted “to know good and evil,” and we’ve been finding out about it ever since. God’s creation did not originally contain death. Jesus came to set us free from the power of sin and death and to destroy the works of the devil. According to evolutionists, death was built into the system. Without the Bible we would never know about the time before death entered the world, or about the time to come when the earth is recreated and Hades/hell, the devil, and death are cast into the lake of fire……The time when there is no more death or sorrow or pain, and God dwells on the earth with his people.
@@elizabethtaylor9242 Let's think about this a bit more... Yes, according to the narrative, God told Adam not to eat the fruit of that one tree. Great. Why even put the tree there to begin with? Why not warn Adam that not only would a talking serpent appear in order to get him and Eve to eat from the tree, but that they would both be really enticed to do it? Why not tell Adam to kill the serpent the very moment he saw it? Or even better yet, why not explain to Adam the actual truth? The full truth. Because, the reality is, the serpent didn't actually lie to Adam and Eve. God told Adam that he should not eat of the tree of knowledge because "in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” The serpent, however, informed Adam and Eve that this is not true, saying, "You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” None of this from the serpent is a lie. And indeed, Adam nor Eve died "in the day that you eat of it". Now, did God lie? I don't think so. But what seems evident is that He didn't really make Himself very clear to Adam and Eve. Why not? Why not explain the very nature of what was going on? Why not make it abundantly clear the full consequences of eating from the tree of knowledge? Better yet, again, why even have the tree of knowledge there looking like a perfectly good tree to eat from and allow a talking serpent to reside anywhere near it? The only logical answer to these questions seems to be that God's plan and intention from the very beginning was for sin to be part of the story of his creation. But, alas, it seems that very many Christians are entirely unable to even allow themselves to ponder this assertion. You say, "The answer is not to put down the Bible, but to understand it better, and to better understand why God says and does the things in it." What if the way to better understand the Bible is by putting it down for a minute in order to actually **see** the people who have been crying out that they have been ignored, marginalized, victimized, misunderstood, abused, kick out of their homes, pushed to suicide, and murdered for generations and generations?
@@4thbrooker 1. The Bible isn't damned. Colby's language is out of order for a "Bible believing" person, which I am more and more convinced by his own language that he is not. 2. The serpent did in fact lie to Adam and Eve. Death needs to be defined and Adam and Eve did die that day. Don't look now, but you are defending the serpents honest actions and accusing Yahweh of shady dealings. Yikes
Sean McDowel is of the utmost integrity. I believe he seeks truth wherever it may lead. Also, dialoging with people who disagree with you is a great way to build bridges and lead some to the Living Christ.
Very clear explanation! I pray that this group that uses the name Christian would repent and come to truly know Jesus as Lord and Savior. May we all follow your example of respectful dialogue but never cease to call all to repentance.
Nailed it !! Gods word describes itself as being a sword . A sword cuts and pierces . Its not always going to be that we like what God wants for us given our sinful nature . It’s also described as a light and darkness hates light . But we can’t walk in this dark world without the light from Gods word . No Christian should be putting their own beliefs and thoughts before the sacred words of God .
Really mixed emotions on this subject. I always enjoy Sean's interviews, but in this case, at the end, I'm left wondering if the differences are too great for much to be achieved. Understanding each other is good, but there needs to be common ground for progress to be made. Progressives reject so much, are we just talking past each other? I know people who've rejected Christianity for progressivism, I found there's no biblical reasoning with them. Their beliefs are now so fluid, there's no bedrock anymore.
There’s a strong case to be made that evangelical Christianity and progressive “Christianity” are not actually the same religion. We can attempt to understand each other, but a change in beliefs may require an actual conversion.
I can't help but wonder if this isn't but another example of a denomination. Is Sean's key issue the same key issue for other denominational differences?
@@anthonywhitney634 Yup, it's like they are closeted agnostics but dont know it themselves yet. They're one trial/tribulation away from tripping out of that closet. I cant tell what their foundation is. Basically agnostic do-gooders, leave the "christian" suffix behind. "put down your damn bible", actually sounds more anti-theist now that I think about it.
@@ashrickley3168 not at all, different denominations within Christianity all differ with in-house issues, such as infant baptism, partial or full submersion, timeline for the second coming of Jesus, etc. However, they all believe on essential truths for salvation.(some of which include the resurrection, disagreeing with the idea that all beliefs lead to god, etc).
Here's my thing on progressive Christians: "You don't choose politics or religion, you pick one to guide the other" Progressive Christians (from everything I've seen) let their politics guide their religion.
That was the best explanation I've ever heard and hes right if you're going going to be progressive you do put The Bible down but if you are going to be a evangelical Christian you need to read it I have a Passion for The Bible It was made by eyewitness reports of what men saw God do
Yes Belief in the Scriptures are absolutely essential to be a Christian. I could never figure out why people like Colby are so opposed to very clear teachings….but now I know
People like Colby aren't opposed to "very clear teachings". We simply acknowledge that there is no such thing as "very clear teachings" when it comes to ancient texts. Nor really are there "clear teachings" from a modern person speaking to you in person. Reality is nuanced and complex, not simple and black and white.
@@4thbrooker “ we simply acknowledge that there is no such thing as very clear teaching” Oh brother 🤦🏽 I urge you please avoid going into public places or where other people could be harmed .
@@markshaneh Oh look, Mark, another example of you not actually engaging anything I have said... Here is your resposne this time: "" “ we simply acknowledge that there is no such thing as very clear teaching” Oh brother 🤦🏽 I urge you please avoid going into public places or where other people could be harmed ."" Mark, can you please challenge yourself a little bit and actually engage the things I am saying rather than making empty accusations or backhanded smart-ass remarks?
Sean, very nice video that articulates the divide. Yes, the view of the Bible is different and it is also important to understand the different conceptions of God at work. I've read Colby Martin's "The Shift" and listened to the first video you had with him on your channel. The fact that Colby found it so difficult to finally even grant that God was personal was indicative of profound difference. J. Gresham Machen in his book "Christianity and Liberalism" (1923) spoke about the importance of the transcendence of God. This is a God who stands outside and above the created order and can speak an authoritative word into history which can judge behavior and cultures. Classical liberal Christianity and its modern progressive permutation lacks this notion of the transcendence of God and so because of this the God of Progressive Christianity could not, even in principle, speak an authoritative word on human sexuality.
This is interesting. I consider myself a progressive christian and I do, indeed, have liberal leanings. However, there are very many progressive christians who I have encountered who I don't think fit into "liberal christianity". In fact, from my perspective, Progressive Christianity in general is filling the middle ground between, on one end, the traditionalist/conservative/evangelical christians and liberal christians on the other end. That is to say, Progressive Christians generally see both the "humanness" **and** the divine within scripture whereas Liberal Christians, in many ways, remove the divine altogether. What do you think?
Just gave this another listen and appreciate how Sean has truly captured and exposed the spirit behind Colby’s post. It’s worth noting that Sean has used Colby’s full quote and hasn’t used it out of context as claimed by some on this thread. It’s obvious that the progressive movement wants to enjoy all the benefits of a biblical Jesus but they handle the Bible as an “ inconvenient truth “ then proceed to deconstruct the bible when it doesn’t support their own agenda and narrative. They want to be seen to have a form of godliness but at the same time deny it’s power, 2Tim 3:5.
If you think that, I'd suggest listening to Matthew Vines. The problem is that evangelicals think they own the truth. When in fact since the beginning of Christianity there have been vastly different interpretations of the holy scripture. But thinking, "I just take the Bible literally therefore I'm right" destroys any chance at an honest dialogue at this point. And no evangelical takes the Bible literally. Or do you rip out your eye if it makes you sin?
Indeed, Sean, I don't think you said it strongly enough. You seriously pulled your punches in this response. Mr. Martin revealed his true colors on Instagram with the words you read. I've heard very similar sentiments expressed by atheists, smearing the Bible's human authors as "bronze age goatherders" - in his words "desert-dwelling barely-not-cave-people-any-more humans," "with zero insight into human psychology...at least in comparison to today." Never mind that these "bronze age goatherders" just happened to pen the most enduring, impactful book in human history, counting billions of adherents at this time, thousands of years later. I'd like to see all these moderns with their PhD's match that achievement - and I say that as someone with a PhD! He is obviously infected with an arrogant condescension towards ancients, and towards us, that derives from his so-called "education." He cursed the Bible! He *clearly* doesn't think the Bible is worth diddlysquat, and hates what it teaches. At first he said your problem was your narrow interpretation of the Bible, but then he trashed the scriptures that you refer to without providing any alternative interpretation. His counsel is to "put [it] down". The next logical question is: if this is the way he really feels about the Bible and its human authors, why does he appear to give credence to any of it? Is that all it is, just paying lip service in order to lure people into thinking he's genuine? I just got done watching a recent video by Mike Winger comparing progressive Christians to the Sadducees of Jesus' day, Jesus having nailed them accurately as not understanding either the Scriptures or the power of God. They knew not to be fully honest and open about what they believed, because they knew they would be rejected. So they pretend in order to be accepted, so they can weasel their godless philosophy into the believing community. These are the wolves that the Apostle Paul warned us about.
I volunteer at a non-profit that works with the homeless so I get a lot of practice reminding myself that we are ALL made in the image of God. CSLewis said, “You never meet a mere mortal. . . . “
Well said Sean please keep strong you did amazing in this lead by Holy Spirit Amen guilt trips and lack of empathy lack of caring and loving as some progressive Christians are saying we are is a false statement and emotional blackmail do not fall for it ppl. The truth is facts don't care about feelings... what matters here is what God's word say not ours keep strong keep kind and do pick up your Bible read it from God's eyes not our's
Welp, at least Colby is honest about wanting christians to put the bible down. Sean, you had such a good point about how its mostly modern white college educated people who hold to this view. Your brought up 3 reasons, not just one, the universal church around the world, church history, and of course the scripture. Nice job Sean.
I like your thoughts. I think a big thing is knowing what it means to truly love. Love doesn’t mean agreeing with everything somebody does or letting folks do whatever they want.
My theology professor at a prominent Evangelical seminary said to always ask where the authority lies in any theological system. I am now an Exvangelical, currently sorting out whether I can be a progressive Christian. Evangelicals take the Bible as the authority and conform their view of justice to what the Bible says. But what if the Bible is unjust? Wouldn't that be wrong? And wouldn't I want followers of other religions to submit their own holy books to the question of whether their book is just? The Bible itself sometimes appeals to authority outside itself. When Paul argues in Galatians that gentiles do not need to be circumcised, he makes a theological rather than exegetical argument. In the book of Acts, Peter accepts a non-Jew on the basis of a vision telling him to break the dietary laws in the Old Testament. There is a way that people think is right but it leads only to death (Prov 14:12). Remember that the people Jesus got most upset with were not the progressives of his day, but rather those who studied the scriptures diligently and attempted to follow everything meticulously. Perhaps the Bible should be subject to our best understanding of justice and not the other way around.
Yes! Indeed! It is almost as if this is **precisely** what has been done with slavery. Oh, wait, I forgot, "The bible doesn't support slavery. Antebellum chattel slavery is not the same thing as slavery in the Bible." It's called "moving the goalposts" people. Slavery is slavery. Owning people is owning people. We now (nearly universally) accept that slavery is immoral and yet the Bible does not condemn slavery, and in fact, a great affirmative case for slavery can be found in the Bible. It's almost as if... our understanding of the truths of God has... wait for it... "progressed" as time has gone on. And it is almost as if the decrees and truths written by humans as recorded in the Bible were actually just written by people who lived in specific times, with specific cultural contexts and norms, and that these things shaped and molded the authors' understandings of their reality and of God. (My sarcastic tone is not aimed at you Rya.)
@@4thbrooker Exactly. I appreciate Sean's willingness to dialog on these issues. But his (and others') unwillingness to embrace a new hermeneurical paradigm is the very thing that is fueling the deconstruction movement.
This is the ONLY reason why anyone should become a Christian (from a rational perspective). A person should only become a Christian, if the person accepts the bodily resurrection of Jesus in light of the _historical_ evidence, as described by the scholar Brant Pitre in the book *"The case for Jesus"* and the former agnostic scholars Gary Habermas and Mike Licona in *"The case for the resurrection of Jesus"* . In video-form, I would recommend the former atheist youtube-channel *"inspiring philosophy"* and his playlist "The Resurrection of Jesus".
I would love to see a video of you explaining why you do see the Bible in the way that you do. Like why do evangelicals see it as authoritative and infallible? Why do you choose certain strategies to interpret the Bible and what hermeneutics do you use and why? Are there any videos you have already on this? Or are there any other good videos or discussions on this topic?
I had a pretty good feeling Colby would not be returning to your podcast after listening to the first and second. I really do wish he would have just come out to say this, that is, that the Bible isn't where he gets his authoritative stance from. If he would admit this, I would wonder why Colby would take Jesus historically from the Bible at all, or how he could actually believe in the story of Christ's sacrifice, since that might be misunderstood as well?
After watching both interviews and how much Colby had to think about some of your questions its pretty apparent he doesn't even know what he believes. At the end of your second interview he told you that you would get into heaven because you're a good person. He doesn't even understand the basics of the faith. He sees the bible through the lens of his life rather than the other way around.
At the risk of starting yet another insane comment thread... I'll say it again... We shouldn't be calling Colby Martin a Christian pastor. I realize you said "progressive Christian pastor", which in my mind, negates the Christian part...but I think we should be clear on this... As always, I appreciate your conversations on your channel, and your heart.
The two are not separate. Conservative Christians like to think that they can be separated. But they can't. If they could, then the Church would openly have no issue allowing gay couples to be in their churches and have leadership roles all over the church and in ministry. Why? Because they church doesn't actually know what this couple is doing in their own home. If you want to be really strict with what scripture says, the only *clear* condemnation regarding same-sex relationships is sodomy. Great, so as long as a same-sex couple doesn't engage in sodomy, then there's no issue. But you and I both know that isn't going to fly. Why? Because it isn't just about the behavior. It's about the whole lifestyle. Conservative Christians have an emotional revulsion towards people who are homosexual. It's that simple. It isn't based on scripture. It isn't something the Holy Spirit is telling them. It's purely emotional.
@@4thbrooker NO, it doesn’t matter how Christians feel emotionally about homosexual relationships, it’s just not about our feelings !!!! Point to one scripture where it encourages the reader to interpret scripture by their feelings or emotions at any one given time, just one. Maybe you should revisit Jesus teachings on the sermon on the mount and Jeremiah 17:9.
That's pretty stunning. This reminds me of progressives and conservatives in view of the constitution. Progressives usually see the constitution as a living document that bends and moves with society. Conservatives tend to see it as a foundational document, unmoving regardless of time and societal shifts.
My theory is that progressives of both kinds suffer from what C. S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery.” They believe that living after someone chronologically somehow makes them intellectually and morally superior.
@@Rosie-uf5ox yes Rosie, both Colby and Micah Brooker practice this type of “snobbery and judgment” towards others who are made in the image of God. ✌🏼
I had commented on your conversation with Colby and ill say it again, he doesn't sound Christian to me and really wants to bend the Bible his way and towards his feelings. Praying for him...
I appreciate this quite a bit, it’s easy for people to feel like this is an attack. Thank you for the clarification of the difference between the two views.
The New Testament was written in a patriarchal society. AND---It rebelled against it. Example: Legally women had no right of consent in sex or marriage. But Paul says that it is good for women if they choose to remain single to work for God's kingdom. Christianity literally created women's right to consent.
I went to college with colby. I've watched your engagement with him with much interest. He was a compelling leader then and still has the same presence and magnetism. It's been very sad to see him and other classmates drop hand grenades on the very foundation of the faith: the word. Although I understand how his heart leads him it is such brain boggler for me when these folks look at the building of christendom, seem to like a bit of the structure but not the foundation and have the ludicrous idea that they can keep any of it after demolishing the foundation.
The foundation is Jesus and the Holy Spirit, not the Bible. Further more, "the word", according to the Bible, is, in fact, Jesus. No where in the BIble is there a claim that it, itself, is "the word of God".
@@4thbrooker indeed but the scripture is the means of teaching testing etc.. so by removing the authority and sufficiency of scripture the progressive "Christian" removes any means to test what is true rendering most things to their own subjective opinion.
@@Tadneiko No, Jesus said, "I will send the advocate and he will lead you into all truth." The Holy Spirit is that which leads to truth. Don't make an idol of the Bible.
Saw a UA-cam video yesterday by Mike Winger on what is the moral difference between Christianity and atheists. He pointed out the basic difference is the fact that of the two commandments Jesus gives as God's moral law Christians put love God first, which would include wanting to be holy as He is holy among other things. Atheists only keep the 2nd love your neighbor. Perhaps this is also true for many progressives.
Progressives would argue that loving your neighbor **is** the fulfillment of loving God. We love God **by** loving our neighbor. Read the parable of the goats and the sheep in Matthew.
There is no such thing as a progressive Christian. There is God's word. We are to abide by His word. There really only is a conservative Christian, because you abide by CONSERVING the word of the true and living God.
Unless, of course, God has designed things such that we would progressively learn more and more about Him and thus, would need to be always reexamining how we used to understanding things and how those who came before us understood things.
This is a very brave video to post. Personally, I do not see how you can claim to be a Christian and say things like "put your @#%& Bible down." I realize it's an issue with what is valued as "authoritative", but to encourage believers to not read the Word of God is leading them astray and damaging their walk. I can speak from experience that I didn't read the Word of God for years yet claimed to be a Christian and it led me down a very painful, destructive road. What got me out of that was Scripture, so when I hear comments like Cody's, it bothers me. I admire your patience Sean. :)
Colby isn't encouraging believers to not read the Bible. Here's the full quote: "Put your damn Bible down for a second and listen to the stories of those who've been told their whole life by the church that they are an abomination." He's simply pleading with Christians to actually start listening to the people who have been crying out for generations that they are being ignored, abused, marginalized, victimized, pushed towards suicide, and even murdered.
@@4thbrooker, Thanks for the comment. He does have a point and I agree we do need to listen to people's stories and to have empathy, which the Bible encourages us to do. But as a whole, Cody has been very vocal on his view on Scripture and the Bible in both his interviews with Sean and that is what I am commenting on. :)
@@jennifernihongi9696 Right, well I was just commenting on what you said here, which was a comment directly about what Sean said in this video. Specifically, that Colby is telling people to "put their damn bible down", which you then took to mean that Colby is encouraging people to not read the Bible. But that just simply isn't the case.
I'm a progressive Christian. I don't agree with everything Colby says, but I side with him on a lot. Your quote is truncated and misleading. As you read it he said "Put your damn bible down for a second". That's very different than your shortened quote without the "for a second" part. Your quote gives evangelicals the view that progressives want to decide everything without regard to the bible. What progressives really want is for evangelicals to remember that the bible wasn't written in a vacuum and it wasn't written in English. The bible's original language is one that no one speaks today in it's original version (Just like Old English is a language few if any today would understand today). We have scholars that do their best to interpret and translate as best as they can, but it's nearly impossible to fully understand language in the author's context. The other part that I mentioned is that the bible wasn't written in a vacuum. Most evangelical scholars would agree that context in the culture at the time the words were written are important, but they would disagree on how much context is really needed. Progressives will say that the authors, although God inspired, didn't simply ignore their personal cultural beliefs while writing. It's like some people believe the authors were writing with blinders on. That doesn't seem rational to believe, no matter how much God breathed you believe the words to be.
Would it be accurate to infer that you question or reject biblical teachings on all of the other sins that are usually listed together? Same s3x relations are often lumped together with other sins that believers are to repent of so I wonder if you also have a view that, given the “context,”we must review our understanding of greed, fornication, idolatry, etc. and discard it based on our feelings about it?
@@JB-if1cx No it wouldn't be accurate. I see what you are trying to get to, but it just doesn't work. Don't talk about homosexual acts talked about in the bible without context of what they mean by the original terms used. Even the best linguist and language experts will agree that we can't know with certainty what all the words from 2,000 - 3,000 years ago meant to the people at that time. I'm not saying that we can't be certain of anything; that's silly. I'm saying be careful in saying we are certain in everything.
@@BrianPurcell72 Bruce who told you that linguists can’t be certain of textual meaning written from 2000/3000 years ago, you might wanna do a bit more background check behind that statement, “ Most” of the worlds textual critics and linguistics would laugh you out the room with such a stupid statement, start with Micheal Heiser and then just keep going from there. ✌🏼
@@JB-if1cx You're referring to the vice lists in which "arsenokoitai" is listed along with various other vices. The problem is, no one actually knows for sure what "arsenokoitai" means. There are less than 20 extant occurrences of this word before 600 A.D. This is a staggeringly low number. But it's even worse. Out of the 15 or so occurrences, only two provide any meaningful context with which we can attempt to derive a definition for this word. However, even these two occurrences are not actually very much help. Next you'll point to Romans 1. Romans 1 is not a depiction of same-sex, loving, monogamous unions and the sex had in those unions. Then you'll points to Leviticus. The two places in leviticus that supposedly condemn homosexuality don't mention *anything* about female to female sexual actions, so, going by Leviticus lesbianism is totally okay. Furthermore, the two verses in leviticus very likely could be specifically talking about the exploitative forms of same-sex sexual activity that were going on among the pagan nations during that time. Then you'll suggest that Genesis makes a prescriptive assertion about marriage for all people and for all time that is then backed up by Jesus in Matthew when he quotes Genesis in response to a question about men divorcing their wives. It isn't clear that the Genesis creation narratives are meant to be understood as prescriptive decrees for all people and for all time. Indeed, perhaps a much better way to understand these narratives is as descriptions that made sense to he people who formed these creation narratives - they are, after all, just two of several different creation stories that were being orally passed around for who even knows how long before they were finally written down. They are a descriptive reflection that makes sense of the world and reality as perceived by ancient groups of people.
I’m glad I have started watching your UA-cam channel, thank you for addressing hard topics, for the way you bring love, grace while standing with the truth and the boundary’s that Jesus taught, with love. He knows us more than we know ourselves and so will want to discipline us to save us from the mess we get ourselves into. It’s because he loves us that he has shown up how to live our lives. Thank you so much.
I have to agree with Colby. All this hate…because of an interpretation of text written over 2,000 years ago? Colby is right. Please put the Bible down and see what’s going on in front of your eyes. See the consequences of your actions in front of your eyes. It’s absolutely crazy how much hatred exists in this world because of a book written millennia ago in a culture far different from our own. It’s fine to read the Bible, but if it’s turning you into someone that you don’t want to be, the Bible is a problem.
Why should we put down the very resource that has revealed Jesus to us? the resource that gave us the sermon on the mount? The resource that teaches us how to love our enemies, neighbors and God? There are many who hate others for various reasons and Jesus condemns hatred of anybody, even enemies(but it all stems from a sinful and heart). It is God's word that reveals to us how we are to treat one another with love. But what does that mean? A person with a progressive ideology might say that, in order to love, we must affirm, support and celebrate. A person with a conservative ideology might say we are to share the truth of God's word because love means nothing without truth. In Mark 2:17 Jesus says, 'And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” Suppose you go to your doctor and she discovers you have a disease. In other words, you are sick and it is killing you. She also knows that there is a treatment, but that it would require you to change your life (repent). Would it be loving to a) tell you that you are well and that nothing is wrong with you or b) tell you the truth so that you can decide what you want to do about it?
@@JB-if1cx You're trying to equate a doctor who relies on science with a book written over 2,000 years ago about supernatural phenomenon of which there is zero evidence. I'm not saying that it's not okay to believe in the supernatural. I'm just saying that if the book is making you uncomfortable with who you are, it's the book that has to go, not your relationship with other people. Does this make sense?
I honestly do not think it’s the same religion anymore. I went to a Methodist church with a friend and they don’t even say “Jesus” they say “God” as to “not be controversial” when reading from the NT.
Thanks Sean 😀 Sociologist James Hunter, in his book, 'Culture Wars' (1992), argued that the division between progressive & Conservative (Evangelical) Christians centres on questions of moral authority. Progressives are committed to the superiority of looking to 'personal experience,' or 'the spirit of the modern age,' or 'self-grounded rational discourse'. Evangelical Christians are committed to Scripture as divine revelation which is independent of, prior to, and more powerful than human experience. As this year draws to a close and 2022 begins, my thoughts go to the writings of J.Gresham Machen, who, 100 years ago, came to the conclusion that Liberal Christianity was a completely different religion than biblical Christianity. Time has indeed shown his assertion to be true !!!
You say, "Evangelical Christians are committed to Scripture as divine revelation which is independent of, prior to, and more powerful than human experience." Do tell me, if not through human experience, how does one interact with and interface with scripture?
Hi Micah. Thanks for your reply. It was James Hunter who made the observations noted, 'Culture Wars,' 1992, p.120. He was observing that historical (he uses the term 'orthodox') Christianity took the position that Scripture has its origin, not in the will of men, but that men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2nd Peter 1:19-21). Therefore, Scripture as divine, objective truth transcends or is more powerful than human experience. Historically, the Enlightenment led to the assumption that the natural universe was to be understood as ultimate reality. God came to be viewed as part of this general reality & as thoroughly immanent. It was then a short step to regarding God as irrelevant or even non-existent. The modern result of this change is a set of presuppositions, which include the supremacy of humanity and autonomy of human reason. This has led some theological liberals such as J. Shelby Spong to assume an unwillingness or inability of God to communicate effectively with those whom he has created in his image - able to receive, understand and respond appropriately to his revealed truth. As evidenced in my reading of Spong's book, 'Unbelievable' (2018), I think again of J. Gresham Machen's assertion that Liberal Christianity leads to a completely different religion than historical, biblical, evangelical Christianity. Blessings in Christ
@@williamwarren601 Surely there are some theological liberals who are assuming an unwillingness or inability of God to communicate effectively with his creation. But I have no found this to be the dominant position among Progressive Christians today. Rather (as was indicated by the question in my first response to your original comment), we progressives have come to realize, acknowledge, and accept that there is no way to interact or interface with the Holy Spirit, God, or Scripture outside of one's own subjective, biased mind. It is **through** our experiences that we interact with these things. So this is why I asked, "if not through human experience, how does one interact with and interface with scripture?" So, when James Hunter notes that, "Evangelical Christians are committed to Scripture as divine revelation which is independent of, prior to, and more powerful than human experience," I need to know how one is supposed to interact with this scripture outside their own human experience. Scripture very well may be divine revelation that is independent of, prior to, and more powerful than human experience. But that is irrelevant if the only way we can interact with scripture is through our own human experience. Let me put it another way. God very well may be perfectly willing to freely pass around his objective truths to anyone who is willing to listen. How do we engage these truths from God outside of our subjective and biased minds/experience? The very act of receiving objective truth from God will necessarily be a subjective experience from the perspective of the human who is receiving the truth. Is this incorrect?
Objective and subjective comes down to who has authority over your life. Is it God or is it you. Are the scriptures giving by divine revelation through the Holy Spirit, if they are, then objected truth is giving to us through the spirit for understanding. If they’re not than we can interpret them through our lense. You can’t separate the O. T. From the N.T. If it’s divinely giving. (2 Ti.3:16).
Hi Micah, Thanks for your kind reply. I take your point there is a spectrum within progressive Christianity in relation to Scripture. However, I would say it would be reasonable to assert that the movement is marked by a low view of Scripture. Your starting point is, “Scripture may very well be divine revelation…” A leading progressive, J. Shelby Spong Spong’s ending point was, “Scripture is unreliable.” Historical Christianity says, “Scripture definitely is divine revelation.” Alongside this, historical evangelical Christianity has always believed that we interact with Scripture through human experience. It has always been recognised that the word of truth needs to handled correctly and that false doctrines need to be refuted. The key point is this: Our post-modern world denies God’s existence and says there is no objective truth - that all truth is relative and socially constructed. This is the only position allowed in contemporary secular academia and it strongly influences or dominates progressive thinking. This stands in direct contrast to historical Christianity which recognises the social dynamics at work within society in relation to truth but has always contended that Scripture is divine truth that originates outside of man. You speak of a very important need when you ask: I need to know, how one is supposed to interact with Scripture? This moves us into the arena of biblical hermeneutics and, as evidenced in the late, J. Shelby Spong’s book, ‘Unbelievable,’ if we approach Scripture through a faulty hermeneutical lens the trajectory can lead to theological heresy and ethical confusion. There are many helpful scholarly books that enable us to develop a correct hermeneutical lens as we seek to interpret, understand and apply God’s Word to our lives. If I could recommend one book that has helped me a great deal, hopefully you might find it helpful on your journey. It is written by Graeme Goldsworthy and is called, ‘Gospel-Centred Hermeneutics.’ Part 1. examines the foundations and presuppositions of evangelical belief, particularly with regard to biblical interpretation. It also highlights presuppositions held by liberal scholarship. Part 2. Offers a selective overview of important hermeneutical developments from the sub-apostolic age to the more recent, as a means of identifying some significant influences that have been alien to the gospel. Part 3. Evaluates ways and means of ensuring truly gospel hermeneutics Take care. Grace to you
How is it that over 1,950 years of history the vast majority of both Christian and secular people have predominantly understood Sean's view to be correct;while Colby's view has been understood to be incorrect. Human beings have not changed in 20 years, just their views.
How is it that people think that Evangelical Protestantism aligns with 1,950 years of Church history? How is it that people think that the views of Progressive Christians have only arisen in the last 20 years?
@@4thbrooker no it's with what scripture and it depends what you are talking about Progressive as you have explained I will quote "it being a progressive christian does not necessarily mean that you don't take the Bible as actual fact and truth. What is meant as historical fact (according to our best understanding of genre and intent of the author) is taken as historical fact inasmuch as the author meant it to be. And generally, Progressive Christians do affirm The Bible as true, we just don't necessarily do it in the way other Christians want us to." these are your words ... God's word is clear on these the Scriptures concerning the matter that Colby and Sean
Turn your dang brain back on, Colby. *Why pick up the Bible in the first place?* Seriously. Here's why I say this: For argument's sake, let's assume there are actually two different legitimate "narrow ways of understanding the Bible". It happens. But you took it a step further and crossed a line when you ordered people with whom you disagree to put down their Bibles. *Why should they?* 1. If their reading is different, but legitimate, then one reading is just as good as any other. You like Fords; they like Chevys; You say potaytoes; they say potattos. Everyone keeps their Bible in hand and all sing Kumbaya. it's no harm, no foul, no matter which side you choose. 2. But if the real problem is an incorrect reading, then the solution is not to put the Bible down. It's to pick it up and read it correctly. See how that works: no matter how you slice it, commanding people to put down their Bibles is always the wrong answer for resolving divergent interpretations. There is a third option: you don't believe the Bible to be authoritative. In which case -- Why pick up the Bible in the first place?
_But if the real problem is an incorrect reading, then the solution is not to put the Bible down. It's to pick it up and read it correctly._ Unless, of course, the _way_ in which someone recognizes that they are misunderstanding scripture is _through_ genuine, loving relationships and experiences with their neighbors. And, to be clear, Colby isn't "commanding people to put down their Bibles". Here's the full quote for context: _"put your damn Bible down for a second and listen to the stories of those who've been told their whole life by the church that they are an abomination. The ancient Israelites believe God is a God who 'hears the cries of the oppressed.' But the church today makes ear-plugs out of the pages of their Bible."_
@@4thbrooker > the way in which someone recognizes that they are misunderstanding scripture is through genuine, loving relationships and experiences with their neighbors. If the Bible doesn't authorize ^that^ method as a valid method for realizing one is misunderstanding Scripture, then it's an exercise in futility. If you have passages that prescribe your method, post them and let's discuss them. > And, to be clear, Colby isn't "commanding people to put down their Bibles". .. "put your damn Bible down for a second and listen to the stories .." Hm. At the risk of stating the obvious, you could start by listening to yourself :) - - - (Just so we're all on the same page - I've listened to hundreds of stories from people from all walks of life from a number of countries: homeless under a bridge; drug addicted; sexually molested by [both] parents; inmates; ex-cons; starving in a ditch in Burundi; unemployed with zero options in the Congo; multi-millionaire real-estate investor at the peak of his career; multi-millionaire about to commit suicide; schizophrenic/delusional; average joe on the street; etc. For all of them (except the schizophrenic gal [who literally couldn't carry on a coherent conversation but still liked to talk with me on a somewhat regular basis], and the multi-millionaire who ended her life), we have meaningful conversations that center on God and His Word. And I can tell you from my experiences with them that "listening to stories" tells you that they *need* love - but don't think for a minute that it tells you *how* to love them properly. Understanding the God of the Bible does. And for that, you need to pick up your Bible and study it.) Thanks.
@@timffoster _If the Bible doesn't authorize ^that^ method as a valid method for realizing one is misunderstanding Scripture, then it's an exercise in futility. If you have passages that prescribe your method, post them and let's discuss them._ Virtually everything recorded as Jesus's words in the gospels is about living in loving relationship with our neighbors - feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the poor, caring for orphans and widows, listening to the people everyone else casts out and ignores... If you actually go out and engage with your neighbors and put _their needs_ first while acknowledging and really _seeing_ their experiences as real and meaningful, such relationships will shape how you understand scripture. Now, if you're already committing Bibliolatry, it doesn't matter what kind of relationships you have. Your understanding of scripture is going to trump any and every single experience with your neighbor - out of arrogance you will look straight through them without actually seeing them. This is how I see it from my perspective. _Hm. At the risk of stating the obvious, you could start by listening to yourself_ You said this after reading the full quote from Colby regarding, "Put your damn Bible down...". Are you unable to understand the context provided in the full quote in order to realize that Colby isn't actually telling people to stop reading the Bible? If you aren't able to understand this, I suppose I could explain it but it would seem that you're already blinded by your own presuppositions and biases.
@@4thbrooker > Virtually everything recorded as Jesus's words in the gospels is about living in loving relationship with our neighbors - feeding the hungry, ... Come now - who has a problem with all the nice passages? It's the 'mean' passages you need to explain. ..unless you're "blinded by your own presuppositions and biases". You need to engage on those passages because there are a lot of them! And don't give yourself false comfort by repeating the tired old myth that He only had harsh things to say to religious hypocrites. He had harsh things to say to ANYONE ANYWHERE who rejected His message. And He taught His disciples to do the same. I kid you not. Consider: - In Matt 7:1-6, Jesus taught His disciples that if a person doesn't want to participate in group confession, he's to be kicked out of the group since we're not to give what's holy to 'dogs' and 'pigs'. So... do you kick non-participants out of your church? Do you often refer to people as 'dogs' and 'pigs' like Jesus did? ..or do you skip those verses too? Don't accuse me of blind presuppositions and biases: Peter followed his Lord's lead and called people 'dogs' and 'pigs' in 2 Peter 2. So I'm thinking you should too. Right?) [This passage is synonymous with church discipline in Matt 18, where Jesus taught His followers to put people out of the church if they refuse to comply to His commands on repentance. See 1 Cor 5 for more) - In Mark 10, a rich guy came to Jesus looking for eternal life. v21 says "Jesus **loved him** and said 'Sell everything, give it to the poor and then you'll have treasure in heaven'" . Awwww.. Isn't that sweet?!? Who wouldn't like that verse (even if they never bothered to obey it themselves. Have you?). Because that story sounds all warm and fuzzy ..until you see how it ends: The guy couldn't do it (of course). And did Jesus say "Well, just walk with me for a few years and we'll work on it bit by bit"? No, actually, He didn't. Not only did Jesus *not* lower the bar for him, but when the guy walked away sad, Jesus made an object lesson out of him: "There you have it guys: it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven!" So question to you: when was the last time you made an object lesson out of someone who couldn't bring himself to yield to the high demand of the cross? Have you ever emulated Christ to your neighbor like Jesus did here? - In Matt 10, Jesus told His disciples to go out and spread the good news. (Have you done that yourself?) And if people welcomed them, they were to give their blessings. But ..[+]I f anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that house or town. (Matt 10:14). Have you ever done that part? Or do you only obey the 'nice' part and spread the good news? Paul shook the dust off his stuff when people rejected the Gospel (Acts 13, Acts 18 and Acts 28). Shouldn't you? And get this: Jesus told them what would happen to those neighbors who rejected the Good News: They would have it worse than Sodom and Gomorrah on Judgment day (v15). And He should know: Not only will He be the one handing out judgment on Judgment Day (Matt 7:21-23), but He's the very Person who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in the first place!! (Gen 19:24-25) Have you ever called down fire on anyone? I haven't. And truth be told, I've never shook the dust off my sandals at anyone either. Guess I have some work to do, eh? - In John 8, Jews were starting to believe in Him, but He rebuked them for their false belief and called them sons of satan. Do you call people 'sons of satan'? We could do this all day, of course. Because Jesus did this kind of thing frequently! I don't fault you for liking a kind, warm, affectionate Jesus. Everyone likes *that* Jesus. But before you lecture me about being blind to biases, what say you try the method I proposed: pick up your Bible and study **ALL** the words Jesus said. And along the way, you'll eventually see that Jesus never said anything remotely sounding like "the way people learn they are misunderstanding scripture is through genuine, loving relationships and experiences with their neighbors." No - the way to learn to love your neighbor is to start by loving God and obeying what He says. Then secondly, love your neighbor as yourself by wanting God's best for him: repentance, faith, etc. Thanks.
@@timffoster I don't have a problem with any of these passages that you absolutely just butchered. I find it incredibly interesting that you took me suggesting that maybe you are blinded by your own presuppositions and biases within the context of entirely failing to understand Colby's quote as me saying anything whatsoever about your view of scripture. And you, once again, entirely failed to even address your complete misunderstanding of the quote. I wonder why that might be? Could it because to do so would mean you would have to actually take a look at the presuppositions and biases that you hold against people like Colby? Jesus literally did only have harsh things to say to the religious zealots and hypocrites. Like what are you even talking about? How incredibly interesting that you would go on to try to explain passages that literally do not say at all what you think they say. _Jesus taught His disciples that if a person doesn't want to participate in group confession, he's to be kicked out of the group since we're not to give what's holy to 'dogs' and 'pigs'._ What are you talking about? Matt 7:1-6 talks about removing the plank for your own eye and then is when Jesus says to not give what is holy to dogs and to not cast pearls before swine. Why? Because they will trample it under foot and turn to maul you. Who are these "dogs" and "swine"? The passage itself does not clearly define who they are. In my view, they are people who behave very disrespectfully and/or who lack the social intelligence to understand the seriousness of things that are "holy" or "pearls" of truth and/or wisdom. Jesus is talking about people who would "trample" what you consider to be holy and your wisdom "under foot" and then "turn and maul you". Jesus seems to simply be saying that there are some people who just simply are not worth your time and effort because they are disrespectful and just too immature in order to take things seriously enough. And because they don't take these things seriously enough, they will just trample it and then turn on you. Or, it has been historically believed that this verse is talking about the eucharist - that only those who had been baptised should receive the eucharist. Another interpretation has suggested that the dogs and swine represent gentiles - which, to some, indicates that Jesus's message originally was not intended for the gentiles. Yet another interpretation has suggested that all things are "dogs" and "swine" compared to Jesus, thus, we should save what is Holy and our "pearls" for Him - He is the only truly safe place to keep such things. Give them to anyone or anything else and you run the risk of them being trampled. And even another interpretation suggests that this is an extension of the "don't judge" verses right before it and, as such, is suggesting that, yes, remove the plank from your own eye first, but, there really are some people who are just so obstinate, immature, reckless, and/or disrespectful that you just shouldn't risk what is Holy nor your own pearls with them (which relates to how I personally see this verse). Now, you ask me, "Do you often refer to people as 'dogs' and 'pigs' like Jesus did? Uh, no, I don't. Why? Because I can't possible actually understand the nuance and social meaning of the words Jesus used here. What did it mean to people, exactly, back then, to be called "dogs" and "swine"? Who even was seen as a dog or a swine? The gentiles? The romans? The samaritans? Individual people who behave a certain way? We simply don't know for sure. Is Jesus even actually _calling_ people dogs and swine here, or are these just more general terms that the disciples would have understood in some way that we no longer have access to? It would be irresponsible for me to assume that _I_ understand this verse well enough to then just go around calling people dogs and swine. Not to mention that it wouldn't be helpful in forming relationships with people such that I might actually be able to share the gospel with them. _This passage is synonymous with church discipline in Matt 18_ Synonymous? Really? Not at all. In Matt 18 Jesus is talking about two brothers in Him of which one has sinned against the other. The one who has sinned refuses to listen to the brother he has sinned against, then doesn't listen to the brother in the witness of other brothers, and then again doesn't listen to their Church. At this point, this person is to be treated like a "tax collector" or a "gentile". Which is interesting, because, we know how Jesus treated gentiles and tax collectors... there were times when he reached out to them and other times not so much. So which is it? If we continue reading the passage, we see that Jesus goes on to say that we are to forgive the one who sins against us infinity times. And, indeed, if we do not forgive our brothers and sisters from our hearts, then we will be treated the same way the "lord" treated his slave in the parable Jesus is telling here. What does this have to do with Matt 7:1-6? How is it synonymous with Matt 7:1-6? I've written enough. Didn't even fully get through all you said in reference to one passage. But, let's skip the part where you literally ignore all of this that I had said and just accuse me of being one of the dogs and swine Jesus talked about. Let's skip to the part where you just don't respond.
Hey I'm Valeria 🙂As a transgender woman and a progressive Christian I can tell you I knew who I was since I was a child. I do believe Jesus died and rosed up for our sins. That said, I also believe this is how I was born. However,I appreciate how you are coming from Love and not judgment. Go bless you sir❤
@@SeanMcDowell Jesus said "Raca" and "fool" which he said would put people before the and hell. Since he lived sinless, I think saying one's culture's swear words out loud can't be a sin, but rather the context of the heart in which they are used.
I feel like Colby represents a hyper-progressive while Sean represents just a standard conservative Christian…since Sean is closer to a centrist Christian, ig that’s why I agree with him more!!
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian I will be found on the same side as Evengelicals in this situation, we may disagree on the importance of trodition in intrepreting the Bible and governing the Church but we Do agree on the inportance of Scripture. Within the Orthodox Trodition the book of the Gosples is so highly regaded that in church it is read by the clergy and kept in the holiest areaof the building, and lay Orthodox will never put our bibles on the ground. The Church in her wisdom gave us the bible and tools by which to understand it, to reject such a gift from Christ through his bride the Church is to fail to realy love Christ.
Where can i copy the quote colby gave? i was gonna quote it sunday to show a biblical vs a progressive view. Just did shoulder surgery, so copy and paste is easier than typing now. Ha! Your ministry means a lot Sean. My new apologetics book is coming out soon. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
An encouragement for bible believing Christians to pick up the word and study it.
Picking up the Bible to understand who God is and what he wants is the best thing I ever did.
Did you read all old testament and if so what did you think of God in it?
Love your testimony Elizabeth, don’t be sidetracked by progressive people who seem to appear to have a form of godliness yet deny it’s power 2 Timothy 3:5
Blessings and peace to you.
✌🏼
@@kelseykjarsgaard5774 Yes, I read it all and found out that God is radically misunderstood, misrepresented, much maligned and blamed for everything that goes wrong in the world, and it is not his fault. Eg, the Titanic. I saw a 1960s film of the sinking of the Titanic. At the end a survivor is asked about God in her life. I forget the exact question. She replies, “God? God went down with the Titanic!”
The truth is that the ship was driven way too fast, on a glassy sea. The iceberg warnings were ignored. The owners had bragged that even God could not sink that ship, and they were racing to New York to get the name of the ship in the papers for breaking a record. An iceberg sank it. And to cap it all they had named the ship after a bunch of fallen angels. Then God gets the blame for allowing the consequences of man’s stupidity and hubris. Things like that often happen in the Bible. The truth is that God is GOOD! He is LOVE! He even took human form and allowed corrupt humanity to kill him under the influence of fallen angels, to give us salvation…..as prophesied in the OT. Have you read it all? Have you read it from God’s point of view, or just from the perspective of a created being with a 70 year lifespan? It makes all the difference. Do you want to know him, or blame him?
PS the Titanic was the biggest ship ever built up to that time. The size of it, the power of its engines were celebrated in the press, but out on the Atlantic Ocean it was just a speck. So was the iceberg, but it sank the great ship. It was tragic, but it seems only the musicians understood the situation. They played Nearer My God To Thee.
@@kelseykjarsgaard5774 and God, showed much patience for them. He gave the people of the old testament plenty of time.
Lets talk about what they were doing. Did you read the part about what they were doing?
Child sacrifice, idols, high places devoted to false Gods. and a whole lot more.
Kelsey, i highly encourage you to read it all. not just a couple of chapters. a lot of people just read a couple of verses or a couple of chapters
and are overcome by offended sensibilities..so they stop reading it. which is very interesting..
@@kelseykjarsgaard5774 that He is faithful no matter how broken and weak man is
Whew! That’s the bottom line for sure. “Every man does what is right in his own eyes” based on his/her own story/experience. The Bible warns over and over again about deception being a key characteristic as we move toward the beginning of the end. Jude reminds us to “contend earnestly for the faith.” Be steadfast Pas Sean! Keep the full armour of God on. Watch and pray. Be vigilant and keep doing these great podcasts. 👍🏾
SELF as god. Following the same pattern of the devil who thought he should be god also.
I really appreciate that you bridge the gap with common ground when you have these conversations. Your channel has truly been eye opening for how I approach dialogue with some of my own friends. The best part is that you draw back to the good word. I have read my Bible a lot more these past few weeks than I have in a long time, and have a closer relationship to Christ because of that.
Thanks Sarah. I do hope to model respectful dialogue, yet with conviction.
@@SeanMcDowell Sean you are amazing at this. I thank God for the gift he gave you in this area, and I pray for Him to put a hedge of protection around you.
Sean I like the way you have a conversation and have a respectful dialog. When I first discovered you I was very pleased that you could have a conversation without talking over the other person as so often happens. Thanks for your wonderful channel.
Well said, Sean.
Thanks, Alisa!
Thanks Alisa for your podcasts. They have been such a help and blessing. Keep up the good work 🙏
Hi Gordon. I think we would quite simply have to agree to disagree on this one. Take care
@Gordon Freeman So, throwing out or re-interpreting God’s Word is more Christlike than being Biblically fundamental? Seems reasonable.
Sean is such a sinner. He cannot turn the other cheek.
Spot on Dr. Sean McDowell. I am a Progressive Christian and I agree with what you said about us, Progressive Christians. Thank you for not caricaturing us. That is why even though we disagree on a lot of things I am still subscribed and listen to your channel. I also appreciate your kindness to my fellow Progressive Christian, Colby Martin. Wish you a happy and success New Year and God bless you
Any "Christian" who says, "put your damned Bible down" - even for a moment - or even simply refers to the Bible as "damned," just simply is not a Christian. Most assuredly, Jesus never said this to anyone. You cannot claim to follow Jesus while disrespecting His own Word!
Jesus answered - Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh
Thank you, Dr. McDowell, for posting this. This is articulate and very clearly explained. You are spot on and I thank you. I also appreciate that this post is short and to the point.
If people don’t want to be Christians, I would rather they actually say so and move on, as opposed to living however they want and throwing Jesus on top of it.
I can understand that sentiment. When I was an Orthodox Jew I was like- you can say you don’t agree with the Torah or rabbis, but don’t twist and pretend like the scripture is suddenly different etc.
Who exactly are you asserting actually don't want to be Christians?
@@4thbrooker i assume they mean people who claim to be Christians but who do not want to believe much of what the Bible says, but instead rework it to fit their own mindset.
@@PC-vg8vn And who is doing that? Not any of the progressive christians that I know, and not me.
@@4thbrooker But that is exactly what Colby thinks - the Bible was written by near cavemen, so why wouldnt we take it with a pinch of salt today. His view seems to be that we today are more 'sophisticated'. Which of course is nonsense.
Yikes 😬😬😬 Colby kinda went off the deep end here. Love his charitable tone but goodness.
I really enjoyed your convo with Colby. I have many friends that are progressive Christians, deconstructing, Evangelical, and everywhere in between. I myself would be considered theologically conservative or an Evangelical. I have quite literally spent 100s of hours with my progressive and deconstructing (I know they are separate) friends discussing these things. I think my tension with such framework lies in the fact that Progressive Christianity ironically becomes the very thing it seeks to confront. The (underlining) desire seems to make Christianity more palatable to the world for the sake of inclusion, as defined by the world. But ironically it turns into this system of “semantical gymnastics” which I think builds more unnecessary mediation between us and God. One of my dear friends who identifies as a Progressive Christian would always say “are we sure it means that?” or “how can we truly know?” every time I would bring up something from Scripture. It become nonstop acrobatics. If you were to hand this framework down to an illiterate person or an uneducated person (which my own family is full of) then you are simply handing them an overcomplicated and unnecessarily complex framework, which is truly just religiosity. There is a simplicity to the Gospel. I like to say that God is complex, but not complicated. We can apprehend the truths of Scripture, even when we cannot fully comprehend them. And in between the margins of those two things is submission to the Lord. Progressive Christianity seems to be steeped in “intellectual comfort and privilege” that the Holy Spirit transcends and cuts right through. All in all I commend Colby for continuing to engage people on the other side of the conversational spectrum. To anyone seeking and searching for the Truth, continue to do so. But remember, knowledge is not intrinsically tied to wisdom. The fear of the Lord...
Progressive Christianity is not about a desire "to make Christianity more palatable to the world for the sake of inclusion, as defined by the world." Not even slightly.
It is about, to contrast this statement of yours, progressing Christian faith towards deeper and deeper truths as led by the Holy Spirit, as was directed by Jesus when He said that he would "send an advocate to guide you into all truth".
Acknowledging that it actually quite difficult to know for sure the meaning of very many things in scripture does not mean that the progressive system "turns into this system of 'semantical gymnastics'".
"Are we sure it means that?" and "How can we truly know?" are **fantastic** questions. Fantastic questions that the large faith institutions and the ones in power in those institutions have been trying to get everyone to not ask in order to maintain the positions of power these institutions and their leaders have. The reality is that God, for whatever reason, has shrouded Himself in mystery. And Jesus quite literally spoke in parables and regularly confused his own disciples.
When you say, "there is a simplicity to the Gospel. I like to say that God is complex, but not complicated," all you are actually saying is, "My view and understanding sits well with me, and I don't really want to think about it much deeper than that."
@@4thbrooker Think god ,if he existed,and was any way reasonable,would spare a bit of time
and come back (if you believe he was here before) and striaghten all these sect differences,/interpretations etc out,
it is his book that people think others have got wrong,don't think it's too much to ask,
even with stuff nowhere remotely near as important,(well as important to believe it) we can look for, and get clarification (plus much better explanation & evidence
than for any thing written in this ancient book ,)
why would a god be happy with that situation ?
@Josh Hernandez I disagree somewhat. That the Bible is an "integrated message system" is just a presupposition. Once you make this presupposition, you will find ample evidence to confirm this bias. But, view it for what it necessarily is (this doesn't mean that it necessarily isn't also an "integrated message system") - a compilation of various genres of literature written by various authors (many of whom are unknown) across thousands of years - and you suddenly realize that asserting the presupposition that it must be an "integrated message system" can easily inhibit one's ability to actually see it for what it actually is.
Also, Roman Catholics would take much issue with how you just characterized their views and beliefs. And they don't see Mary as a Deity.
So, when you say, "If you want to understand the Bible you have to see it as an integrated message system. God is mysterious but a lot of what he’s doing with the world, whereas past , present or future is somewhere there in the Bible", you're really only asserting your own presuppositions. In my view, these presuppositions are unnecessary and actually inhibit your ability to see scripture for what it actually is.
Check out Michael S Heiser’s, J. Warner Wallace’s, and Jay Dyer’s, and Beckett Cook’s UA-cam Channels.
@Josh Hernandez How silly.
Any proof that you provide would be analyzed. And, no, based on how you just responded, I wouldn't formally debate you even if I was paid to do so.
I'm not trying to prove to you that the Bible isn't an "integrated message system". I'm merely breaking it down to what it necessarily is, which I described in my previous message. And then I said, once you actually acknowledge it for what it necessarily is, you can then start to see the issue with presupposing that it is an "integrated message system".
So which part of that do you disagree with and why?
This is really good. I enjoyed watching both conversations and found this to be an incredibly accurate statement. Even if this had not been said, this was the sentiment I saw in these conversations.
As a Christian who struggled with this sin. I will not put my d**m bible down..
Thank you. You’ve shown such kindness and patience with your guests where I never could. I can’t get past the arrogance that oozes from so many pastors like Colby. And it’s so obvious to me that their motivations are usually fed out of past hurt from being fired by this denomination, or being hurt by this. It’s all emotion. So reflective of the current culture.
I agree 100%!
Thanks for the presentation. You know your dad's book 'Evidence that Demands a Verdict' (the first edition I believe) was the first one that presented an intellectual case for Christianity to me & was largely influential in leading me to Christ over 40 years ago now. I just wanted to express that to you since I've never met him in person. Since that time I've always had a abiding interest in apologetics. So I just wanted to encourage you today to continue standing up for the Truth that is in Jesus!
That’s awesome about my dads book 👊
Yes!
It was the first book that I bought after coming to Christ
Wow! I read that book! I just realized that is Sean’s dad!
4:26, 4:36 - The Bible
4:56 - Inspiration
5:39 - Freedom
6:11, 6:21, 6:46 - Love
Colby’s remarks about ancient people being unsophisticated desert dwellers with no phycological insight… CS Lewis had a term for this: chronological snobbery. It’s a poor position to take.
Inasmuch as the Word says that holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2Pt 1.21), such a statement can essentially be considered blasphemy against the Spirit.
Ooh, I just commented on this above!! Yes! I made the same connection. Fun to see someone else do so as well.
You might be right! Perhaps I am a victim of chronological snobbery. I hold space for that.
I wonder if you can also hold space for the possibility that there are, actually, things us modern folk know that ancient folk did not? By no means would I suggest we are automatically better/smarter/more right on all things simply because we’re new and they’re old… AND, at the same time, we DO know a whooooole lot more about a whole lot of things than people did 3000 years ago. On that we can agree, yes?
Colby Martin ☺️ You’d need to adjust the space you hold slightly to allow for: you’re not a “victim” of chronological snobbery. You’re a perpetrator of it. The just cave men desert dwellers you’re looking down from you’re highly evolved modern armchair are the victims :) And it’s obvious we know more “ stuff” thousands of years later. Doesn’t mean we are necessarily wiser, or more insightful cos we can now put telescopes in space. In some sense we might even say that all that knowledge has come at a price…and modern people have lost spiritual and moral intuitions that ancient people had… but maybe that’s a timeless human quality (professing to be wise, they became fools). The more things change , the more they stay the same. I often think of someone like Euclid when I encounter chronological snobbery…2300 years later, the mathematical principles he put down still apply, and in fact helped his ancestors put those telescopes in space. So yes, we agree on that.
@@mrcolbymartin
God didn't need the Biblie writers to know a lot of stuff. He only needed them to be able to convey a message. And in His infinite wisdom He knew exactly whom to choose to get the message out just the way He wanted.
God isn't blindsided by modern developments. He saw them coming. The Bible was written for us, “on whom the ends of the ages have come” (1Co 10.11).
There is much I COULD say about that conversation, his statements, and what this video stirred up in my mind and heart, but the one thing I know I SHOULD say as a reminder to myself and others of similar thought and feeling is Ephesians 6:12
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Yes. Thank you for this reminder.
If you’re implying Sean is an example of wickedness in high places, that’s a bit offensive I think. Disagreement doesn’t need to draw that distinction. Plus I think it’s somewhat egotistical to say definitely that Sean is wrong and your view is right.
@@GD-he2xj I believe that D123 is implying that the "progressive Christian" agenda is being pushed by depraved beings in high places, i.e. demonic activity.
Throwing random Bible quotes around doesn't really make anything clear to anyone.
So incredibly tragic, but so true. I have found this over and over and over again in my own experiences with progressive Christians. Thank you for your astute and grace-filled response.
I absolutely cherish you and how you approach others. You help me keep the faith. It ain’t easy. I have always wanted to do the right thing- so glad to have found Christ despite Christianity- both trad and progressive.
Hi Sean - love the way you stay strong on doctrine but in a gracious way, representing biblical Christianity properly. It would be great to hear a conversation between you and Becket Cook - God bless to you, yours and your work!
Great idea. He’s on my list!
I’ve been listening to Becket Cook more and second this motion!
As Rosaria Butterworth said "Disagreements about what the Bible says start with disagreements about what the Bible IS". Rosaria Butterworth is the formerly lesbian tenured professor at Syracuse University who wanted to write a book against the Bible and patriarchy, but after studying it , became a Christian and left her lesbian lifestyle. You should watch her interview on the Becket Cook show.
I like that saying!
You are a great example of speaking the truth in love. Thank you !
sean, you hit the nail on the head. The approach towards the bible is foundational for worldview
yep. Agree 100%. I tried to watch both videos and gave up after several minutes. Pastor Colby doesn't believe the Word of God to be infallible and he stumbled at saying Christ is God and Lord. I pity him.
However, I hope you begin to bring on more people who agree with us and can encourage us to seek Christ and remain faithful. I would like to see Paul Washer on here, NT Wright, Max McLean, the leader from Skillet, Andy Mineo, Bryann Trejo, Christian athletes and actors, etc. I tried to skim your other videos to make sure I didn't repeat any that you have had before. But I appreciate your work.
Also, I hope you are able to make a home studio one day and start having guests in person, like Ben Shapiro or Dave Rubin interviews. If you or Mike Brown did that, it would give me incentive to be a monthly supporter. The zoom videos are okay, but the low resolution can be a takeaway, I understand that's beyond control sometimes. Anywho, good work Doc!
I really enjoyed this video. I love how Dr. McDowell can express differences like this with less emotional vigor, and admit that there are fundamental worldview differences, with each person thinking the other is in error.
I once heard a progressive pastor say that part of the problem with the church was how often people without formal biblical education were opening the bible and just reading. I feel like this sums up the difference as well.
That's interesting since, as far as i've come to understand, a lot of “formal Biblical education” approaches the Bible in a skeptical manner, as a piece of human literature, to be analyzed & assesed by human standards.
@@Crich_Leslie sorry to say your understanding is obviously limited, “most” biblically based seminaries teach that the bible is the inerrant word of God and to be approached as such. The seminars your familiar with are obviously secular.
✌🏼
@@markshaneh
Unfortunately this secularistic approach is indeed taught in many a Christian theological seminary.
I've heard pastors in training picking apart the inspiration of the scriptures based on their scholarly instruction.
Goodness. That quote just makes me think so much of the medieval Catholic Church.
Rosie exactly! Progressives are becoming the new guardians of a new kind of Latin. I mean, hell forbid that ordinary everyday peasants should just pick up their bibles and start reading them!
Excellent! Very clear! Saying “damn Bible” rubs me so wrong. Why would someone who’s a Christian say something like that. That is immediately very telling of who that person is and it contradicts majorly how a Christian would express themselves about the Bible. You never tell someone to put their Bible down to begin with and secondly use the word damn in front of it. I think there’s a huge lack of reverence and respect that has been lost in Christianity. Call me conservative or old fashioned but I guess I am in those respects.
Thank you, thank you Sean for your firm, fair standing and understanding of the clear but difficult for some to receive the truths of the Bible. You are clear sounding bell in this age of noise.
The problem is that evangelicals don't know much about the "truths of the Bible". Most don't even seem to ever have read it. And if they do, they only follow the bits and pieces that suit them.
"Put your damn Bible down... We can do better than that!" Wow! What a perfect description of Progressive "Christianity". Could not have said it better myself.
The “barrier” Dr. McDowell’s guest is experiencing, I believe, is pride. This isn’t a bust on him but just goes to show how truly insidious the sin of pride is. Recall that it was pride, the Original Sin, that caused the Fall. Adam and Eve were directly created by God, immaculate in every way, they walked with Him and spoke with Him almost daily. Even with all that going for them they still could not withstand the sin of pride, which proves the incredible power of that most evil sin. So it cannot be much of a surprise that pride is the one sin that we suffer with and from the most.
How does this pertain to this video? From the article Dr. McDowell read it sounds like Kobbe is not in any meaningful way a Christian. For him the Bible, it’s teachings, philosophy, authors, history, and insights are not only flawed and retarded but dangerous obstacles to his feelings and sense of self. Considering his belief that the Bible’s authors as well as all persons living in and around Jerusalem at that time were barely a notch above cave dwelling knuckle-draggers, I’m truly curious to know why he claims to have anything in common with them at all - especially something as monumental, awe inspiring, and glorious as the “Good News” of our blessed savior, Jesus Christ. After all, it was Jesus and the Apostles who described much of the teaching Kobbe despises most. I cannot imagine any lover of Jesus and the Gospel ever uttering the words “put your (bleeping) Bible down and listen to MY truth instead (because I am VASTLY superior to the illiterate, irrational, unsophisticated, patriarchal, Neanderthal-like desert dwellers of Jesus’ time)”.
Yup… pride. Satan’s most favorite, most successful, most devastating weapon - EVER!!
Firstly, the "Original Sin", as you call it, was caused by God allowing a talking serpent into Eden and then allowing this serpent to literally trick Eve. Why wouldn't God ensure that Eve couldn't be tricked? Why wouldn't God say to Eve, "Hey, tomorrow a serpent is going to talk to you. Ignore it. It has no good intentions for you"? Adam and Eve were not prideful. They were gullible - like children - and easily tricked.
Secondly, Colby didn't say the Bible is "flawed and retarded" nor that it contains "dangerous obstacles to his feelings and sense of self".
Thirdly, Colby saying "a notch above cave-man" was, I believe, a reference to the people who the levitical laws were written to in the OT times. Not to the people during the times of the NT - during and after Jesus being on earth.
Fourthly, Colby doesn't despise any of the Bible. But, going with what you are saying, even if he did "despise" certain parts, it absolutely would not be what Jesus and the Apostles said/wrote.
Fifth, Colby absolutely did not say, "Put your (bleeping) Bible down and listen to MY truth instead." Just... no. He is saying, "Put your damn bible down for one second and actually look up and pay attention to the people who your dogmatic decrees are actually affecting. pay attention to the suffering, the longing, the love of the people around you. For once would you stop presupposing that you have the best and perfect understanding of scripture and actually experience the reality that we are all cohabiting in way that allows you to actually 'do life' with those who you think are just prideful, sinful, lustful outcasts who have rejected the truth."
@@4thbrooker Firstly, God had already told Adam not to eat the fruit of that tree. Adam was with Eve. He should have spoken up at the very least, but he stood there and said nothing. God allowed Adam and Eve freedom of choice ….. to believe him or not to believe him; to obey him or not to obey him. They were warned of the consequences and so are we.
Secondly, I agree that Colby did not say the Bible was flawed and retarded, or that Jesus and his disciples were just above cave dwellers…..just that Moses et al were. It did seem that Colby was coming from an evolutionist worldview with the assumption that “science” is truth and trumps the Bible. The cave dwellers in the Bible were not Neanderthals. Adam was not a Neanderthal.
Thirdly, Jesus had compassion on all manner of sinners and died to set us free from sin and it’s consequence, which is death. When one has friends and family who are homosexual the issues are painful. There are several incidents in the Bible of people committing adultery …… that is also very painful. Herodotus was in an awful situation, apparently she loved Herod, and Herod loved her, and John the Baptist was pretty clear that she and Herod were breaking the laws of God. She had John killed, via Salome. Murder is also understandable in some situations ……. The answer is not to put down the Bible, but to understand it better, and to better understand why God says and does the things in it. Adam and Eve wanted “to know good and evil,” and we’ve been finding out about it ever since. God’s creation did not originally contain death. Jesus came to set us free from the power of sin and death and to destroy the works of the devil. According to evolutionists, death was built into the system. Without the Bible we would never know about the time before death entered the world, or about the time to come when the earth is recreated and Hades/hell, the devil, and death are cast into the lake of fire……The time when there is no more death or sorrow or pain, and God dwells on the earth with his people.
@@elizabethtaylor9242 Let's think about this a bit more...
Yes, according to the narrative, God told Adam not to eat the fruit of that one tree. Great. Why even put the tree there to begin with? Why not warn Adam that not only would a talking serpent appear in order to get him and Eve to eat from the tree, but that they would both be really enticed to do it? Why not tell Adam to kill the serpent the very moment he saw it? Or even better yet, why not explain to Adam the actual truth? The full truth. Because, the reality is, the serpent didn't actually lie to Adam and Eve. God told Adam that he should not eat of the tree of knowledge because "in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” The serpent, however, informed Adam and Eve that this is not true, saying, "You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
None of this from the serpent is a lie. And indeed, Adam nor Eve died "in the day that you eat of it". Now, did God lie? I don't think so. But what seems evident is that He didn't really make Himself very clear to Adam and Eve. Why not? Why not explain the very nature of what was going on? Why not make it abundantly clear the full consequences of eating from the tree of knowledge? Better yet, again, why even have the tree of knowledge there looking like a perfectly good tree to eat from and allow a talking serpent to reside anywhere near it?
The only logical answer to these questions seems to be that God's plan and intention from the very beginning was for sin to be part of the story of his creation. But, alas, it seems that very many Christians are entirely unable to even allow themselves to ponder this assertion.
You say, "The answer is not to put down the Bible, but to understand it better, and to better understand why God says and does the things in it."
What if the way to better understand the Bible is by putting it down for a minute in order to actually **see** the people who have been crying out that they have been ignored, marginalized, victimized, misunderstood, abused, kick out of their homes, pushed to suicide, and murdered for generations and generations?
@@4thbrooker 1. The Bible isn't damned. Colby's language is out of order for a "Bible believing" person, which I am more and more convinced by his own language that he is not.
2. The serpent did in fact lie to Adam and Eve. Death needs to be defined and Adam and Eve did die that day. Don't look now, but you are defending the serpents honest actions and accusing Yahweh of shady dealings. Yikes
@@4thbrooker so God is the original sinner ?
Hey champ , yes or no question.
Wow! Your reply was perfect and so well measured. Thank you!!!!
Sean McDowel is of the utmost integrity. I believe he seeks truth wherever it may lead. Also, dialoging with people who disagree with you is a great way to build bridges and lead some to the Living Christ.
Keep fighting the good fight!
🙏🏽
Very clear explanation! I pray that this group that uses the name Christian would repent and come to truly know Jesus as Lord and Savior. May we all follow your example of respectful dialogue but never cease to call all to repentance.
Nailed it !! Gods word describes itself as being a sword . A sword cuts and pierces . Its not always going to be that we like what God wants for us given our sinful nature .
It’s also described as a light and darkness hates light . But we can’t walk in this dark world without the light from Gods word .
No Christian should be putting their own beliefs and thoughts before the sacred words of God .
Really mixed emotions on this subject. I always enjoy Sean's interviews, but in this case, at the end, I'm left wondering if the differences are too great for much to be achieved. Understanding each other is good, but there needs to be common ground for progress to be made. Progressives reject so much, are we just talking past each other?
I know people who've rejected Christianity for progressivism, I found there's no biblical reasoning with them. Their beliefs are now so fluid, there's no bedrock anymore.
There’s a strong case to be made that evangelical Christianity and progressive “Christianity” are not actually the same religion. We can attempt to understand each other, but a change in beliefs may require an actual conversion.
@@Rosie-uf5ox I agree. Previously I've said that I feel progressives should give up the claim to being Christian.
I can't help but wonder if this isn't but another example of a denomination. Is Sean's key issue the same key issue for other denominational differences?
@@anthonywhitney634 Yup, it's like they are closeted agnostics but dont know it themselves yet. They're one trial/tribulation away from tripping out of that closet. I cant tell what their foundation is. Basically agnostic do-gooders, leave the "christian" suffix behind. "put down your damn bible", actually sounds more anti-theist now that I think about it.
@@ashrickley3168 not at all, different denominations within Christianity all differ with in-house issues, such as infant baptism, partial or full submersion, timeline for the second coming of Jesus, etc. However, they all believe on essential truths for salvation.(some of which include the resurrection, disagreeing with the idea that all beliefs lead to god, etc).
First time viewer. Wow! So we’ll said. I get it now. So simple. You have a new sub in me. Thank you
Here's my thing on progressive Christians:
"You don't choose politics or religion, you pick one to guide the other"
Progressive Christians (from everything I've seen) let their politics guide their religion.
Very well said. Thank you for taking the time to clarify and share this through this video! Your ministry is a true blessing to me and many others.
Loving ❤️ my neighbor means fulfilling my scriptural obligation towards them.
Amen!
That’s a takeaway I just got from my rewatch of this video.
What an awesome communicator. You hit the nail with explaining the fundamental difference.
Imo, this channel is worthy of a million followers (or more).
Some day!
Watched both videos. The clarity could not be any more clearer. Good job in bringing clarity (there is that word again).
That was the best explanation I've ever heard and hes right if you're going going to be progressive you do put The Bible down but if you are going to be a evangelical Christian you need to read it I have a Passion for The Bible It was made by eyewitness reports of what men saw God do
Yes Belief in the Scriptures are absolutely essential to be a Christian. I could never figure out why people like Colby are so opposed to very clear teachings….but now I know
People like Colby aren't opposed to "very clear teachings". We simply acknowledge that there is no such thing as "very clear teachings" when it comes to ancient texts. Nor really are there "clear teachings" from a modern person speaking to you in person. Reality is nuanced and complex, not simple and black and white.
@@4thbrooker 🤣
@@4thbrooker “ we simply acknowledge that there is no such thing as very clear teaching”
Oh brother 🤦🏽
I urge you please avoid going into public places or where other people could be harmed .
@@markshaneh Oh look, Mark, another example of you not actually engaging anything I have said... Here is your resposne this time:
"" “ we simply acknowledge that there is no such thing as very clear teaching”
Oh brother 🤦🏽
I urge you please avoid going into public places or where other people could be harmed .""
Mark, can you please challenge yourself a little bit and actually engage the things I am saying rather than making empty accusations or backhanded smart-ass remarks?
Sean, very nice video that articulates the divide. Yes, the view of the Bible is different and it is also important to understand the different conceptions of God at work. I've read Colby Martin's "The Shift" and listened to the first video you had with him on your channel. The fact that Colby found it so difficult to finally even grant that God was personal was indicative of profound difference. J. Gresham Machen in his book "Christianity and Liberalism" (1923) spoke about the importance of the transcendence of God. This is a God who stands outside and above the created order and can speak an authoritative word into history which can judge behavior and cultures. Classical liberal Christianity and its modern progressive permutation lacks this notion of the transcendence of God and so because of this the God of Progressive Christianity could not, even in principle, speak an authoritative word on human sexuality.
This is interesting.
I consider myself a progressive christian and I do, indeed, have liberal leanings.
However, there are very many progressive christians who I have encountered who I don't think fit into "liberal christianity". In fact, from my perspective, Progressive Christianity in general is filling the middle ground between, on one end, the traditionalist/conservative/evangelical christians and liberal christians on the other end. That is to say, Progressive Christians generally see both the "humanness" **and** the divine within scripture whereas Liberal Christians, in many ways, remove the divine altogether.
What do you think?
I really enjoyed this video. Helped me alot 🙏 Thank you! 😊
Just gave this another listen and appreciate how Sean has truly captured and exposed the spirit behind Colby’s post. It’s worth noting that Sean has used Colby’s full quote and hasn’t used it out of context as claimed by some on this thread. It’s obvious that the progressive movement wants to enjoy all the benefits of a biblical Jesus but they handle the Bible as an “ inconvenient truth “ then proceed to deconstruct the bible when it doesn’t support their own agenda and narrative.
They want to be seen to have a form of godliness but at the same time deny it’s power, 2Tim 3:5.
If you think that, I'd suggest listening to Matthew Vines.
The problem is that evangelicals think they own the truth. When in fact since the beginning of Christianity there have been vastly different interpretations of the holy scripture. But thinking, "I just take the Bible literally therefore I'm right" destroys any chance at an honest dialogue at this point.
And no evangelical takes the Bible literally. Or do you rip out your eye if it makes you sin?
I take the bible literally from beginning to end heretic
Thank you for wisdom on display. Difficult topics to examine. It’s relevant and personal to all of us.
Indeed, Sean, I don't think you said it strongly enough. You seriously pulled your punches in this response. Mr. Martin revealed his true colors on Instagram with the words you read. I've heard very similar sentiments expressed by atheists, smearing the Bible's human authors as "bronze age goatherders" - in his words "desert-dwelling barely-not-cave-people-any-more humans," "with zero insight into human psychology...at least in comparison to today." Never mind that these "bronze age goatherders" just happened to pen the most enduring, impactful book in human history, counting billions of adherents at this time, thousands of years later. I'd like to see all these moderns with their PhD's match that achievement - and I say that as someone with a PhD! He is obviously infected with an arrogant condescension towards ancients, and towards us, that derives from his so-called "education."
He cursed the Bible! He *clearly* doesn't think the Bible is worth diddlysquat, and hates what it teaches. At first he said your problem was your narrow interpretation of the Bible, but then he trashed the scriptures that you refer to without providing any alternative interpretation. His counsel is to "put [it] down".
The next logical question is: if this is the way he really feels about the Bible and its human authors, why does he appear to give credence to any of it? Is that all it is, just paying lip service in order to lure people into thinking he's genuine?
I just got done watching a recent video by Mike Winger comparing progressive Christians to the Sadducees of Jesus' day, Jesus having nailed them accurately as not understanding either the Scriptures or the power of God. They knew not to be fully honest and open about what they believed, because they knew they would be rejected. So they pretend in order to be accepted, so they can weasel their godless philosophy into the believing community. These are the wolves that the Apostle Paul warned us about.
I volunteer at a non-profit that works with the homeless so I get a lot of practice reminding myself that we are ALL made in the image of God. CSLewis said, “You never meet a mere mortal. . . . “
Well said Sean please keep strong you did amazing in this lead by Holy Spirit Amen
guilt trips and lack of empathy lack of caring and loving as some progressive Christians are saying we are is a false statement and emotional blackmail do not fall for it ppl. The truth is facts don't care about feelings... what matters here is what God's word say not ours keep strong keep kind and do pick up your Bible read it from God's eyes not our's
I really appreciate you, your books, videos and podcasts, Sean. Thank you!
Thanks Adrian!
Welp, at least Colby is honest about wanting christians to put the bible down. Sean, you had such a good point about how its mostly modern white college educated people who hold to this view. Your brought up 3 reasons, not just one, the universal church around the world, church history, and of course the scripture. Nice job Sean.
I like your thoughts. I think a big thing is knowing what it means to truly love. Love doesn’t mean agreeing with everything somebody does or letting folks do whatever they want.
Whose definition of love is that? It definitely is not the definition of love affirmed by progressive christians.
@@4thbrooker can I love you but reject certain aspects of your choice or lifestyle ?
My theology professor at a prominent Evangelical seminary said to always ask where the authority lies in any theological system. I am now an Exvangelical, currently sorting out whether I can be a progressive Christian. Evangelicals take the Bible as the authority and conform their view of justice to what the Bible says. But what if the Bible is unjust? Wouldn't that be wrong? And wouldn't I want followers of other religions to submit their own holy books to the question of whether their book is just?
The Bible itself sometimes appeals to authority outside itself. When Paul argues in Galatians that gentiles do not need to be circumcised, he makes a theological rather than exegetical argument. In the book of Acts, Peter accepts a non-Jew on the basis of a vision telling him to break the dietary laws in the Old Testament.
There is a way that people think is right but it leads only to death (Prov 14:12). Remember that the people Jesus got most upset with were not the progressives of his day, but rather those who studied the scriptures diligently and attempted to follow everything meticulously. Perhaps the Bible should be subject to our best understanding of justice and not the other way around.
Yes! Indeed!
It is almost as if this is **precisely** what has been done with slavery. Oh, wait, I forgot, "The bible doesn't support slavery. Antebellum chattel slavery is not the same thing as slavery in the Bible."
It's called "moving the goalposts" people. Slavery is slavery. Owning people is owning people. We now (nearly universally) accept that slavery is immoral and yet the Bible does not condemn slavery, and in fact, a great affirmative case for slavery can be found in the Bible.
It's almost as if... our understanding of the truths of God has... wait for it... "progressed" as time has gone on. And it is almost as if the decrees and truths written by humans as recorded in the Bible were actually just written by people who lived in specific times, with specific cultural contexts and norms, and that these things shaped and molded the authors' understandings of their reality and of God.
(My sarcastic tone is not aimed at you Rya.)
@@4thbrooker Exactly. I appreciate Sean's willingness to dialog on these issues. But his (and others') unwillingness to embrace a new hermeneurical paradigm is the very thing that is fueling the deconstruction movement.
This is the ONLY reason why anyone should become a Christian (from a rational perspective).
A person should only become a Christian, if the person accepts the bodily resurrection of Jesus in light of the _historical_ evidence, as described by the scholar Brant Pitre in the book *"The case for Jesus"* and the former agnostic scholars Gary Habermas and Mike Licona in *"The case for the resurrection of Jesus"* .
In video-form, I would recommend the former atheist youtube-channel
*"inspiring philosophy"* and his playlist "The Resurrection of Jesus".
I would love to see a video of you explaining why you do see the Bible in the way that you do. Like why do evangelicals see it as authoritative and infallible? Why do you choose certain strategies to interpret the Bible and what hermeneutics do you use and why? Are there any videos you have already on this? Or are there any other good videos or discussions on this topic?
No such thing as a Progressive Christian. You are either transformed by Christ, or you are not. A tree is judged by its fruit.
I had a pretty good feeling Colby would not be returning to your podcast after listening to the first and second. I really do wish he would have just come out to say this, that is, that the Bible isn't where he gets his authoritative stance from. If he would admit this, I would wonder why Colby would take Jesus historically from the Bible at all, or how he could actually believe in the story of Christ's sacrifice, since that might be misunderstood as well?
After watching both interviews and how much Colby had to think about some of your questions its pretty apparent he doesn't even know what he believes. At the end of your second interview he told you that you would get into heaven because you're a good person. He doesn't even understand the basics of the faith. He sees the bible through the lens of his life rather than the other way around.
It is a wonderful thing to learn from our differing views - learn and not fight
At the risk of starting yet another insane comment thread... I'll say it again... We shouldn't be calling Colby Martin a Christian pastor. I realize you said "progressive Christian pastor", which in my mind, negates the Christian part...but I think we should be clear on this...
As always, I appreciate your conversations on your channel, and your heart.
I am a Progressive Christian.
@@4thbrooker Time to change for the new year.
@@philagon I don't feel any need to do that.
@@4thbrooker "Feeling" is probably the root of your error, to be clear.
@@philagon As opposed to what? Are you under the impression that you don't act towards any certain means based on feeling?
The late Chuck Smith used to say that he never worried about what people would learn from just reading the Bible!
During the conversation and in this post Colby mixed the church's view on LGBTQ people and their behavior.
The two are not separate. Conservative Christians like to think that they can be separated. But they can't. If they could, then the Church would openly have no issue allowing gay couples to be in their churches and have leadership roles all over the church and in ministry. Why? Because they church doesn't actually know what this couple is doing in their own home. If you want to be really strict with what scripture says, the only *clear* condemnation regarding same-sex relationships is sodomy. Great, so as long as a same-sex couple doesn't engage in sodomy, then there's no issue.
But you and I both know that isn't going to fly. Why? Because it isn't just about the behavior. It's about the whole lifestyle. Conservative Christians have an emotional revulsion towards people who are homosexual. It's that simple. It isn't based on scripture. It isn't something the Holy Spirit is telling them. It's purely emotional.
@@4thbrooker There is Christian & there is non Christian. Period.
@@MyselfTheodore What does this have to do with what I said here?
Check out Michael S. Heiser and Beckett Cook? I see progressive Christianity as postmodernism and post Christianity Christianity.
@@4thbrooker NO, it doesn’t matter how Christians feel emotionally about homosexual relationships, it’s just not about our feelings !!!! Point to one scripture where it encourages the reader to interpret scripture by their feelings or emotions at any one given time, just one. Maybe you should revisit Jesus teachings on the sermon on the mount and Jeremiah 17:9.
Oh there was clarity...PLENTY of clarity!!
That's pretty stunning. This reminds me of progressives and conservatives in view of the constitution. Progressives usually see the constitution as a living document that bends and moves with society. Conservatives tend to see it as a foundational document, unmoving regardless of time and societal shifts.
Right. And obviously the progressive view makes way more sense.
My theory is that progressives of both kinds suffer from what C. S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery.” They believe that living after someone chronologically somehow makes them intellectually and morally superior.
@@Rosie-uf5ox yes Rosie, both Colby and Micah Brooker practice this type of “snobbery and judgment” towards others who are made in the image of God.
✌🏼
@@Rosie-uf5ox your statement sounds as if you feel morally and intellectually superior.
I had commented on your conversation with Colby and ill say it again, he doesn't sound Christian to me and really wants to bend the Bible his way and towards his feelings. Praying for him...
Great points, thank you for this.
✝️⚓
Thank you so much for your clarity, generosity, and firm resolve to uphold the authority of Scripture. Keep up the good work.
Satan has been saying for a LOOONG time "put down your damn Bibles"....just saying
I appreciate this quite a bit, it’s easy for people to feel like this is an attack. Thank you for the clarification of the difference between the two views.
The New Testament was written in a patriarchal society. AND---It rebelled against it. Example: Legally women had no right of consent in sex or marriage. But Paul says that it is good for women if they choose to remain single to work for God's kingdom. Christianity literally created women's right to consent.
Just love all your stuff. Blessings to you and your family.
Need to check out those videos, but sounds like he believes that people wrote the Bible and therefore, it's not the divinely inspired word of God.
Sean, could you make a video showing how you approach the Bible? That got me curious. Thanks for all you do!
I needed my Bible for true healing and hope in the hopelessness of my former LGBTQ life. Take back the rainbow 🌈 - it belongs to God.
So true and God Bless you Abundantly
I learned to understand what love is from understanding the Bible.
Amen!
I went to college with colby. I've watched your engagement with him with much interest. He was a compelling leader then and still has the same presence and magnetism.
It's been very sad to see him and other classmates drop hand grenades on the very foundation of the faith: the word. Although I understand how his heart leads him it is such brain boggler for me when these folks look at the building of christendom, seem to like a bit of the structure but not the foundation and have the ludicrous idea that they can keep any of it after demolishing the foundation.
The foundation is Jesus and the Holy Spirit, not the Bible.
Further more, "the word", according to the Bible, is, in fact, Jesus. No where in the BIble is there a claim that it, itself, is "the word of God".
@@4thbrooker indeed but the scripture is the means of teaching testing etc.. so by removing the authority and sufficiency of scripture the progressive "Christian" removes any means to test what is true rendering most things to their own subjective opinion.
@@Tadneiko No, Jesus said, "I will send the advocate and he will lead you into all truth." The Holy Spirit is that which leads to truth. Don't make an idol of the Bible.
@@4thbrooker
«Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth.» (John 17:17)
What did Jesus himself use in response to the tempter in the wilderness?
Saw a UA-cam video yesterday by Mike Winger on what is the moral difference between Christianity and atheists. He pointed out the basic difference is the fact that of the two commandments Jesus gives as God's moral law Christians put love God first, which would include wanting to be holy as He is holy among other things. Atheists only keep the 2nd love your neighbor.
Perhaps this is also true for many progressives.
Progressives would argue that loving your neighbor **is** the fulfillment of loving God. We love God **by** loving our neighbor. Read the parable of the goats and the sheep in Matthew.
There is no such thing as a progressive Christian.
There is God's word.
We are to abide by His word.
There really only is a conservative Christian, because you abide by CONSERVING the word of the true and living God.
Unless, of course, God has designed things such that we would progressively learn more and more about Him and thus, would need to be always reexamining how we used to understanding things and how those who came before us understood things.
There's no bridging gaps...truth or not truth. Simple.
In other words, the Bible be damned. We will do it our way.
Not at all what Colby said.
This is a very brave video to post.
Personally, I do not see how you can claim to be a Christian and say things like "put your @#%& Bible down." I realize it's an issue with what is valued as "authoritative", but to encourage believers to not read the Word of God is leading them astray and damaging their walk.
I can speak from experience that I didn't read the Word of God for years yet claimed to be a Christian and it led me down a very painful, destructive road. What got me out of that was Scripture, so when I hear comments like Cody's, it bothers me.
I admire your patience Sean. :)
Colby isn't encouraging believers to not read the Bible. Here's the full quote:
"Put your damn Bible down for a second and listen to the stories of those who've been told their whole life by the church that they are an abomination."
He's simply pleading with Christians to actually start listening to the people who have been crying out for generations that they are being ignored, abused, marginalized, victimized, pushed towards suicide, and even murdered.
@@4thbrooker, Thanks for the comment. He does have a point and I agree we do need to listen to people's stories and to have empathy, which the Bible encourages us to do. But as a whole, Cody has been very vocal on his view on Scripture and the Bible in both his interviews with Sean and that is what I am commenting on. :)
@@jennifernihongi9696 Right, well I was just commenting on what you said here, which was a comment directly about what Sean said in this video. Specifically, that Colby is telling people to "put their damn bible down", which you then took to mean that Colby is encouraging people to not read the Bible. But that just simply isn't the case.
@@4thbrookerFair enough. :) Thanks for the comment. Have a wonderful New Year. :)
I'm a progressive Christian. I don't agree with everything Colby says, but I side with him on a lot. Your quote is truncated and misleading. As you read it he said "Put your damn bible down for a second". That's very different than your shortened quote without the "for a second" part. Your quote gives evangelicals the view that progressives want to decide everything without regard to the bible. What progressives really want is for evangelicals to remember that the bible wasn't written in a vacuum and it wasn't written in English. The bible's original language is one that no one speaks today in it's original version (Just like Old English is a language few if any today would understand today). We have scholars that do their best to interpret and translate as best as they can, but it's nearly impossible to fully understand language in the author's context. The other part that I mentioned is that the bible wasn't written in a vacuum. Most evangelical scholars would agree that context in the culture at the time the words were written are important, but they would disagree on how much context is really needed. Progressives will say that the authors, although God inspired, didn't simply ignore their personal cultural beliefs while writing. It's like some people believe the authors were writing with blinders on. That doesn't seem rational to believe, no matter how much God breathed you believe the words to be.
You should check out Michael S. Heiser’s, J. Warner Wallace’s, and Beckett Cook’s UA-cam Channels.
Would it be accurate to infer that you question or reject biblical teachings on all of the other sins that are usually listed together? Same s3x relations are often lumped together with other sins that believers are to repent of so I wonder if you also have a view that, given the “context,”we must review our understanding of greed, fornication, idolatry, etc. and discard it based on our feelings about it?
@@JB-if1cx No it wouldn't be accurate. I see what you are trying to get to, but it just doesn't work. Don't talk about homosexual acts talked about in the bible without context of what they mean by the original terms used. Even the best linguist and language experts will agree that we can't know with certainty what all the words from 2,000 - 3,000 years ago meant to the people at that time. I'm not saying that we can't be certain of anything; that's silly. I'm saying be careful in saying we are certain in everything.
@@BrianPurcell72 Bruce who told you that linguists can’t be certain of textual meaning written from 2000/3000 years ago, you might wanna do a bit more background check behind that statement, “ Most” of the worlds textual critics and linguistics would laugh you out the room with such a stupid statement, start with Micheal Heiser and then just keep going from there.
✌🏼
@@JB-if1cx You're referring to the vice lists in which "arsenokoitai" is listed along with various other vices.
The problem is, no one actually knows for sure what "arsenokoitai" means. There are less than 20 extant occurrences of this word before 600 A.D. This is a staggeringly low number. But it's even worse. Out of the 15 or so occurrences, only two provide any meaningful context with which we can attempt to derive a definition for this word. However, even these two occurrences are not actually very much help.
Next you'll point to Romans 1. Romans 1 is not a depiction of same-sex, loving, monogamous unions and the sex had in those unions.
Then you'll points to Leviticus. The two places in leviticus that supposedly condemn homosexuality don't mention *anything* about female to female sexual actions, so, going by Leviticus lesbianism is totally okay. Furthermore, the two verses in leviticus very likely could be specifically talking about the exploitative forms of same-sex sexual activity that were going on among the pagan nations during that time.
Then you'll suggest that Genesis makes a prescriptive assertion about marriage for all people and for all time that is then backed up by Jesus in Matthew when he quotes Genesis in response to a question about men divorcing their wives. It isn't clear that the Genesis creation narratives are meant to be understood as prescriptive decrees for all people and for all time. Indeed, perhaps a much better way to understand these narratives is as descriptions that made sense to he people who formed these creation narratives - they are, after all, just two of several different creation stories that were being orally passed around for who even knows how long before they were finally written down. They are a descriptive reflection that makes sense of the world and reality as perceived by ancient groups of people.
I’m glad I have started watching your UA-cam channel, thank you for addressing hard topics, for the way you bring love, grace while standing with the truth and the boundary’s that Jesus taught, with love. He knows us more than we know ourselves and so will want to discipline us to save us from the mess we get ourselves into. It’s because he loves us that he has shown up how to live our lives. Thank you so much.
umm, without the Bible you have no connection to God or to Christ. It's literally the Word of God. Without it you're not a Christian
Why even claim to be a Christian? Without the Bible...what's the point??
Thanks for this explanation, Sean. Very helpful as always!!
I have to agree with Colby. All this hate…because of an interpretation of text written over 2,000 years ago? Colby is right. Please put the Bible down and see what’s going on in front of your eyes. See the consequences of your actions in front of your eyes. It’s absolutely crazy how much hatred exists in this world because of a book written millennia ago in a culture far different from our own. It’s fine to read the Bible, but if it’s turning you into someone that you don’t want to be, the Bible is a problem.
Why should we put down the very resource that has revealed Jesus to us? the resource that gave us the sermon on the mount? The resource that teaches us how to love our enemies, neighbors and God? There are many who hate others for various reasons and Jesus condemns hatred of anybody, even enemies(but it all stems from a sinful and heart). It is God's word that reveals to us how we are to treat one another with love. But what does that mean? A person with a progressive ideology might say that, in order to love, we must affirm, support and celebrate. A person with a conservative ideology might say we are to share the truth of God's word because love means nothing without truth. In Mark 2:17 Jesus says, 'And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” Suppose you go to your doctor and she discovers you have a disease. In other words, you are sick and it is killing you. She also knows that there is a treatment, but that it would require you to change your life (repent). Would it be loving to a) tell you that you are well and that nothing is wrong with you or b) tell you the truth so that you can decide what you want to do about it?
@@JB-if1cx BOOM,
awesome JB.
And the truth shall set you free.
✌🏼
@@JB-if1cx You're trying to equate a doctor who relies on science with a book written over 2,000 years ago about supernatural phenomenon of which there is zero evidence. I'm not saying that it's not okay to believe in the supernatural. I'm just saying that if the book is making you uncomfortable with who you are, it's the book that has to go, not your relationship with other people.
Does this make sense?
I honestly do not think it’s the same religion anymore. I went to a Methodist church with a friend and they don’t even say “Jesus” they say “God” as to “not be controversial” when reading from the NT.
Thanks Sean 😀
Sociologist James Hunter, in his book, 'Culture Wars' (1992), argued that the division between progressive & Conservative (Evangelical) Christians centres on questions of moral authority. Progressives are committed to the superiority of looking to 'personal experience,' or 'the spirit of the modern age,' or 'self-grounded rational discourse'. Evangelical Christians are committed to Scripture as divine revelation which is independent of, prior to, and more powerful than human experience. As this year draws to a close and 2022 begins, my thoughts go to the writings of J.Gresham Machen, who, 100 years ago, came to the conclusion that Liberal Christianity was a completely different religion than biblical Christianity. Time has indeed shown his assertion to be true !!!
You say, "Evangelical Christians are committed to Scripture as divine revelation which is independent of, prior to, and more powerful than human experience."
Do tell me, if not through human experience, how does one interact with and interface with scripture?
Hi Micah. Thanks for your reply.
It was James Hunter who made the observations noted, 'Culture Wars,' 1992, p.120. He was observing that historical (he uses the term 'orthodox') Christianity took the position that Scripture has its origin, not in the will of men, but that men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2nd Peter 1:19-21). Therefore, Scripture as divine, objective truth transcends or is more powerful than human experience.
Historically, the Enlightenment led to the assumption that the natural universe was to be understood as ultimate reality. God came to be viewed as part of this general reality & as thoroughly immanent. It was then a short step to regarding God as irrelevant or even non-existent. The modern result of this change is a set of presuppositions, which include the supremacy of humanity and autonomy of human reason.
This has led some theological liberals such as J. Shelby Spong to assume an unwillingness or inability of God to communicate effectively with those whom he has created in his image - able to receive, understand and respond appropriately to his revealed truth.
As evidenced in my reading of Spong's book, 'Unbelievable' (2018), I think again of J. Gresham Machen's assertion that Liberal Christianity leads to a completely different religion than historical, biblical, evangelical Christianity.
Blessings in Christ
@@williamwarren601 Surely there are some theological liberals who are assuming an unwillingness or inability of God to communicate effectively with his creation. But I have no found this to be the dominant position among Progressive Christians today.
Rather (as was indicated by the question in my first response to your original comment), we progressives have come to realize, acknowledge, and accept that there is no way to interact or interface with the Holy Spirit, God, or Scripture outside of one's own subjective, biased mind. It is **through** our experiences that we interact with these things.
So this is why I asked, "if not through human experience, how does one interact with and interface with scripture?"
So, when James Hunter notes that, "Evangelical Christians are committed to Scripture as divine revelation which is independent of, prior to, and more powerful than human experience," I need to know how one is supposed to interact with this scripture outside their own human experience. Scripture very well may be divine revelation that is independent of, prior to, and more powerful than human experience. But that is irrelevant if the only way we can interact with scripture is through our own human experience.
Let me put it another way. God very well may be perfectly willing to freely pass around his objective truths to anyone who is willing to listen. How do we engage these truths from God outside of our subjective and biased minds/experience? The very act of receiving objective truth from God will necessarily be a subjective experience from the perspective of the human who is receiving the truth. Is this incorrect?
Objective and subjective comes down to who has authority over your life. Is it God or is it you. Are the scriptures giving by divine revelation through the Holy Spirit, if they are, then objected truth is giving to us through the spirit for understanding. If they’re not than we can interpret them through our lense. You can’t separate the O. T. From the N.T. If it’s divinely giving. (2 Ti.3:16).
Hi Micah,
Thanks for your kind reply.
I take your point there is a spectrum within progressive Christianity in relation to Scripture. However, I would say it would be reasonable to assert that the movement is marked by a low view of Scripture. Your starting point is, “Scripture may very well be divine revelation…” A leading progressive, J. Shelby Spong Spong’s ending point was, “Scripture is unreliable.” Historical Christianity says, “Scripture definitely is divine revelation.”
Alongside this, historical evangelical Christianity has always believed that we interact with Scripture through human experience. It has always been recognised that the word of truth needs to handled correctly and that false doctrines need to be refuted.
The key point is this: Our post-modern world denies God’s existence and says there is no objective truth - that all truth is relative and socially constructed. This is the only position allowed in contemporary secular academia and it strongly influences or dominates progressive thinking. This stands in direct contrast to historical Christianity which recognises the social dynamics at work within society in relation to truth but has always contended that Scripture is divine truth that originates outside of man.
You speak of a very important need when you ask: I need to know, how one is supposed to interact with Scripture?
This moves us into the arena of biblical hermeneutics and, as evidenced in the late, J. Shelby Spong’s book, ‘Unbelievable,’ if we approach Scripture through a faulty hermeneutical lens the trajectory can lead to theological heresy and ethical confusion.
There are many helpful scholarly books that enable us to develop a correct hermeneutical lens as we seek to interpret, understand and apply God’s Word to our lives. If I could recommend one book that has helped me a great deal, hopefully you might find it helpful on your journey. It is written by Graeme Goldsworthy and is called, ‘Gospel-Centred Hermeneutics.’
Part 1. examines the foundations and presuppositions of evangelical belief, particularly with regard to biblical interpretation. It also highlights presuppositions held by liberal scholarship.
Part 2. Offers a selective overview of important hermeneutical developments from the sub-apostolic age to the more recent, as a means of identifying some significant influences that have been alien to the gospel.
Part 3. Evaluates ways and means of ensuring truly gospel hermeneutics
Take care. Grace to you
How is it that over 1,950 years of history the vast majority of both Christian and secular people have predominantly understood Sean's view to be correct;while Colby's view has been understood to be incorrect. Human beings have not changed in 20 years, just their views.
How is it that people think that Evangelical Protestantism aligns with 1,950 years of Church history? How is it that people think that the views of Progressive Christians have only arisen in the last 20 years?
@@4thbrooker no it's with what scripture and it depends what you are talking about Progressive as you have explained I will quote "it being a progressive christian does not necessarily mean that you don't take the Bible as actual fact and truth. What is meant as historical fact (according to our best understanding of genre and intent of the author) is taken as historical fact inasmuch as the author meant it to be. And generally, Progressive Christians do affirm The Bible as true, we just don't necessarily do it in the way other Christians want us to." these are your words ...
God's word is clear on these the Scriptures concerning the matter that Colby and Sean
Turn your dang brain back on, Colby. *Why pick up the Bible in the first place?* Seriously.
Here's why I say this: For argument's sake, let's assume there are actually two different legitimate "narrow ways of understanding the Bible". It happens. But you took it a step further and crossed a line when you ordered people with whom you disagree to put down their Bibles. *Why should they?*
1. If their reading is different, but legitimate, then one reading is just as good as any other. You like Fords; they like Chevys; You say potaytoes; they say potattos. Everyone keeps their Bible in hand and all sing Kumbaya. it's no harm, no foul, no matter which side you choose.
2. But if the real problem is an incorrect reading, then the solution is not to put the Bible down. It's to pick it up and read it correctly.
See how that works: no matter how you slice it, commanding people to put down their Bibles is always the wrong answer for resolving divergent interpretations.
There is a third option: you don't believe the Bible to be authoritative.
In which case -- Why pick up the Bible in the first place?
_But if the real problem is an incorrect reading, then the solution is not to put the Bible down. It's to pick it up and read it correctly._
Unless, of course, the _way_ in which someone recognizes that they are misunderstanding scripture is _through_ genuine, loving relationships and experiences with their neighbors.
And, to be clear, Colby isn't "commanding people to put down their Bibles".
Here's the full quote for context:
_"put your damn Bible down for a second and listen to the stories of those who've been told their whole life by the church that they are an abomination.
The ancient Israelites believe God is a God who 'hears the cries of the oppressed.' But the church today makes ear-plugs out of the pages of their Bible."_
@@4thbrooker > the way in which someone recognizes that they are misunderstanding scripture is through genuine, loving relationships and experiences with their neighbors.
If the Bible doesn't authorize ^that^ method as a valid method for realizing one is misunderstanding Scripture, then it's an exercise in futility. If you have passages that prescribe your method, post them and let's discuss them.
> And, to be clear, Colby isn't "commanding people to put down their Bibles". .. "put your damn Bible down for a second and listen to the stories .."
Hm. At the risk of stating the obvious, you could start by listening to yourself :)
- - -
(Just so we're all on the same page - I've listened to hundreds of stories from people from all walks of life from a number of countries: homeless under a bridge; drug addicted; sexually molested by [both] parents; inmates; ex-cons; starving in a ditch in Burundi; unemployed with zero options in the Congo; multi-millionaire real-estate investor at the peak of his career; multi-millionaire about to commit suicide; schizophrenic/delusional; average joe on the street; etc. For all of them (except the schizophrenic gal [who literally couldn't carry on a coherent conversation but still liked to talk with me on a somewhat regular basis], and the multi-millionaire who ended her life), we have meaningful conversations that center on God and His Word. And I can tell you from my experiences with them that "listening to stories" tells you that they *need* love - but don't think for a minute that it tells you *how* to love them properly. Understanding the God of the Bible does. And for that, you need to pick up your Bible and study it.)
Thanks.
@@timffoster _If the Bible doesn't authorize ^that^ method as a valid method for realizing one is misunderstanding Scripture, then it's an exercise in futility. If you have passages that prescribe your method, post them and let's discuss them._
Virtually everything recorded as Jesus's words in the gospels is about living in loving relationship with our neighbors - feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the poor, caring for orphans and widows, listening to the people everyone else casts out and ignores...
If you actually go out and engage with your neighbors and put _their needs_ first while acknowledging and really _seeing_ their experiences as real and meaningful, such relationships will shape how you understand scripture.
Now, if you're already committing Bibliolatry, it doesn't matter what kind of relationships you have. Your understanding of scripture is going to trump any and every single experience with your neighbor - out of arrogance you will look straight through them without actually seeing them.
This is how I see it from my perspective.
_Hm. At the risk of stating the obvious, you could start by listening to yourself_
You said this after reading the full quote from Colby regarding, "Put your damn Bible down...".
Are you unable to understand the context provided in the full quote in order to realize that Colby isn't actually telling people to stop reading the Bible? If you aren't able to understand this, I suppose I could explain it but it would seem that you're already blinded by your own presuppositions and biases.
@@4thbrooker > Virtually everything recorded as Jesus's words in the gospels is about living in loving relationship with our neighbors - feeding the hungry, ...
Come now - who has a problem with all the nice passages? It's the 'mean' passages you need to explain. ..unless you're "blinded by your own presuppositions and biases". You need to engage on those passages because there are a lot of them! And don't give yourself false comfort by repeating the tired old myth that He only had harsh things to say to religious hypocrites. He had harsh things to say to ANYONE ANYWHERE who rejected His message. And He taught His disciples to do the same. I kid you not.
Consider:
- In Matt 7:1-6, Jesus taught His disciples that if a person doesn't want to participate in group confession, he's to be kicked out of the group since we're not to give what's holy to 'dogs' and 'pigs'. So... do you kick non-participants out of your church? Do you often refer to people as 'dogs' and 'pigs' like Jesus did? ..or do you skip those verses too? Don't accuse me of blind presuppositions and biases: Peter followed his Lord's lead and called people 'dogs' and 'pigs' in 2 Peter 2. So I'm thinking you should too. Right?) [This passage is synonymous with church discipline in Matt 18, where Jesus taught His followers to put people out of the church if they refuse to comply to His commands on repentance. See 1 Cor 5 for more)
- In Mark 10, a rich guy came to Jesus looking for eternal life. v21 says "Jesus **loved him** and said 'Sell everything, give it to the poor and then you'll have treasure in heaven'" . Awwww.. Isn't that sweet?!? Who wouldn't like that verse (even if they never bothered to obey it themselves. Have you?). Because that story sounds all warm and fuzzy ..until you see how it ends: The guy couldn't do it (of course). And did Jesus say "Well, just walk with me for a few years and we'll work on it bit by bit"? No, actually, He didn't. Not only did Jesus *not* lower the bar for him, but when the guy walked away sad, Jesus made an object lesson out of him: "There you have it guys: it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven!" So question to you: when was the last time you made an object lesson out of someone who couldn't bring himself to yield to the high demand of the cross? Have you ever emulated Christ to your neighbor like Jesus did here?
- In Matt 10, Jesus told His disciples to go out and spread the good news. (Have you done that yourself?) And if people welcomed them, they were to give their blessings. But ..[+]I f anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that house or town. (Matt 10:14). Have you ever done that part? Or do you only obey the 'nice' part and spread the good news? Paul shook the dust off his stuff when people rejected the Gospel (Acts 13, Acts 18 and Acts 28). Shouldn't you? And get this: Jesus told them what would happen to those neighbors who rejected the Good News: They would have it worse than Sodom and Gomorrah on Judgment day (v15). And He should know: Not only will He be the one handing out judgment on Judgment Day (Matt 7:21-23), but He's the very Person who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in the first place!! (Gen 19:24-25) Have you ever called down fire on anyone? I haven't. And truth be told, I've never shook the dust off my sandals at anyone either. Guess I have some work to do, eh?
- In John 8, Jews were starting to believe in Him, but He rebuked them for their false belief and called them sons of satan. Do you call people 'sons of satan'?
We could do this all day, of course. Because Jesus did this kind of thing frequently!
I don't fault you for liking a kind, warm, affectionate Jesus. Everyone likes *that* Jesus.
But before you lecture me about being blind to biases, what say you try the method I proposed: pick up your Bible and study **ALL** the words Jesus said. And along the way, you'll eventually see that Jesus never said anything remotely sounding like "the way people learn they are misunderstanding scripture is through genuine, loving relationships and experiences with their neighbors."
No - the way to learn to love your neighbor is to start by loving God and obeying what He says. Then secondly, love your neighbor as yourself by wanting God's best for him: repentance, faith, etc.
Thanks.
@@timffoster I don't have a problem with any of these passages that you absolutely just butchered.
I find it incredibly interesting that you took me suggesting that maybe you are blinded by your own presuppositions and biases within the context of entirely failing to understand Colby's quote as me saying anything whatsoever about your view of scripture. And you, once again, entirely failed to even address your complete misunderstanding of the quote. I wonder why that might be? Could it because to do so would mean you would have to actually take a look at the presuppositions and biases that you hold against people like Colby?
Jesus literally did only have harsh things to say to the religious zealots and hypocrites. Like what are you even talking about?
How incredibly interesting that you would go on to try to explain passages that literally do not say at all what you think they say.
_Jesus taught His disciples that if a person doesn't want to participate in group confession, he's to be kicked out of the group since we're not to give what's holy to 'dogs' and 'pigs'._
What are you talking about? Matt 7:1-6 talks about removing the plank for your own eye and then is when Jesus says to not give what is holy to dogs and to not cast pearls
before swine. Why? Because they will trample it under foot and turn to maul you. Who are these "dogs" and "swine"? The passage itself does not clearly define who they are. In my view, they are people who behave very disrespectfully and/or who lack the social intelligence to understand the seriousness of things that are "holy" or "pearls" of truth and/or wisdom. Jesus is talking about people who would "trample" what you consider to be holy and your wisdom "under foot" and then "turn and maul you". Jesus seems to simply be saying that there are some people who just simply are not worth your time and effort because they are disrespectful and just too immature in order to take things seriously enough. And because they don't take these things seriously enough, they will just trample it and then turn on you. Or, it has been historically believed that this verse is talking about the eucharist - that only those who had been baptised should receive the eucharist. Another interpretation has suggested that the dogs and swine represent gentiles - which, to some, indicates that Jesus's message originally was not intended for the gentiles. Yet another interpretation has suggested that all things are "dogs" and "swine" compared to Jesus, thus, we should save what is Holy and our "pearls" for Him - He is the only truly safe place to keep such things. Give them to anyone or anything else and you run the risk of them being trampled. And even another interpretation suggests that this is an extension of the "don't judge" verses right before it and, as such, is suggesting that, yes, remove the plank from your own eye first, but, there really are some people who are just so obstinate, immature, reckless, and/or disrespectful that you just shouldn't risk what is Holy nor your own pearls with them (which relates to how I personally see this verse).
Now, you ask me, "Do you often refer to people as 'dogs' and 'pigs' like Jesus did?
Uh, no, I don't. Why? Because I can't possible actually understand the nuance and social meaning of the words Jesus used here. What did it mean to people, exactly, back then, to be called "dogs" and "swine"? Who even was seen as a dog or a swine? The gentiles? The romans? The samaritans? Individual people who behave a certain way? We simply don't know for sure. Is Jesus even actually _calling_ people dogs and swine here, or are these just more general terms that the disciples would have understood in some way that we no longer have access to? It would be irresponsible for me to assume that _I_ understand this verse well enough to then just go around calling people dogs and swine. Not to mention that it wouldn't be helpful in forming relationships with people such that I might actually be able to share the gospel with them.
_This passage is synonymous with church discipline in Matt 18_
Synonymous? Really? Not at all. In Matt 18 Jesus is talking about two brothers in Him of which one has sinned against the other. The one who has sinned refuses to listen to the brother he has sinned against, then doesn't listen to the brother in the witness of other brothers, and then again doesn't listen to their Church. At this point, this person is to be treated like a "tax collector" or a "gentile". Which is interesting, because, we know how Jesus treated gentiles and tax collectors... there were times when he reached out to them and other times not so much. So which is it? If we continue reading the passage, we see that Jesus goes on to say that we are to forgive the one who sins against us infinity times. And, indeed, if we do not forgive our brothers and sisters from our hearts, then we will be treated the same way the "lord" treated his slave in the parable Jesus is telling here. What does this have to do with Matt 7:1-6? How is it synonymous with Matt 7:1-6?
I've written enough. Didn't even fully get through all you said in reference to one passage.
But, let's skip the part where you literally ignore all of this that I had said and just accuse me of being one of the dogs and swine Jesus talked about. Let's skip to the part where you just don't respond.
Hey I'm Valeria 🙂As a transgender woman and a progressive Christian I can tell you I knew who I was since I was a child. I do believe Jesus died and rosed up for our sins. That said, I also believe this is how I was born. However,I appreciate how you are coming from Love and not judgment. Go bless you sir❤
Thanks for watching. I’m glad you feel that I am to approach issues with love. That’s the goal!
NO CUSSING SEAN! Lol, jk.
;)
I thought it doesn't count when you're quoting someone else, right? ;)
@@SeanMcDowell Jesus said "Raca" and "fool" which he said would put people before the and hell. Since he lived sinless, I think saying one's culture's swear words out loud can't be a sin, but rather the context of the heart in which they are used.
I feel like Colby represents a hyper-progressive while Sean represents just a standard conservative Christian…since Sean is closer to a centrist Christian, ig that’s why I agree with him more!!
great discussion. keep it simple. love god. love others. the rest is icing
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian I will be found on the same side as Evengelicals in this situation, we may disagree on the importance of trodition in intrepreting the Bible and governing the Church but we Do agree on the inportance of Scripture. Within the Orthodox Trodition the book of the Gosples is so highly regaded that in church it is read by the clergy and kept in the holiest areaof the building, and lay Orthodox will never put our bibles on the ground.
The Church in her wisdom gave us the bible and tools by which to understand it, to reject such a gift from Christ through his bride the Church is to fail to realy love Christ.
pretty much sums it up. Thanks for the info
Where can i copy the quote colby gave? i was gonna quote it sunday to show a biblical vs a progressive view. Just did shoulder surgery, so copy and paste is easier than typing now. Ha! Your ministry means a lot Sean. My new apologetics book is coming out soon. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
It’s in his IG thread, 11th down.