If you came to the comment section to tell everyone that Philip isn't a Christian, read this first. Let’s first be clear about what it means to be a Christian. At its core, Christianity is about believing in Jesus Christ-His life, death, and resurrection-and striving to follow His teachings. Philip Goff openly affirms key Christian beliefs: he believes in the crucifixion, the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and that Jesus’ body was radically transformed into a new kind of physical, though not bodily, substance. These are central, foundational elements of Christian faith, and dismissing them just because they don’t fit into your exact framework of theology is simply misguided. Before jumping to conclusions, I encourage you to actually watch the full interview. Knee-jerk reactions based on soundbites do no one any good. Philip's journey from atheism is rooted in a sincere search for truth. While his views may differ from your own, they align with the historical and theological core of what it means to be a follower of Christ. Instead of rushing to tear someone down, let’s focus on building each other up and fostering productive discussions. Philip's journey is not over. The Christian community thrives on diversity of thought, and we grow by engaging with ideas that challenge us. Let’s embody the values of love, grace, and understanding that Jesus taught.
I think the majority of criticisms in the comments are much less aimed at Philip’s journey or judging him and more aimed at the disingenuous hype/ clickbait and misleading titling of the video. Trying to tell everyone that Philip is essentially Christian in his beliefs when he definitively denies the omnipotence of God is insane dude. That is literally the core pillar of Christian doctrine going back even to the Old Testament.
I'm puzzled, considering your focus on apologetics and therefore largely conservative audience, why Philip would choose your channel for this announcement? Are you friends? As a progressive Christian myself, and a lifelong member of a mainstream denomination, I'm not sure I would even have ventured to share my thoughts where the borders are so actively being policed.
Not sure why people seem upset. He intros by stating overt and concrete beliefs, then sticks with them and elaborates upon them throughout the conversation. Are people just hoping Cameron will only have Christians of the sort he is? Are they just upset because of the video's title? It shouldn't be surprising that philosophically-minded people have philosophical or abstract readings of religious texts and perceptual frameworks
Probably because 'Progressive Christian' is typically used to describe people who deny central tenets of Christianity and see it more as a social paradigm or merely a narrative tool. Seems like Philip isn't really claiming to worship Yahweh or have any personal relationship to Christ regardless of what propositions he accepts or the specific way in which he interprets them. Cameron shouldn't use clickbait titles if he wants to avoid angry comments. Or he just really doesn't know the nomenclature at all.
@@zacdredge3859 Give the guy some time. At this point in his journey toward the truth this is where he is at. I believe, by God's grace, he will grow in intimacy with Him and will amend some of the things he currently holds. Let's remember Philippians 3:15-16.
@@nymbusDeveloper86or he will stay believing what he believes and uses his credentials and influence to promulgate his views among our society’s lost and unwitting innocents. Pray he becomes a follower of Christ. But he at this time is no more a Christian than a Muslim is. And I’d argue a Muslim might even be closer to Christ than this philosopher.
What's upsetting here is the butchering done to the meaning of all the respective positions. Fundamentally he is not a Christian. Not even a theist arguably. Goff's middle ways are trivial and subcategorical/secondary. All the conversion thing is a rhetorical scam.
Sadly many Christians don't want people to be Christian. They want people to be the type of Christian they are. Tell a Baptist that a Jehovah Witness is a Christian and most will get mad.
Because despite the directive to spread the Gospel and bring people to Jesus, many Christians would prefer to gatekeep Jesus and Christianity to maintain their special status.
To steel man their position, I would say that maybe they are concerned with wolves in sheep's clothing, leading the flock astray. An athiest doesnt have the same kind of power in that, as a false teacher.
He rejects an "all powerful" God. But even orthodox Christians limit God's power to whatever is logically possible. He limits God's power more than traditional Christianity as a means of solving the problem of evil, but he doesn't reject God's existence. He believes in a good very powerful God who is the necessary foundation to the universe and reality. He believes that he was incarnated in Jesus, that he rose again, and that this allows unity with God. He also believes the gist of the gospels and believes in the empty tomb. He's definitely more than a mere nominal Christian, just very individualized.
@@machineelf9459 And that's the key. You're going to actually watch the video before commenting. A lot of people watched one minute and then made up their minds. The guy is a philosopher. When he says something like "I don't believe in an all powerful God" That doesn't mean he's an atheist. He's very particular with his words. You have to listen to philosophers for more than one minute if you actually want to know what they believe.
@@christiangadfly24 I don't think that's true since God is ever present and all pervasive. that means he is everywhere and in everything.i don't see any limit in fact the strangeness would be that this means God is in Satan too while at the same time all evil comes from Satan alone God brings only good.
So many negative comments 🙄 can’t we just listen and learn from someone’s journey…can’t we rather pray for and encourage someone who is clearly asking and searching… Anyway… Just a few minutes in but I suppose my counter question to why would a good God put creation through suffering or a gruelling process of evolution would be: could we, as created being, necessarily expect to understand an all-powerful being’s reasons? Just because we don’t understand it, does that allow us to make the leap to determine the nature of that being based on our understanding. I think Tim Keller said this in one of his Google talks. Just because you don’t see the reason does not mean there is not one. I think it’s perhaps a bit of a blindside to assume our intellect has to have the answer.
@@parkplaceproperties4818 God works through people who aren't Christian as well. God also gave us logic to parse the information. Anything we learn about the universe or ourselves is meant to be, whether it's from atheists or Christians.
Christianity doesn't start like that. He shows no evidence of God working in his heart, which is the precursor to salvation. There is no "what shall I do to be saved", more a "I've figured it out".
@@drockopotamus1Non-sequitur. Just because GOD is powerful enough to use an adversary for HIS glory doesn’t mean that we should listen to all of GOD’s adversaries. Much in the same way GOD used the evil Josephs brothers intended for good, that doesn’t justify what his brothers did - nor is that a recommendation for people to commit evil acts.
Why do you think a "journey" deserves respect? Someone blundering about in the dark, stubbing their toe and stepping on a Lego is just inferior to just turning on a light.
Thomas (not an atheist) was not going to believe unless he felt the body. But Philip Goff, someone who considers himself skeptical, and understands atheists are going to require extraordinary evidence… believes in a version of the resurrection without feeling the body. Just an interesting juxtaposition.
Awesome! I remember back in 2019 I found about Dr Philip Goff and his work consciousness, which led me to a spiritual journey in which I left Christianity during covid and learnt about Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. It was this year I came back to Christ and his church when he saved me from depression and anxiety (one could say even madness) by a miracle, so it's pretty awesome to know that Dr Philip Goff and I came to Christ arms the same year. God bless him.
@@machineelf9459 it's both personal and complicated, since there's a huge background in order to understand it. if I told my story without it I think it would appear like a mere coincidence, altough one that saved me. Maybe one day I'll know how to share it.
@@colbymay6044 it was kind of the same for me about a year ago, altough not anxiety placed by Christianity but by doubts about epistemology and reality
Lol some of you in the comments think if Phillip died God would send him to hell because he didn't get everything right. God is abounding in mercy and if getting our theology right was a prerequisite for being a Christian we'd all be screwed, not to mention Christians all throughout history who have been a part of doctrinal development. God bless Phillip and his journey, may God guide his quest for truth.
@@martinploughboy988the whole concept of “sin” is incoherent. human beings are ANIMALs. We are not special. Nobody should feel guilty for natural biological urges
John 13:35 tells us how to identify a true Christian. Mentions nothing about doctrine. I’m a Sephardic Jew ( from Spain born into Catholicism ) but I do not believe in the Trinity doctrine, I’m a biblical Unitarian & it’s disgusting how so many trinity believing Christians do not accept me as Christian, its unchristian behaviour.
The "famous atheist" quoting Sagan: "Extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence". Wrong! Sagan said "Extraordinary CLAIMS require extraordinary evidence". A philosopher should know at least the difference between events and claims.
I'm loving this interview, Phillip is so honest and open and articulates his arguments very well. His beliefs are still evolving as it is for all Christians so I'm really happy for him!
I know a guy who left the catholic church (barely knew what the church teaches), became a progressive protestant then slightly more traditional and over time found his way back to the Catholic Church. I agree with the commenters that believe he will continue becoming more traditional if he go after the truth.
Guys, this guy is the one who engaged Swinburne then as a panentheist and now is a progressive Christian. This is huge. Atheist-panentheists-theist-progressive Christian. God willing one day fully Christian.
Believing in all the various creeds and tenets does not make one "a full Christian". It's a way of life, characterised by how you treat others. A progressive Christian is no less a Christian if they live according to Christian principles & ideals than biblical fundamentalist.
He, like many, believes in a God of his own choosing based on what he can reason out. As if God can only exist in the framework of our own abilities to process the data that we currently have available. The truth is he has revealed himself; we don't make him with our thoughts. But Philip has taken a big step in the right direction even if it's East-North East and not true North. May God help him on his journey
I seems like this quote by Alvin Plantinga fits into Philip's Christian worldview about as well as any. "No matter how many excellent creatures there are in a world, no matter how rich and beautiful and sinless their lives, the aggregated value of their lives would not match that of incarnation and atonement; any world with incarnation and atonement would be better yet. And no matter how much evil, how much sin and suffering a world contains, the aggregated badness would be outweighed by the goodness of incarnation and atonement, outweighed in such a way that the world in question is very good. In this sense, therefore, any world with incarnation and atonement is of infinite value..."
Thing is, Jesus never mentioned atonement once. He was all about repentance and forgiveness. Paul corrupted & transformed his message. Goff is obviously not a Pauline Christian, many of us aren't.
This was a delightful interview. Well done! To all those sticking their noses up in the comments… I pray for you. Follow the teachings of Christ and have humility. This man believes in our Lord Christ and is brave to announce it in his position. It may have some differences to your faith, but help him along and pray for him. We all will find salvation in following Christ.
@@edgarrenenartatez1932 What do you think about Islam? Because many people write in the comments on this channel many lies about the Islam that we know. If you want to discuss, go ahead……
Jesus saved me, and yet I fall short. However, does it mean He falls short? Be patient guys, radical change takes a while for some of us. If our hearts belong to Jesus, change is unstoppable. Let's continue to pray for him!❤✝️
Wow, this comment section is really, really bad right now. There is a lot of arrogance on display. It's not the right of a bunch of judgmental commenters to demand a new convert to be orthodox in every belief. These things take time to develop. Nobody here would wish to be held to the standards in this comment section, not when they first became believers. Paul says in Romans 10:9 that if you confess that Christ is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Christ from the dead, then you are saved. God waits on the rest.
@@martinploughboy988 Where in the verse does it say that? You and I agree that he is incorrect in his views. You and I disagree on the interpretation of this passage. In this case, you're engaging in eisegesis.
I love this interview. Philip is honest, humble and has clearly thought alot about the subject. His conclusions actually make alot of sense to me. I too meditate, pray and like to think things through. One thing I dislike about evangelical churches and even Catholicism, is that they seem to hate this kind of free thinking; certainly if you wish to join them there will be alot of pressure to see things only through one lens. If a personal relationship with God means anything, then surely it must be...well..... personal. Alot of commenters here either condemn this, or see him as "on a journey to truth" as they have come to understand things. There is an arrogance to this, for it implies that Philip is the one who needs to think more, rather than perhaps that he has something to teach. ❤
Well... as a Catholic I must say that I believe the Church has thought about theology for 2000 years, so it makes sense to believe that the Church has more to teach a "newcomer" than the other way around. I don't think it's arrogance. But we must always be charitable. I found that this guy seemed honest, and not too full of himself. I found that refreshing. I think he is MUCH better off now than as an atheist.
@@mortensimonsen1645 Hasn't the Catholic church enforced a theological view for 2000 years, often very brutally? The edict of Thessalonica issued by Theodosius, on 27th Feb 380, forbids any other point of view than Nicene Christianity. If Philip Goff had been around for much of church history, he may not have fared too well!
@@DIBBY40 You say «often brutally», but I think I would say «rarely brutally». What happened after 380? Were people killed for heresies? (You tell me, I don’t know the answer) On the other hand: Yes heresies are something terrible and dangerous, so it makes 100% sense that the Church tries to oppose, let’s say, preaching of heresies. In our day and age, heresies flourish on so many levels that we’re quite used to it. We applaud that this man went from an abominal heresi to a lesser one😊
It's not useful debate who is a Christian. Anyone who in principle affirms that Jesus reveals what God looks like has the resources to become orthodox and may already possess the Spirit's testimony--and depending on their degree of both conscious and unconscious cooperation with divine grace. After being a scientific naturalist for a few years, following a collapse in my prior belief in charismatic evangelicalism, I became a liberal process theist too. There's a great deal of truth and usefulness to this view. As long as you don't become fixated and stuck, it's "more true" to God and Christ than agnosticism. Process philosophy and theology has a built in mechanism that makes their practitioners fearful of dogmatizing itself--which leaves individuals open to a more orthodox form of Christianity. Process natural theologians have pretty much the same intuitions as the insights underlaying Aquinas' five ways--see Charles Hartshorne and John Cobb's natural theology. Many church fathers wouldn't recognize penal substitutionary theory. And although it's clear that the early experience of Christ was MORE than objective visions, they also were not purely corporeal--the category of the spiritual body is psycho-physical. All of Jesus' appearances involved deep interplay between corporeality/objectivity, but tied very much to individual's readiness and subjective meanings they had associated with Jesus. None of that undermines the most robust possible defense of Jesus' bodily resurrection. In practice, we invent all sorts of theodicies for affirming a de facto view of Gods omnipotence that is, PRAGMATICALLY, empirically equivalent to the process view of omnipotence. Process folks may be wrong, but when they deny omniscience or omnipotence, it's more like how orthodox theologians think of the paradox of the stone. I only worked my way back from process thought into fuller orthodoxy through the essence/energies distinction, reading the fathers on the Trinity, and coming across coherent alternatives to reformation penal-substitutionary atonement. As always, even applying to everyone at your conservative church, the question is not about what belief category they think they belong to or think they profess (no less than James and Freud, in different ways, long since proved we can be wrong about we claim to believe): it's who they believe Jesus reveals God to be, and whether the Spirit by which they make that call has the power of self-criticism to reform one to orthodoxy. I'm only comfortable saying who IS a Christian--we should never be comfortable saying who is NOT a Christian. People and views are activities and movements--something that at least process philosophers are self-conscious about.
@@martinploughboy988 “Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment” (Heb. 6:1-2). Acts 8:14-17 14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. Acts 9:17 17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord-Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here-has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.
@@martinploughboy988 Confirmation is supported by Scripture, though it may not be called by that name directly. The practice of the Apostles laying hands on believers to receive the Holy Spirit is a foundational aspect of Confirmation. Here are a few passages: Acts 8:14-17: “Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.” Acts 19:5-6: “On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.” Hebrews 6:1-2: This passage mentions “instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment” as elementary teachings, directly referencing a practice that corresponds with what the Church calls Confirmation.
Christ doesn’t literally take our sins. He takes on the consequences of our sin(death) and by His death defeats death, bridging the gap between us and God and enabling us to take part in Theosis.
Progressive Christianity is a type of Christianity, if Christianity is simply defined as one who aims to follow Christ and His precepts. A follower of Christ is allowed to be skeptical as long as they keep investigating and learning. Many of you in this comment section likely did not immediately accept many of the tenets of Christianity (tradition or orthodoxy) that you now have come to accept, or maybe even partly understand now, at least in terms of relevance. Let God meet people where they’re at. Don’t quench the Holy Spirit.
Funny, I don't see the Philippian gaoler being sceptical. He didn't have a grasp of all the doctrines but he did know he needed to be saved. If you start off with what you don't believe, you're clearly on the wrong path.
Is he really (!) a Christian? It's not a easy question, i would say he is definitely on a Way. Like C.S.Lewis was on a Way when God called him or like i was on a Way 7 years ago. I think we should pray for him that he can understand things He didn't understand yet.
@@theautodidacticlayman I'm still working out what I believe. But there is no doubt in my mind that Christ is God and the resurrection is the key turning event in human history.
Definitely an interesting talk and I’m glad to see progress in anyone’s journey with Christ, I just have two things i want to bring up. 1. The problem with the Omni-God is that it ends up being a strawman, it sort of attempts to tackle Judaism/Christianity with proposing a Monotheist, All-Good, All-Loving, All-Powerful, All-Knowing God/Deity but forgets to add the trait of being All-Just for some reason. And by not addressing the particulars of the Bible, you end up facing off against an incomplete description of God….A Strawman. 2. He doesn’t know it yet, but he rejects who God says he is and creates a God that fits his liking. By definition that is an Idol. The issue with atheism is most atheists end up worshipping their own intellect. The effects of atheism are still lingering here. Hopefully through his journey he will see that God’s description of Himself is or is NOT enough. But we are called to hop out of the boat and walk on the water with Jesus not just dip our toe in and call it a day. God bless 😌
As someone who is certainly an atheist when it comes to the god of the Bible, I almost went the Goff route. I tried to rationalize a god that made sense to me, which, as you said quite accurately, is just creating your own god/idol. So your comment resonates with me a lot. With that said, let’s be careful about making statements like “atheists worship their own intellect.” That’s certainly not the case and doesn’t really help the conversation.
@@Mikeypem you’re right, I did generalize. I would say “some” atheists end up worshipping their own intellect. I’m going to stand on that statement, not the sweeping generalization
Perfect reply to this video. Couldn't have said it better. All throughout it he makes God for himself, as if God is constrained within the framework of our ability to flesh him out with our own reasoning.
I wonder what Phillip would think about the following. If sin is an injustice committed against God and others, a God who accounts for sin through just measures is superior to one who doesn’t. Consider the following analogy. A man stands guilty before a judge for some crime. He is truly repentant of his actions but due to some physical disability, he is not able to perform the rigorous community service that is required of him to avoid jail time. Now, in scenario 1, the judge acknowledges the man’s disability and simply forgives the man and sends him on his way. In scenario 2, the judge again acknowledging the man’s disability forgives him, but also recognizes that by allowing the community service to go unaccounted for, perfect justice has not been preserved, so he decides to perform the community service himself. Both scenarios are good but clearly, the second scenario is better because both the criteria of forgiveness and justice are met. This seems to be what’s going on at the cross.
That still doesn't explain the horrendous suffering of animals who do not sin or even have the capacity to sin. It doesn't explain natural disasters that drown thousands and thousands of people. It doesn't explain how 25,000 people a day, 10,000 of them children starve to death every single day
@@fesimco4339 actually it kind of does. Just like how morality is a metaphysical necessity grounded in Gods nature, so too would His justice be. If it is in fact objectively wrong to sin against God and others, then Gods justice would demand that these injustices be dealt with.
@@Vinnymanvinny1 you are right but I wasn’t trying to respond to those criticisms. I was merely trying to respond to Phillip’s objection about penal substitution.
This is such a ridiculous hypothetical. Why would a judge both let go the perpetrator and also perform his punishment? Not a realistic scenario in the slightest.
At least the brother has taken his first steps away from atheism. He should be encouraged now to keep investigating until his remaining doubts are cleared up so he can fully come into the faith. I'm currently reading The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, who is an atheist turned Christian pastor. At the end of all the chapters in this book there are further reading suggestions so apart from the subject matter you've also got a great bibliography to take your study whichever way you want to go.
I think biggest takeaway is the ending comments on Spiritual disciplines, “I’m silencing my Ego” that in itself is such a honest/humble posture to this sort of journey. Will be praying for him!
If he follows the path of Christ and his conception of God mostly aligns with Christian beliefs, then he is a Christian. Certainly one whose views are not shared by the majority, but a Christian nonetheless.
Exactly, but he’s definitely moved closer to the truth underlying orthodox Christianity. Hopefully we see something akin to Feser’s conversion, where he grows closer and closer to the true Christ, and all that entails.
@@brando3342 Omnibenevolence, monotheism, designer of everything, omniscience, compassion, love, personal, etc., are elements that are quite important. Also, he seems to be pretty open-minded. His views may evolve with time.
I'm sorry I just noticed the time! I started playing this too close to bedtime. I'll catch it tomorrow when my duties are done and I've got time free from distractions. I'm just sorry that I've messed up your algorithm, because I really do want to support your work. May God bless you!
That is interesting how Goff brings together the alternatives of believing (“leaping” to) something that is false versus failing to believe something that is true with an inverse leap (holding fast to current potentially false view).
Omg this is EXACTLY what happened to me!!!! But I ended up stuck between EOC and RCC, still undecided. But this is what I came to, and I thought I had it figured out. But then I ran into the concept of “lean not on your own understanding,” which led me to really dig into how the apostolic traditions are actually lived out. The Eastern church honestly speaks to me right now, because I find the concept of a very finite level of “wiggle room,” within the church doctrine, which also has clear limitations that make it possible to have a practical understanding of what’s expected from me and what I’m dealing with. I also realized that the key to understanding suffering is coming to grips with the idea of this stage of life as TEMPORARY. If it’s temporary, then it may be that when the Church tells us that, “He allows suffering when He plans to utilize it to bring about an even greater good,” there’s something real in that. The EOC and the RCC both have the concept of suffering being a gift. I used to HATE that concept just in general, but someone recommended that I read “Job,” during a particularly difficult, particularly godless time in my life, and I was STILL, 8 years later, pissed about that entire bit. He let the devil kill Job’s kids over a BET?! My kids are irreplaceable! He replaced them later; ok, idc. Idc if they’re good looking replacements, I would want my originals! I didn’t understand until nine years later, after getting through my OWN Job experience, that I had COMPLETELY missed the point. And it literally made me laugh, because I was suffering SO MUCH…. But I was suddenly so bizarrely, incomprehensibly happy. I had forgotten that the base assumption was that the brokenness of this life is temporary. His kids are not lost, because they were presumably considered righteous dead since their father was consistently making sacrifices to atone for them, and they would presumably have eternal life. So God, in an eternal sense, added to Job in both his temporal life AND his hereafter from the eternal perspective. But through Job’s suffering, he was brought so close to God through his persistent fidelity that he had literally heard His voice and experienced Him for himself. Others had only heard of His past deeds but because Job experience direct communion with Him, all the suffering he endured was the necessary contrasting conditions for such an ecstatic experience. When I lost everything this year, my 8 year old daughter had cried to me and asked me why God would allow this to happen to us, because we were getting split up so they could stay safe and stable for the school year. And I told her that if God didn’t allow darkness, how could we see the light? Things are still not there yet, but I am starting a small business and I’m going to keep trying to find the light, because I trust that God will bring it, and it will make all of this suffering a gift. 💝
Oh. But. I meant to add, what makes intellectual sense to me is that the Omni-God is doing it this way because it IS truly better this way in ways that we will only understand when we have the 30,000 foot view. The kind of profound, soul-shattering experience of the Divine is glorified and magnified by the messy world of human free will. The evil, the suffering, the injustice, it TESTS us, it sharpens us, and guess what? Jesus SAVES US. Because OmniGod LOVES us. When I think about a good movie, you can’t even enjoy it without the bad guys. You can’t feel the drama without the lows. What’s the point in a world where there aren’t any consequences to free will? What is an existential experience like when there is no contrast? Can there even be a good God at all without the existence and possibility of evil? And would an act be evil if it was not in some way an assault on good? I really find the depth of the Easten Orthodox Church, the physicality of the ritual life, and the existence of theological “goalposts,” so to speak, within the tradition very attractive and aligned with my evolving understanding of Christianity. They also reject penal substitution, which was one of my big concerns also. The Orthodox writer, Elder Cleopa, writes a trilogy of books of short stories that act as theological thought experiments which I have found very helpful: “How God Judges People,” is a good one. It gives some very interesting folk illustrations of how suffering may fit into life better than we understand.
I was a previous agnostic/atheist, this is what I probably sounded like when explaining stuff. There is no "logic" to miracles and that's where he is getting lost. But hopefully this is just the beginning for him.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._* And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality. 1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god. 2. I personally have never observed a god. 3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god. 4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality. 6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true. 7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._ ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
God doesnt speak to you because you'd check yourself into a mental hospital if you felt his presence. He's sparing you that and acting only through nature until you find him within it and can thus open your heart to him once the mind comes to realise his presence was there all along
I can’t help but think how young earth creationism, if Goff could believe it, would actually also solve all of his perceived issues with suffering in the world due to the process of evolution.
The lies and bad science underpinning young earth creationism destroyed my faith or desire to contend with religious questions for many years. I simply don’t believe it’s a reasonable position to take based on the available evidence.
@@namarie325 Have you considered the mathematics don't work for evolution? There's not enough time for DNA, RNA, etc to change enough for the times the fossil record has. There's never been an observed new generation of DNA/RNA data that benefited a creature, so the mechanism doesn't even have any evidence. Turning on and off dormant genes doesn't allow for new appendages to be formed. Also if you assert God created the first information, how come he didn't just create the more advanced versions for the various creatures? Even a limited God could do so.
The YECs are overly certain in their pet theories, but that's probably because mainstream biology is so utterly wrong. They have no theory on the origin of life, Their "Theory of Evolution" only has fake evidence, and they totally reject consciousness effecting matter.
I’m sorry to hear that. I still think there’s room for it as a viable option and there certainly seems to be YECs who are neither liars nor ignorant of modern science.
I thought Cameron did a great job of asking good questions and pushing back on certain ideas when necessary but not in excess. It remained a discussion, not a debate. Some good ideas raised. I really liked this one
Two points warrant more discussion: fine tuning, therefore God (are there other possibilities?) And, God, therefore Jesus. He did discuss some at the end, but it mainly seemed to be a matter of one tradition resonating with him more than others.
Dr. Goff believes God has the power to create the entire universe but is somehow limited in His ability to eliminate evil? I have a hard time following that ‘logic’
Evil is the results of human choosing wicked things. God allowed men to have free will, or we're just robot who are programmed to do good instead of choosing good on our own will.
He explains it very well, this universe has ceratin laws of physics and they are incredibly fine tuned for existence of life, and intelligent life. You cannot have humans with other laws of physics, either God has an exclent reason to want a universe with humans and other sentient beings or he would have just left the universe being a perfect neutral sphere of "something".
@@DM-dk7jsactually the best answer is by affirming God’s ultimate omnipotence and in that his ultimate freedom which shows he has no moral obligations which shows there’s no contradiction with him supposedly abstaining from stopping evil
I set aside my expectations based on what I read and (I think) the first thumbnail and just enjoyed the conversation. Thanks for hosting it. I'm someone who finds the idea of "progressive" Christianity to be something adjacent to the faith once for all delivered to the saints... but I love the philosophical and theological discussion you all went through and I do agree with Dr. Goff that the position he is in now, given all his prior beliefs about things like the problem of pain, fine tuning, personal experience, etc fit far better in a Christian-adjacent worldview. I pray those lingering barriers slowly fall for him. Cheers to you both!
@@AaronGrosch29 What do you think about Islam? Because many people write in the comments on this channel many lies about the Islam that we know. If you want to discuss, go ahead.
@@AaronGrosch29 What do you think about Islam? Because many people write in the comments on this channel many lies about the Islam that we know. If you want to discuss, go ahead…
Good for you, Cameron! This kind of content is exactly what atheists need to hear to come to Christ. Much appreciated for this. I’ll leave a comment later about what I think.
I was an atheist 3 years ago, and this conversation horrifies me. I see no evidence of him having been born again by the grace of God. Instead he has synthesised for himself a belief that, as he himself said, let's him have his cake and eat it. But Christ does not share. His people are His alone. There is no middle way, and a good god of limited power is not the Almighty God of the Bible.
@@machineelf9459 This is the exact opposite of what atheists need to hear. This dude literally created his own perverted version of who Christ was and what Christianity is to meet his preferences. Worst of all, the host did absolutely nothing to correct him.
42:47 Goff is 100% correct here, I am not a scholar but here are 3 things I learned based on the academic sources I have read up to this point. Feel free to correct any mistakes or point out if I have missed something. 1. We do not have a single gospel manuscript from the first century. Not one. This presents huge problems for New Testament scholars and some are now calling for a reset on origins of the gospels(in their final forms) to the second century. First century Christianity is basically a black box at this point from a historical perspective. 2. Paul's genuine epistles show evidence of, or at the very least-contain verses that can be misinterpreted as Gnosticism. "hidden wisdom" teaching and the demiurge "god of this world" “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom” 3. The two largest groups outside Orthodoxy in the second century claimed their teaching descended from none other than Paul. The Marcionites and the Valentinians. Valentinus(who was almost declared bishop of Rome) claimed he was taught by Paul’s disciple Theudas who allegedly passed down Paul's secret teachings. Paul(in his uncontested letters) never quotes from the 4 gospels or even mentions their existence. Only "the gospel" singular which Marcion claimed to have in his New Testament alongside the seven letters of Paul that most scholars today still attribute as genuine. Coincidentally without any of the known forgeries.(1 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews) Marcion is attested to have claimed that the gospel he used was original and that the canonical Luke was a falsification. The accusations of alteration are therefore mutual between the opposing groups. John may have been written to convert gnostics to orthodoxy.
1. We don't have the originals for anything. The words I see on my screen are a copy of the words you typed. In ancient history, the gap between the original and the earliest copies we have are much larger for any other work. For Josephus, the earliest copies we have are from the 11th century! You refer to groups like Marcionites and the Valentinians. We only know of the existence of these groups from writings of Church Fathers, the earliest copies of which are centuries later... so how do you know they existed? 2. Paul was a second-temple Jew, a Pharisee. This requires commitment to affirming the God of Israel, the goodness of creation etc. All his letters are soaked in the worldview of the Tanakh, that alone rules out any kind of Gnosticism. 3. Of course, Paul doesn't quote the Gospels - his writings predate them. But he does quote the oral traditions which went into them. He talks about the Last Supper, for instance. The heretical groups give the game away by taking about "secret teachings". There's no reason why Paul or any other apostle would give secret teachings to a subset of Christians. But it makes sense for a heretical group with novel innovations to say that their ideas were the "secret" teachings of the apostles - it contradicts what is publicly known. Thay had to explain why their innovations were not known before...
After 1 min: "I don't believe in the virgin birth, i don't believe in an all powerfull God, i think the Bible is wrong about a lot of stuff"...ok ok, he isn't a christian.
@@serendipity1237 The virgin birth isn't a necessary tenet? Well for one thing the Bible explicitly claims the virgin birth was how Our Lord came into this world which is a fairly big deal, so if that's not necessary than what is? Besides which there is more to life and Christianity than salvation, we were not originally created "to be saved" being saved only became necessary after the fall. Meaning the purpose of life extends past what you call being saved.
@@47StormShadow it’s not a belief necessary for salvation. And of course salvation is just the BEGINNING of the Christian walk--and this man clearly IS just at the beginning. But a comment section filled with people judging him instead of encouraging him certainly isn’t going to do anything to encourage him to explore faith any further…
I understand the people who say he's not a Christian yet. But i love the fact that mister Goff is becoming more open minded. People, pray for him and welcome him!
I’m very puzzled by this whole discussion/video. I’m not very far from Goff’s line of thought (and I’ve been wrestling through it for awhile) but I still wouldn’t call myself a Christian. To me that’s really reserved for those who can (relatively) confidently confess a traditional Christian creed like the Apostles Creed and/or Nicene Creed. Another idea that struck me is that many of the greatest minds of centuries past argued most of these issues out at various church councils and throughout Western literature.
Being a Christian is not being able to agree with a creed. It's being born again by the Spirit of God. A new birth that gives a new life of intimacy with the Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit. A great mind can wrestle with the many treasures of God after receiving this new life, but no greatness of mind is capable of resurrecting a dead spirit into fellowship with God. May the Lord call you and give you this very life as He gave to me just over 3 years ago. I pray He knows you, and that you will know His great love and forgiveness.
@@andrewmiles2370 Thank you, and I‘m trying not to discount what you’ve said. It’s not necessarily either/or, but if someone flat out rejects the fundamental doctrines of the creeds I think most Christians throughout history would call that heresy. Perhaps such persons could have a relationship with God, but I don’t think the line between Christian and non-Christian is or should be so fuzzy. Not that a person should rotely mouth creeds that they haven’t thought through, and not that a person can’t be a Christian while still doubting a certain point. But for example JWs, Mormons, and Marcionites aren’t Christians definitionally, it’s nothing against them personally. For context, I grew up in and believed in Baptist theology before going through a number of years of doubt and deep depression, combined with increased understanding of the problems with the Young Earth Creationism which was a requirement of my religious community and feeling alienated from my church for other social and economic reasons, that led me to reconsider everything and since my framework was so all or nothing I ended up in the New Atheist camp for a long time. Over another period of years I’ve softened into a much more uncertain agnosticism and have been going through the Catholic and Orthodox perspectives. Recently I attended a Mass for the first time in my life and I thought it was beautiful. I appreciate Dr Goff’s willingness to share his thoughts and experiences. I’m going to listen to the interview again, there’s a lot here. I’m generally a pretty analytical and organized, not overly emotional or spontaneous sort of person. I’m also cautious about saying more than I’m ready to because I already been on the belief “side.” But on the other hand I’ve resonated with Jordan Peterson’s “I act as though it’s true” ethos for a while. After a period of debauchery, I’ve lived for years in a manner where a conversion/reversion wouldn’t require me to make any significant moral changes. I’ve also been very impressed with the consistency of Catholic social/political teachings and how well I think it aligns with human flourishing after having wandered ALL over the political map. But seeing the atheist/agnostic sphere literally unable to reason their way out of a paper bag regarding COVID or transing the kids, I knew that wasn’t as firm of ground as I’d thought. I don’t know where I’ll end up, I’ve worked through some of the things I’ve been stumbling over. Anyway I could go on but I do appreciate your prayers.
@@namarie325praying for you 🙏🏼 I highly recommend OCIA classes at your local Catholic Church. Catechism taught at OCIA will help get into the details of Christian doctrine , the whys of each and compelling reasons for each belief. You’ll be blown away when you learn about the Eucharist ❤
It is preposterous to claim that adopting a position based on faith reflects a search for or interest in truth. It is the abandonment of intellectual integrity and rejection of reason to sate psychologically comforting beliefs.
We shouldn’t judge him too much as he’s obviously at the beginning of his journey. When I became Christian I also believed something very similar as my mindset was still very naturalistic. The virgin birth and other stuff was just too silly and kinda hard for me to believe. Now I pretty much believe Catholic Christianity and I have no problem believing that god can do these things. Once he tackles his naturalistic worldview and accepts that, if god exists, miracles like the virgin birth are no problem at all, especially considering that there are amazing theological aspects connected with it, he will eventually shift more towards traditional Christianity
Yeesh…. “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,” 2 Timothy 4:3 ESV
This man is still on his spiritual journey. He has already come a long way….let’s rejoice and be encouraging. I’m proud of how compassionately this interview was handled.
@@serendipity1237that is probably true, however as ambassadors for Christ we should, through the Word, lovingly correct erroneous teachings on essential doctrine. It is obvious that his Christology is marred by 1) false teaching, 2) borderline Gnosticism, and 3) a corrupt desire to reconcile that which can only be known spiritually through faith and allegiance to Christ with human philosophy and reason.
Well, he made a first step. He approached Christianity intellectually a bit. Now let the Holy Spirit do its work and after a few years, he will open his heart for the truth.
@@FirstNameLastName-cw3ug Same here. It started the same way for me. I found intellectual interest in Christian philosophy and Jesus words but my initial take of the religion was highly sacrilegious (is that correct?) and I continued to sin which I somehow rationalised conveniently. Only after a pilgrimage with lots of rosaries, I had a conviction of heart which is a hole different thing. But - as we all - the flesh always tempts my thoughts, my heart and my hands to sin and so I am not yet totally within the truth of the Lord. This chap here is just a step further behind, but on a good path.
@@CIA.2024-u9bYet another win for Our Lady ;) That's a beautiful journey you're on, it's tough (trust me, I know..) but I think you're already halfway there when you WANT to be closer to our Lord and not have anything separating you from Him. You will get there before you know it. It's so heartening and so rare to see men striving to improve despite being constantly tested. Thank you for sharing and for your honesty, I'm sure a lot of people will find it edifying.
What would you call someone who thinks Jesus was divine and brought salvation but lacks some of the beliefs of traditional Christians? Is there any point in getting so hung up about language use? Why do don't we just have a civilised discussion about which view is more likely to be true?
It's interesting to see how modern philosophy low key rediscovers paganism. Limited, small g god or gods. Panpsychism, Spinoza god which basically is mother nature. Interesting.
Interesting journey Philip is on, and I totally agree that logically one can arrive at a conclusion that God does exist. There another step he can explore - Praying and asking for a revelation from God about his character, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. But seeing that he is open to it is wonderful and I’m Praying that he shall receive this very soon :)
50 seconds in and he says “ I DONT BELIEVE IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH. I DONT BELIEVE IN A ALL POWERFUL GOD”. This guy is still thinking to outsmart Christianity with his rationality. That’s all but what being a Christian is. Very misleading title. Let’s call it ”a rational guy on his way on getting closer to God, with a big ego still on his way.”
I would argue most Christian’s try to outsmart Christianity in some way. Catholics would accuse probably every other denomination of exactly that. For a good example of Christian’s doing this look at Kant’s view on the story of Abraham.
@@DIBBY40 Yes… it is heretical not to and yes it is essential to salvation to affirm this… you even have some Christian’s defending this in the comments not knowing from which ignorance they speak… if Jesus was not conceived of a virgin it means that he is not God, nor the begotten son of God… it would also mean he’s the son of Joseph or someone else marry had intercourse with… this isn’t even counting the other issues…
@@universe8649 I'm not sure how believing a virgin birth as a historical event can "save" one. However, if it did occur surely one couldn't claim that Jesus was fully human as well as being fully divine? To be fully human necessitates having human parents who procreate. If one parent isn't involved I'm not sure how one could be fully human.
@@DIBBY40 The fact is, is that contradicts the clear reading of the text of the Bible. The text of scripture clearly states Mary conceived without a man and so Christ was infact fully man because he had to eat and sleep, but fully God because he was the word which came from above (John 1) if you deny he was God you believe in a different Jesus Christ, if you deny he was man you believe in a different Jesus Christ. The early church already dealt with heretics who denied these things because they in their wisdom knew what it would lead to. Now if you aren’t a Christian well then yes, it would be hard to believe.
Cam, We need to listen to Dr. Goff more, especially in his criticism of Trump, where he highlights how dangerous it is for a democracy to have a leader who shows little regard for facts and reason. In various interviews and writings, Goff has emphasized the importance of truth in political discourse. He argues that Trump’s repeated dissemination of falsehoods represents not only a threat to the integrity of political debate but also weakens the fabric of democracy itself. Goff is particularly concerned with the normalization of “alternative facts,” a term that gained prominence under the Trump administration, as it opens the door for a culture where truth is increasingly subjective and manipulated to serve political ends.
He warns that leaders like Trump, who prioritize power and personal gain over communal well-being, create a societal environment where self-interest reigns supreme. This, Goff argues, undermines collective efforts to address pressing global challenges, such as the climate crisis, inequality, and political instability.
@@malirk I would wholeheartedly agree that "truth is increasingly [perceived as] subjective and manipulated to serve political ends" and that "the repeated dissemination of falsehoods...weakens the fabric of democracy itself." Where I would differ with your characterization is the insistence that this trend emanates exclusively, or even principally, from Trump or his supporters. Instead, I would argue that the relativization of truth and the dissemination of falsehoods to serve political ends is part and parcel of the modern American Left wing. I could give myriad concrete examples of "alternative facts" that are routinely purveyed by the Left, but suffice it to recognize that the phrase "*my* truth" originates with the campus activist social justice flavor of Leftism, as does the focus on the speaker's identity (race, gender, orientation, etc) rather than the content of speech as the determining factor for whether the speaker's ideas have merit.
@@mattmalcolm534 Give a specific example and let's talk about it. Here are three specific examples of Trump with "his truth". 1) Trump denies climate change. 2) Trump denies he lost the election. 3) Trump thinks windmills cause cancer. 4) Trump doesn't know that buildings end way more birds than windmills. 5) Trump thinks Biden didn't contact Georgia. 6) Trump thinks everyone wanted Roe V Wade sent to the states but virtually no one from either side wanted that! 7) Trump thinks weird things abouts cats and dogs because some guy on tv said it. Trump lives in a fantasy world where he often says, "Everyone is saying" but when you check it out.... no one is saying that!
Fascinating conversation! I always find it fascinating to hear intelligent people's thoughts when they're sort of at the precipice and really considering the merits of both sides with really no skin in the game at that point, a sort of neutral point of view that is hard to attain for people who already have a decided worldview. It also makes me happy that he's going to church and praying and just doing these things. I love going back on forth on smart and fascinating intellectual arguments and theory, but the pudding is really in the doing. When he said that philosophy and worldview is something he has to live out in actual life, that really resonated with me.
Satan doesn't believe in salvation through Jesus because of faith in God, he found out the hard way because he lost. Now that he lost he has doubled down on deception.
@@philipgoff7897 This requires a significant response, but I'll offer a quick rejoinder here. First, the rejection of biblical inerrancy means the Bible cannot be the inspired Word of God (John 1:1-3) if it's "wrong about a lot of stuff" (e.g., the virgin birth, etc.). Jesus cannot be perfect if the Word (as reification) is flawed. Law of the Excluded Middle. Second, the concept of a limited God as a way to circumvent the Problem of Evil is untenable. If God exists, He must be the "omni-God" version. That holds both logically and scripturally, which, again, circles back to the issue of biblical inerrancy. Protestant/Evangelical theology sufficiently addresses the problem of "evil," but that involves too much to unpack here. Finally, the Bible is extraordinarily clear on the doctrine of "penal substitution" (1 John 2:2, 1 Peter 2:24, Mark 10:45, Isaiah 53, John 1:29, Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, etc.), which requires belief in Christ (John 3:16) as a person of the Trinity (100% God) who set aside His godhead to become (100%) man (1 John 4:1-3) and stand as the propitiation of sin for mankind. Jesus' sacrifice-reified in His physical death and bodily resurrection (John 20:24-29)-is available to all but is not automatically applied to all (John 3:36); this should be considered the very heart of Christian doctrine and must be unequivocally embraced by all who call themselves "Christians." Rejecting Jesus as Savior is equivalent to rejecting Christ. (And if you understand the myriad adumbrations of Christ in the OT, the NT emerges as incredibly satisfying intellectually.) There are other issues of interest that should be addressed (e.g., "hiddenness," etc.), but this response is already too long. I think we all appreciate your willingness to embrace an intellectual worldview that makes room for (some version of a) god, but that's a deist claim that cannot be understood to be isomorphic with the Christian (theist) position.
Great job with this interview Cameron!! Loved this intellectually honest discussion. Also loved the ending about certainty, and the encouragement to believe when likelihood is 30%… balancing the fear of believing something is wrong vs the fear of rejecting something that is true. I also don’t think that his view on the resurrection is heretical if he believes there was a bodily resurrection and that body was not exactly as it was before, but rather more like all our bodies will be in the resurrection, a sort of super body. That seems true and coherent with the gospels and creeds.
Really disappointed that Cam would even sell this as a conversion. It appears that his channel is not what it once was, he lost the thread. Makes me not want to watch his channel anymore.
There's a difference between a person converting and a person converting to your particular denomination. Is the guy orthodox? Obviously not, is he in a better state than when he was strictly an atheist? Obviously yes.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I would agree in most cases. Not in this. The theological ramifications of not believing in the Virgin birth are huge. I would argue that it refutes any claim that you hold to Christianity.
@@maxpsishop It's a christological heresy obviously, but also one that existed in the early Church. A denial of the virgin birth amounts to adoptionism. Alternatively, some Pentecostals and other low church protestants deny the virgin birth because they figure the virgin Mary's hymen must have been ruptured during labor. An ignominious heresy too, but it doesn't mean they aren't Christian for it.
It's interesting to hear his thoughts on how he came to faith. The question that immediately stood out to me from his 'limited God' hypothesis is this: Even if God used evolution and survival of the fittest because He had no other choice, the fact that He still achieved His desired outcome suggests to me that He knows exactly how to accomplish what He intends. His choice to be limited doesn’t diminish His abilities-much like a person playing a video game may choose to play by the rules of the game, but that doesn't mean they are truly limited in their capacity.
Exactly what I was thinking! Reminds me a lot of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I actually think “cultural” and “political Christianity” can be more frustrating at times than atheism. In fact, Alex O’Connor has argued for the same thing, but from the opposite end
I'm sorry to hear that you think you're a Christian when you believe a lot of things that aren't compatible with Christianity. I pray it's a step on the road to orthodoxy and not a dead end into deception.
The fine tuning argument only mskes sense if you put the cart before the horse. Is this universe and our position in it fine tuned for our type of life, or is our form of life fine tuned to this part of the universe? It makes a big difference which way you look at it.
I've never understood how the problem of suffering can be an "argument" against Theism and in particular, Christianity. Christianity is the only single world view that actually deals with suffering. Christianity explains suffering and why we have it in our world, and we also have Christ becoming man and actually suffering amongst us, offering himself as a sacrifice to deal with suffering and sin. Suffering exists basically through disobeying God and through sin. If Adam and Eve never sinned, they would've never suffered. Sin is a result of disobedience to God and brings with it the consequence of suffering and death. Sin is doing the opposite of Good. The Bible, in it's very first chapter explains why we have a broken world and a mix of good and evil in our world. It's not a world that is purely bad, nor purely good. It is a mixed picture.
It’s a problem because suffering was endured by life forms on earth long before humans ever walked the earth. Even if you’re a young earth creationist, why do animals today need to suffer? Why would a supposedly Omni benevolent god design the world this way. The reality of the world we live in is a direct contradiction of the omni benevolent version of god characterised by Christians.
@739jep Yeah, as a Christian myself this topic does weigh heavily on me at times...but then again I remember just how little I know about reality. I think too that we may have false expectations about what God would and should do, we anthrapamoriphize ( I know I butchered the word sue me) on God's behalf and then think... we'll if he doesn't do x y or z than he is in contradiction...but honestly we could just simply be wrong, there could be very good reasons for the suffering, sometimes I ask myself If after having made it through this wretched life, given the chance would I want to live again, and I find myself answering yes, despite all the woes of existence. In summary I think the problem weighs heavily on our expectations, but they could be false, and in the very end I don't think morals or the idea of good and evil can even exist without an ontological ground like God.
@@739jep We were given dominion over them, and so if we suffer, they suffer by default, but unlike us, they dont have the option of going to hell because they're innocent, because we were supposed to take care of them, and we didnt, so they arent to blame.
@@LeonJohn4444 yes so they suffer and its not their fault. An all powerful/good god would not have designed a world this way. Anyone with two brain cells could immediately improve this ‘design’ by eliminating animal suffering. If a human tortured an animal we don’t consider them a good person do we ? Why do newborns suffer? Go into a maternity ward and honestly tell me a newborn baby is a sinner. You need to suspend all your intellect and humanity to do this .
@@LeonJohn4444 then an all benevolent/powerful god wouldn’t allow them to suffer. It’s really not that complicated. Anyone with two brain cells could improve on this supposed ‘design’ by eliminating animal suffering.
Wonderful conversation. I have so many things to say. I’ll just preface by saying where I’m coming from. I was raised Theist, was atheist for a short while, but after experiencing a lot of DMT, I couldn’t help but be a Theist once again for a myriad of reasons. I now hold to what mainstream members would consider a more heretical view of Christianity/Mormonism, but it’s only due to modern-day restrictions, admonitions, and lack of experience. Every single Mormon text has an expansion in the following, and my experiences with DMT provided veracity. Nature of God: A “good God of ‘limited’ power” is the Mormon God, but “limited” isn’t quite the angle it takes. It’s more fleshed out. So, “God-ish” as you sort of say. Lots to get into on this topic. Deep down it also answers the question of why the atonement was even necessary. Participatory Interpretation: The participatory interpretation where you’re trying to graft two seemingly opposing organisms, the metaphysical ontology of Mormonism, and a DMT experience, bridge the metaphysical hang-ups and wonders here. Resurrection: The nature of the resurrection being a physical event but not a bodily event, is again, answered in Mormon ontology, metaphysics, and even cosmology. The state of mind and being necessary to understand this can actually be experienced in everyday life in brief moments, in visionary experiences, or through the use of DMT. Mormons have this same debate actually in regards to the “Golden Plates” of the Book of Mormon and how some eyewitness accounts seem to make it out to be a more spiritual rather than physical event. Yet Mormons texts can and do explain what is happening. I tried to describe this mechanism to a top Mormon apologist and he said he was “somewhat perplexed” by the notion and would have to think about it for a time. It’s so funny, because the answer is right there in their books. But I didn’t see it when I was raised an OG Mormon. It took much intellectual rumination, and a handful of natural (sleep paralysis, meditation, etc.), and psychedelic experiences to comprehend. The underlying question here is, did the witnesses see the Golden Plates with their “spiritual eyes”, or their physical eyes; because there appears to be visionary confusion among some of them, yet clarity of experience from others. Ontological Mormonism has a very unique answer and that answer applies to the resurrection. As far as resurrection being the final blueprint to a radically new form of existence, this has also been revealed. “Perceived with the senses” definitely needs clarification here and I have interesting ways to go about that. You’re half correct. So maybe that 30-50% margin is fine enough. 😉 A “new kind of physicality that can’t be seen or touched” is something I can expand on. “Is it a new visionary physicality that people can tune in and out of?” It’s not new by any stretch, but it can be tuned in and out of. Faith, Truth, Knowledge: The way you discuss faith is also apt. There’s a particular scripture in the Book of Mormon I reference to best explain the end goal of Faith in Mormonism. The goal is to “have faith no more, nothing doubting.” (Ether 3:19) One wants to know, but it first takes faith, then trust, then when you know, that can be refined into wisdom. It is true that “God wants to be intimately involved.” Nice bit of pragmatic on that penultimate question. We could have a fascinating conversation here I think. I was going to write an essay for your Panpsychism competition thing, but health and time bested me this year. The essay will cover much of these topics. Let’s chat some!
Penal Substitution: God (the son) came to save us from God (the father). God the father just has to lash out at someone, so thankfully for us he lashed out at God the son. This is not Christian theology and its not contained in scripture, as A R Rillera's book demonstrates. W L Craig clearly has some pathological need for violent forms of 'justice', as many Evangelicals do.
No! God, in three persons, creates a plan by which those they choose to save can be freed from the penalty for their rebellion. They each take a role, the Son chooses to take the punishment His people deserve for their wickedness & in return grant to them His righteousness. The Father takes the role of drawing those who are to be saved to the Son so that the Son can save them. The Spirit takes the role of supporting & teaching the Son's people while their mortal life continues. Penal Substitution is the choice of the Son to bear His people's sin. A choice freely made out of love for them. That is Christian, biblical, theology. What have you got?
@@martinploughboy988 It's rather surprising that no one believed in PSA until John Calvin! You are mistaken: it is not in scripture (Andrew Rillington Rillera demonstrates as much in his magisterial book on the subject) and none of the church fathers believed in it. What you described misses a key element: the wrath of God the father for sinners. You _conveniently_ decided to leave that out. God did not need to torture his son to death in order to forgive us. Moreover, its a denial of forgiveness! If you owe $1000 to me but someone else pays on your behalf, I have not forgiven the debt. To forgive the debt would be to say: you owe me $1000 but you do not have to repay it because you can't. That's forgiveness. And that's scriptural. If God is all-powerful and all-good, which he is, then he can forgive us without exacting punishment and since he is all-good he wouldn't (if one repents and amends). John Calvin invented this miserable nonsense; shame on him.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I fail to see any antagonising between the Father & Son, they are united in the design & procurement of Creation. but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)
You can't dismantle atheism without dismantling theism too. Until there are people believing in gods, there will be people disagreeing with that. It's like saying one being married dismantles all bechelors, it makes no sense.
So, in the very opening he denies the virgin birth, rejects an omnipotent God, and thinks much of the Bible is wrong. But he accepts the resurrection. Very odd version of Christianity to say the least. Sounds like he wants his cake and eat it too. Not sure if his position is globally coherent.
Sure, if you deny the virgin birth/conception, then his biological father was Joseph or whomever. And if that be the case, then how do you square this claim with the incarnation? Is Jesus the incarnate Second Person? If so, then you have to come up with a whole new theology on how Christ can be the incarnate logos by having been naturally born of two biological parents. Good luck with that. Moreover, he states from the beginning that he rejects many parts of what the Bible says. So what is his criteria for picking and choosing what he doesn’t like? So, some of it is inspired and some of it is not? Certainly, sounds like all sorts of entailment relations are going on. Entailment relations that lead to incoherence, or at the very least the need for a bizarre unorthodox (or even heretical) theology.
@@JasonJones-u9s There’s no logical entailment between the incarnation and the virgin birth. While later Christian theology will connect these two, there is no such connection in the New Testament. Those who teach a virgin birth (the authors of Matthew and Luke) do not have an incarnational theology, and those who have an incarnational theology (Paul and the author of John) do not teach a virgin birth. If you believe God can incarnate himself in an unfertilized egg, then there’s no reason he can’t incarnate himself in a fertilized egg. You also strawman Goff by saying he’s “picking and choosing what he doesn’t like [from the Bible]” when that’s not what’s going on. He’s clearly following what actual scholars conclude about the Bible, which they do based on research, comparison with other texts, and abductive reasoning. Scholars might conclude one part of the Bible is historically plausible (or even very likely), while concluding another part is implausible or nearly impossible. For example: While historians cannot say whether Jesus was raised from the dead, what they can say is that the belief Jesus rose was extremely early and widespread among the early Christians. Paul mentions it in his first letter (1 Thessalonians) less than 20 years after it supposedly happened, gives more details about it in another (1 Corinthians), and talks about it constantly in relation to his theology and pastoral work. Paul claims that he and Jesus’ early followers (such as Peter and the twelve) had some kind of experience that they interpreted as seeing the risen Jesus. Most scholars would probably say they did indeed have those experiences. Compare all this to the virgin birth, which does not show up in Christian writings till over eight decades after the event supposedly took place (when Matthew was written around 80 A.D.). The account of the virgin birth there contradicts the history we have from Josephus and nothing in it was even hinted at in any earlier Christian writings. The only other account of the virgin birth is in Luke, which was probably written even later than Matthew (perhaps even as late as the early second century) and also contradicts Josephus. It states highly improbable things like having Joseph go to Bethlehem for a census because his ancestor 1000 years ago lived there. And it completely contradicts the account in Matthew. There is then almost no historical basis for thinking there was a virgin birth. It seems to be a later Christian legend that ended up getting more prominence than it actually has in the New Testament because later Christian writers connected it with other theological ideas surrounding the incarnation and Mary. It’s actually an incredibly minor part of the New Testament. Thus, Goff is not cherry-picking anything or being unreasonable. He’s actually following what the best evidence indicates.
If you came to the comment section to tell everyone that Philip isn't a Christian, read this first.
Let’s first be clear about what it means to be a Christian. At its core, Christianity is about believing in Jesus Christ-His life, death, and resurrection-and striving to follow His teachings. Philip Goff openly affirms key Christian beliefs: he believes in the crucifixion, the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and that Jesus’ body was radically transformed into a new kind of physical, though not bodily, substance. These are central, foundational elements of Christian faith, and dismissing them just because they don’t fit into your exact framework of theology is simply misguided.
Before jumping to conclusions, I encourage you to actually watch the full interview. Knee-jerk reactions based on soundbites do no one any good. Philip's journey from atheism is rooted in a sincere search for truth. While his views may differ from your own, they align with the historical and theological core of what it means to be a follower of Christ.
Instead of rushing to tear someone down, let’s focus on building each other up and fostering productive discussions. Philip's journey is not over. The Christian community thrives on diversity of thought, and we grow by engaging with ideas that challenge us. Let’s embody the values of love, grace, and understanding that Jesus taught.
amen
What would the roman church say one must believe to be Christian though??
Expertly said. Don’t be like an R/atheist and be kind and open!
I think the majority of criticisms in the comments are much less aimed at Philip’s journey or judging him and more aimed at the disingenuous hype/ clickbait and misleading titling of the video.
Trying to tell everyone that Philip is essentially Christian in his beliefs when he definitively denies the omnipotence of God is insane dude. That is literally the core pillar of Christian doctrine going back even to the Old Testament.
I'm puzzled, considering your focus on apologetics and therefore largely conservative audience, why Philip would choose your channel for this announcement? Are you friends? As a progressive Christian myself, and a lifelong member of a mainstream denomination, I'm not sure I would even have ventured to share my thoughts where the borders are so actively being policed.
The most un-Christian thing someone can do is immediately judge a man like Goff, who is on a journey of spirituality, for being “not a Christian.”
he was never an atheist
Can you give biblical text to back up that statement?
If even a man comes 1 step closer to the Truth, it is an act of God. It's that simple, all praise is to God.
Meaningless gibberish
I always had a huge amount of respect for Dr. Philip Goff. Although I am not religious, I respect his commitment to truth,
Same here, the guy actually is sincere about rigorously following evidence and reason.
Not sure why people seem upset. He intros by stating overt and concrete beliefs, then sticks with them and elaborates upon them throughout the conversation. Are people just hoping Cameron will only have Christians of the sort he is? Are they just upset because of the video's title? It shouldn't be surprising that philosophically-minded people have philosophical or abstract readings of religious texts and perceptual frameworks
Probably because 'Progressive Christian' is typically used to describe people who deny central tenets of Christianity and see it more as a social paradigm or merely a narrative tool. Seems like Philip isn't really claiming to worship Yahweh or have any personal relationship to Christ regardless of what propositions he accepts or the specific way in which he interprets them. Cameron shouldn't use clickbait titles if he wants to avoid angry comments. Or he just really doesn't know the nomenclature at all.
Yes this is a miracle!!
@@zacdredge3859 Give the guy some time. At this point in his journey toward the truth this is where he is at. I believe, by God's grace, he will grow in intimacy with Him and will amend some of the things he currently holds. Let's remember Philippians 3:15-16.
@@nymbusDeveloper86or he will stay believing what he believes and uses his credentials and influence to promulgate his views among our society’s lost and unwitting innocents. Pray he becomes a follower of Christ. But he at this time is no more a Christian than a Muslim is. And I’d argue a Muslim might even be closer to Christ than this philosopher.
What's upsetting here is the butchering done to the meaning of all the respective positions.
Fundamentally he is not a Christian. Not even a theist arguably. Goff's middle ways are trivial and subcategorical/secondary.
All the conversion thing is a rhetorical scam.
These comments make me think that Christians would prefer it if he just stayed atheist
Sadly many Christians don't want people to be Christian.
They want people to be the type of Christian they are.
Tell a Baptist that a Jehovah Witness is a Christian and most will get mad.
Because despite the directive to spread the Gospel and bring people to Jesus, many Christians would prefer to gatekeep Jesus and Christianity to maintain their special status.
To steel man their position, I would say that maybe they are concerned with wolves in sheep's clothing, leading the flock astray.
An athiest doesnt have the same kind of power in that, as a false teacher.
. Denying the virgin birth means you are not Christian.
@@catholicrusader7 Like I said, Christians are obsessed with saying other Christians aren't Christians.
Good interview, brother. I appreciated that you pushed back at points, and still gave abundant space for Goff to answer
Thanks for this encouragement! I'm always refining my interview skills. Philip and I were very happy with how this one turned out :)
@@CapturingChristianity HE WAS NOT an atheist. You are misleading as always Cameron. STOP THE CLICKBAIT AND STOP TO BE A SOPHIST dude......
He rejects an "all powerful" God. But even orthodox Christians limit God's power to whatever is logically possible. He limits God's power more than traditional Christianity as a means of solving the problem of evil, but he doesn't reject God's existence.
He believes in a good very powerful God who is the necessary foundation to the universe and reality. He believes that he was incarnated in Jesus, that he rose again, and that this allows unity with God. He also believes the gist of the gospels and believes in the empty tomb.
He's definitely more than a mere nominal Christian, just very individualized.
Great statement about God doing what is logically possible. After I watch the whole video I’ll leave a comment expanding on that point.
@@machineelf9459 And that's the key. You're going to actually watch the video before commenting. A lot of people watched one minute and then made up their minds. The guy is a philosopher. When he says something like "I don't believe in an all powerful God" That doesn't mean he's an atheist. He's very particular with his words. You have to listen to philosophers for more than one minute if you actually want to know what they believe.
@@christiangadfly24 "philosopher" snort
@@christiangadfly24 I don't think that's true since God is
ever present and
all pervasive.
that means he is everywhere and in everything.i don't see any limit in fact the strangeness would be that this means God is in Satan too while at the same time all evil comes from Satan alone God brings only good.
So many negative comments 🙄 can’t we just listen and learn from someone’s journey…can’t we rather pray for and encourage someone who is clearly asking and searching…
Anyway…
Just a few minutes in but I suppose my counter question to why would a good God put creation through suffering or a gruelling process of evolution would be: could we, as created being, necessarily expect to understand an all-powerful being’s reasons? Just because we don’t understand it, does that allow us to make the leap to determine the nature of that being based on our understanding. I think Tim Keller said this in one of his Google talks. Just because you don’t see the reason does not mean there is not one. I think it’s perhaps a bit of a blindside to assume our intellect has to have the answer.
No, he’s not a Christian. Explain why we need to learn from someone who denies what Christ taught?
@@parkplaceproperties4818 God works through people who aren't Christian as well. God also gave us logic to parse the information. Anything we learn about the universe or ourselves is meant to be, whether it's from atheists or Christians.
Christianity doesn't start like that. He shows no evidence of God working in his heart, which is the precursor to salvation. There is no "what shall I do to be saved", more a "I've figured it out".
@@drockopotamus1Non-sequitur. Just because GOD is powerful enough to use an adversary for HIS glory doesn’t mean that we should listen to all of GOD’s adversaries. Much in the same way GOD used the evil Josephs brothers intended for good, that doesn’t justify what his brothers did - nor is that a recommendation for people to commit evil acts.
Why do you think a "journey" deserves respect? Someone blundering about in the dark, stubbing their toe and stepping on a Lego is just inferior to just turning on a light.
Thomas (not an atheist) was not going to believe unless he felt the body. But Philip Goff, someone who considers himself skeptical, and understands atheists are going to require extraordinary evidence… believes in a version of the resurrection without feeling the body. Just an interesting juxtaposition.
Awesome! I remember back in 2019 I found about Dr Philip Goff and his work consciousness, which led me to a spiritual journey in which I left Christianity during covid and learnt about Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.
It was this year I came back to Christ and his church when he saved me from depression and anxiety (one could say even madness) by a miracle, so it's pretty awesome to know that Dr Philip Goff and I came to Christ arms the same year. God bless him.
Interesting! Would you mind sharing the specifics of that miracle for us? If it’s not too personal.
@@machineelf9459 it's both personal and complicated, since there's a huge background in order to understand it. if I told my story without it I think it would appear like a mere coincidence, altough one that saved me. Maybe one day I'll know how to share it.
@@Refsiul222 okay. It’s up to you. It may help some people if told correctly so take your time to get it right.
Interestingly enough I credit Advaita for curing my anxiety placed by Christianity
@@colbymay6044 it was kind of the same for me about a year ago, altough not anxiety placed by Christianity but by doubts about epistemology and reality
At the very least, I expect much better lighting from you, Cam. C’mon!!!
Lol some of you in the comments think if Phillip died God would send him to hell because he didn't get everything right. God is abounding in mercy and if getting our theology right was a prerequisite for being a Christian we'd all be screwed, not to mention Christians all throughout history who have been a part of doctrinal development. God bless Phillip and his journey, may God guide his quest for truth.
He doesn't show any understanding of Christianity. All he has is his opinion, no concept of God changing him, making him aware of his sin.
@@martinploughboy988the whole concept of “sin” is incoherent. human beings are ANIMALs. We are not special. Nobody should feel guilty for natural biological urges
no surprise, rotten fruits of Protestantism theology. Sola Fide is the seeds of all modern atheism.
@@martinploughboy988 we all have our opinions on the bible
John 13:35 tells us how to identify a true Christian. Mentions nothing about doctrine. I’m a Sephardic Jew ( from Spain born into Catholicism ) but I do not believe in the Trinity doctrine, I’m a biblical Unitarian & it’s disgusting how so many trinity believing Christians do not accept me as Christian, its unchristian behaviour.
The "famous atheist" quoting Sagan: "Extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence".
Wrong! Sagan said "Extraordinary CLAIMS require extraordinary evidence". A philosopher should know at least the difference between events and claims.
I'm loving this interview, Phillip is so honest and open and articulates his arguments very well. His beliefs are still evolving as it is for all Christians so I'm really happy for him!
I know a guy who left the catholic church (barely knew what the church teaches), became a progressive protestant then slightly more traditional and over time found his way back to the Catholic Church. I agree with the commenters that believe he will continue becoming more traditional if he go after the truth.
What do you consider to be the definitive characteristics of traditional Christianity?
@@joshuajacob3140 stupidity
Guys, this guy is the one who engaged Swinburne then as a panentheist and now is a progressive Christian. This is huge. Atheist-panentheists-theist-progressive Christian. God willing one day fully Christian.
He is already fully Christian. Most Christians are already "progressive" in some sense.
Big facts
He'll be having a very hard time rationalizing the virgin birth, resurrection, other miraculous stuff and the inconsistencies in the scriptures.
panentheism isn't atheism. Panentheists expressly believe in gawd.
Believing in all the various creeds and tenets does not make one "a full Christian". It's a way of life, characterised by how you treat others. A progressive Christian is no less a Christian if they live according to Christian principles & ideals than biblical fundamentalist.
I'm not a Christian, I'm just here to learn and find my path, thanks dr Phil for sharing your knowledge and wisdom with us ❤
He, like many, believes in a God of his own choosing based on what he can reason out. As if God can only exist in the framework of our own abilities to process the data that we currently have available. The truth is he has revealed himself; we don't make him with our thoughts. But Philip has taken a big step in the right direction even if it's East-North East and not true North. May God help him on his journey
Amen bro
Cameron, you are a fantastic interviewer! Great questions & discussion. Thank you
I seems like this quote by Alvin Plantinga fits into Philip's Christian worldview about as well as any.
"No matter how many excellent
creatures there are in a world, no matter how rich and beautiful and sinless their lives, the aggregated
value of their lives would not match that of incarnation and atonement; any world with incarnation and
atonement would be better yet. And no matter how much evil, how much sin and suffering a world
contains, the aggregated badness would be outweighed by the goodness of incarnation and atonement,
outweighed in such a way that the world in question is very good. In this sense, therefore, any world with
incarnation and atonement is of infinite value..."
Thing is, Jesus never mentioned atonement once. He was all about repentance and forgiveness. Paul corrupted & transformed his message. Goff is obviously not a Pauline Christian, many of us aren't.
This was an amazing video. I’d love to see more interviews exploring the diversity in beliefs between Christians!
This was a delightful interview. Well done!
To all those sticking their noses up in the comments… I pray for you. Follow the teachings of Christ and have humility. This man believes in our Lord Christ and is brave to announce it in his position. It may have some differences to your faith, but help him along and pray for him. We all will find salvation in following Christ.
Always keep an open mind Dr Goff! Bless you!
@@edgarrenenartatez1932 What do you think about Islam? Because many people write in the comments on this channel many lies about the Islam that we know. If you want to discuss, go ahead……
Jesus saved me, and yet I fall short. However, does it mean He falls short? Be patient guys, radical change takes a while for some of us. If our hearts belong to Jesus, change is unstoppable. Let's continue to pray for him!❤✝️
1:03:04
Where do we get the justification to have a worldview in which resurrection “is a credible possibility “?
Like you’ve seen it happen before…?
Dr. Goff’s journey strikes me as resonate with St. Augustine’s complex conversion. Perhaps this is a just a stepping stone.
Wow, this comment section is really, really bad right now. There is a lot of arrogance on display. It's not the right of a bunch of judgmental commenters to demand a new convert to be orthodox in every belief.
These things take time to develop. Nobody here would wish to be held to the standards in this comment section, not when they first became believers.
Paul says in Romans 10:9 that if you confess that Christ is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Christ from the dead, then you are saved.
God waits on the rest.
👏
Does he believe that God raised Christ from the dead?
Do you know what Romans 10:12 means? It certainly doesn't allow for not believing in the virgin birth or an all powerful God.
@@mattmalcolm534 It appears he believes so.
@@martinploughboy988 Where in the verse does it say that?
You and I agree that he is incorrect in his views. You and I disagree on the interpretation of this passage. In this case, you're engaging in eisegesis.
Cameron’s shirt makes me doubt in an all loving God
😂 thanks for this, made my morning
The pattern is so complicated wouldnt be surprised if it was 1000 dollars.
Funny! Thanks.
This has got to be the most hateful comment this video will receive ;)
HE'S THE ONE I GUESSED! Can't wait to listen, I'll put it on in the car.
I didn't know Bart erhman became a Christian. It's about time. 😂
The similarity is uncanny!
I don't see it. 🤔
Praise God for helping this man to make steps toward the truth! Praying he comes to belief in the full truth soon!
He's on a journey. Lord Jesus have mercy on him.
exactly. its a rough road full of wrong turns. not believing jesus died for your sins is a big detour.
@@johnnygonzales3267 I didn't do any sins and nobody died for me. f that.
Forgive your parents man. We're all just children
@@johnnygonzales3267 speak for yourself child
Aka he succumbed to emotional instability and let his inner insecurities dictate his logic.
Amazing
Praise GOD. I hope he vontinues his journey and finds the Truth.
You mean Gofftinues?
exactly, he needs to keep going until he gets there. but he has not arrived.
I love this interview. Philip is honest, humble and has clearly thought alot about the subject. His conclusions actually make alot of sense to me. I too meditate, pray and like to think things through. One thing I dislike about evangelical churches and even Catholicism, is that they seem to hate this kind of free thinking; certainly if you wish to join them there will be alot of pressure to see things only through one lens. If a personal relationship with God means anything, then surely it must be...well..... personal. Alot of commenters here either condemn this, or see him as "on a journey to truth" as they have come to understand things. There is an arrogance to this, for it implies that Philip is the one who needs to think more, rather than perhaps that he has something to teach. ❤
Well... as a Catholic I must say that I believe the Church has thought about theology for 2000 years, so it makes sense to believe that the Church has more to teach a "newcomer" than the other way around. I don't think it's arrogance. But we must always be charitable. I found that this guy seemed honest, and not too full of himself. I found that refreshing. I think he is MUCH better off now than as an atheist.
@@mortensimonsen1645 Hasn't the Catholic church enforced a theological view for 2000 years, often very brutally? The edict of Thessalonica issued by Theodosius, on 27th Feb 380, forbids any other point of view than Nicene Christianity. If Philip Goff had been around for much of church history, he may not have fared too well!
@@DIBBY40 You say «often brutally», but I think I would say «rarely brutally». What happened after 380? Were people killed for heresies? (You tell me, I don’t know the answer)
On the other hand: Yes heresies are something terrible and dangerous, so it makes 100% sense that the Church tries to oppose, let’s say, preaching of heresies.
In our day and age, heresies flourish on so many levels that we’re quite used to it. We applaud that this man went from an abominal heresi to a lesser one😊
It's not useful debate who is a Christian. Anyone who in principle affirms that Jesus reveals what God looks like has the resources to become orthodox and may already possess the Spirit's testimony--and depending on their degree of both conscious and unconscious cooperation with divine grace.
After being a scientific naturalist for a few years, following a collapse in my prior belief in charismatic evangelicalism, I became a liberal process theist too. There's a great deal of truth and usefulness to this view. As long as you don't become fixated and stuck, it's "more true" to God and Christ than agnosticism. Process philosophy and theology has a built in mechanism that makes their practitioners fearful of dogmatizing itself--which leaves individuals open to a more orthodox form of Christianity.
Process natural theologians have pretty much the same intuitions as the insights underlaying Aquinas' five ways--see Charles Hartshorne and John Cobb's natural theology.
Many church fathers wouldn't recognize penal substitutionary theory. And although it's clear that the early experience of Christ was MORE than objective visions, they also were not purely corporeal--the category of the spiritual body is psycho-physical. All of Jesus' appearances involved deep interplay between corporeality/objectivity, but tied very much to individual's readiness and subjective meanings they had associated with Jesus. None of that undermines the most robust possible defense of Jesus' bodily resurrection.
In practice, we invent all sorts of theodicies for affirming a de facto view of Gods omnipotence that is, PRAGMATICALLY, empirically equivalent to the process view of omnipotence. Process folks may be wrong, but when they deny omniscience or omnipotence, it's more like how orthodox theologians think of the paradox of the stone.
I only worked my way back from process thought into fuller orthodoxy through the essence/energies distinction, reading the fathers on the Trinity, and coming across coherent alternatives to reformation penal-substitutionary atonement.
As always, even applying to everyone at your conservative church, the question is not about what belief category they think they belong to or think they profess (no less than James and Freud, in different ways, long since proved we can be wrong about we claim to believe): it's who they believe Jesus reveals God to be, and whether the Spirit by which they make that call has the power of self-criticism to reform one to orthodoxy.
I'm only comfortable saying who IS a Christian--we should never be comfortable saying who is NOT a Christian. People and views are activities and movements--something that at least process philosophers are self-conscious about.
Dr. Philip Goff will become more traditional over time. I believe he will one day get confirmed.
Where is confirmation in the Bible?
@@martinploughboy988 “Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment” (Heb. 6:1-2).
Acts 8:14-17 14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Acts 9:17 17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord-Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here-has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.
@@martinploughboy988 what a retarded question
@@martinploughboy988 Confirmation is supported by Scripture, though it may not be called by that name directly. The practice of the Apostles laying hands on believers to receive the Holy Spirit is a foundational aspect of Confirmation. Here are a few passages:
Acts 8:14-17: “Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 19:5-6: “On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.”
Hebrews 6:1-2: This passage mentions “instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment” as elementary teachings, directly referencing a practice that corresponds with what the Church calls Confirmation.
@@martinploughboy988 We're Christians, not biblians. We're people of the Word and in the Church, not people of the book.
Christ doesn’t literally take our sins. He takes on the consequences of our sin(death) and by His death defeats death, bridging the gap between us and God and enabling us to take part in Theosis.
AMEN.
WAT?!?
Progressive Christianity is a type of Christianity, if Christianity is simply defined as one who aims to follow Christ and His precepts. A follower of Christ is allowed to be skeptical as long as they keep investigating and learning. Many of you in this comment section likely did not immediately accept many of the tenets of Christianity (tradition or orthodoxy) that you now have come to accept, or maybe even partly understand now, at least in terms of relevance. Let God meet people where they’re at. Don’t quench the Holy Spirit.
Hmm, no. Progressive Christianity is not Christianity. This is nonsense.
By that argument Muslims could claim to be Christians, since they claim that Jesus thaught the same things like muhammad
Funny, I don't see the Philippian gaoler being sceptical. He didn't have a grasp of all the doctrines but he did know he needed to be saved. If you start off with what you don't believe, you're clearly on the wrong path.
Is he really (!) a Christian? It's not a easy question, i would say he is definitely on a Way. Like C.S.Lewis was on a Way when God called him or like i was on a Way 7 years ago.
I think we should pray for him that he can understand things He didn't understand yet.
@@theautodidacticlayman I'm still working out what I believe. But there is no doubt in my mind that Christ is God and the resurrection is the key turning event in human history.
Definitely an interesting talk and I’m glad to see progress in anyone’s journey with Christ, I just have two things i want to bring up.
1. The problem with the Omni-God is that it ends up being a strawman, it sort of attempts to tackle Judaism/Christianity with proposing a Monotheist, All-Good, All-Loving, All-Powerful, All-Knowing God/Deity but forgets to add the trait of being All-Just for some reason.
And by not addressing the particulars of the Bible, you end up facing off against an incomplete description of God….A Strawman.
2. He doesn’t know it yet, but he rejects who God says he is and creates a God that fits his liking. By definition that is an Idol. The issue with atheism is most atheists end up worshipping their own intellect. The effects of atheism are still lingering here.
Hopefully through his journey he will see that God’s description of Himself is or is NOT enough. But we are called to hop out of the boat and walk on the water with Jesus not just dip our toe in and call it a day.
God bless 😌
Love this comment brother.
As someone who is certainly an atheist when it comes to the god of the Bible, I almost went the Goff route. I tried to rationalize a god that made sense to me, which, as you said quite accurately, is just creating your own god/idol. So your comment resonates with me a lot. With that said, let’s be careful about making statements like “atheists worship their own intellect.” That’s certainly not the case and doesn’t really help the conversation.
@@Mikeypem you’re right, I did generalize. I would say “some” atheists end up worshipping their own intellect.
I’m going to stand on that statement, not the sweeping generalization
Perfect reply to this video. Couldn't have said it better. All throughout it he makes God for himself, as if God is constrained within the framework of our ability to flesh him out with our own reasoning.
I wonder what Phillip would think about the following.
If sin is an injustice committed against God and others, a God who accounts for sin through just measures is superior to one who doesn’t. Consider the following analogy.
A man stands guilty before a judge for some crime. He is truly repentant of his actions but due to some physical disability, he is not able to perform the rigorous community service that is required of him to avoid jail time.
Now, in scenario 1, the judge acknowledges the man’s disability and simply forgives the man and sends him on his way.
In scenario 2, the judge again acknowledging the man’s disability forgives him, but also recognizes that by allowing the community service to go unaccounted for, perfect justice has not been preserved, so he decides to perform the community service himself.
Both scenarios are good but clearly, the second scenario is better because both the criteria of forgiveness and justice are met. This seems to be what’s going on at the cross.
But the judge is the one who sets the penalty. It's not like the crime metaphysically creates the penalty.
That still doesn't explain the horrendous suffering of animals who do not sin or even have the capacity to sin.
It doesn't explain natural disasters that drown thousands and thousands of people.
It doesn't explain how 25,000 people a day, 10,000 of them children starve to death every single day
@@fesimco4339 actually it kind of does. Just like how morality is a metaphysical necessity grounded in Gods nature, so too would His justice be. If it is in fact objectively wrong to sin against God and others, then Gods justice would demand that these injustices be dealt with.
@@Vinnymanvinny1 you are right but I wasn’t trying to respond to those criticisms. I was merely trying to respond to Phillip’s objection about penal substitution.
This is such a ridiculous hypothetical. Why would a judge both let go the perpetrator and also perform his punishment? Not a realistic scenario in the slightest.
At least the brother has taken his first steps away from atheism. He should be encouraged now to keep investigating until his remaining doubts are cleared up so he can fully come into the faith.
I'm currently reading The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, who is an atheist turned Christian pastor. At the end of all the chapters in this book there are further reading suggestions so apart from the subject matter you've also got a great bibliography to take your study whichever way you want to go.
Love this book
Agreed, I'm surprised at the reaction from people
Absolutely awful biased book and fake investigation. Please, there are so much better out there...
I think biggest takeaway is the ending comments on Spiritual disciplines, “I’m silencing my Ego” that in itself is such a honest/humble posture to this sort of journey. Will be praying for him!
1:00 Okay, so he isn't Christian.
Correct.
If he follows the path of Christ and his conception of God mostly aligns with Christian beliefs, then he is a Christian. Certainly one whose views are not shared by the majority, but a Christian nonetheless.
@@MrPeaceGuy54 "his conception of God mostly aligns with Christian beliefs"
They don't. All the important parts are off.
Exactly, but he’s definitely moved closer to the truth underlying orthodox Christianity. Hopefully we see something akin to Feser’s conversion, where he grows closer and closer to the true Christ, and all that entails.
@@brando3342 Omnibenevolence, monotheism, designer of everything, omniscience, compassion, love, personal, etc., are elements that are quite important.
Also, he seems to be pretty open-minded. His views may evolve with time.
I'm sorry I just noticed the time! I started playing this too close to bedtime. I'll catch it tomorrow when my duties are done and I've got time free from distractions. I'm just sorry that I've messed up your algorithm, because I really do want to support your work. May God bless you!
That is interesting how Goff brings together the alternatives of believing (“leaping” to) something that is false versus failing to believe something that is true with an inverse leap (holding fast to current potentially false view).
This is a major step in the direction of good and correct and normal Christianity. This is excellent.
He wasn't an atheist. You can't even be honest in when you label your videos.
Omg this is EXACTLY what happened to me!!!! But I ended up stuck between EOC and RCC, still undecided. But this is what I came to, and I thought I had it figured out. But then I ran into the concept of “lean not on your own understanding,” which led me to really dig into how the apostolic traditions are actually lived out. The Eastern church honestly speaks to me right now, because I find the concept of a very finite level of “wiggle room,” within the church doctrine, which also has clear limitations that make it possible to have a practical understanding of what’s expected from me and what I’m dealing with. I also realized that the key to understanding suffering is coming to grips with the idea of this stage of life as TEMPORARY. If it’s temporary, then it may be that when the Church tells us that, “He allows suffering when He plans to utilize it to bring about an even greater good,” there’s something real in that.
The EOC and the RCC both have the concept of suffering being a gift. I used to HATE that concept just in general, but someone recommended that I read “Job,” during a particularly difficult, particularly godless time in my life, and I was STILL, 8 years later, pissed about that entire bit. He let the devil kill Job’s kids over a BET?! My kids are irreplaceable! He replaced them later; ok, idc. Idc if they’re good looking replacements, I would want my originals! I didn’t understand until nine years later, after getting through my OWN Job experience, that I had COMPLETELY missed the point. And it literally made me laugh, because I was suffering SO MUCH…. But I was suddenly so bizarrely, incomprehensibly happy.
I had forgotten that the base assumption was that the brokenness of this life is temporary. His kids are not lost, because they were presumably considered righteous dead since their father was consistently making sacrifices to atone for them, and they would presumably have eternal life. So God, in an eternal sense, added to Job in both his temporal life AND his hereafter from the eternal perspective. But through Job’s suffering, he was brought so close to God through his persistent fidelity that he had literally heard His voice and experienced Him for himself. Others had only heard of His past deeds but because Job experience direct communion with Him, all the suffering he endured was the necessary contrasting conditions for such an ecstatic experience.
When I lost everything this year, my 8 year old daughter had cried to me and asked me why God would allow this to happen to us, because we were getting split up so they could stay safe and stable for the school year. And I told her that if God didn’t allow darkness, how could we see the light? Things are still not there yet, but I am starting a small business and I’m going to keep trying to find the light, because I trust that God will bring it, and it will make all of this suffering a gift. 💝
Oh. But. I meant to add, what makes intellectual sense to me is that the Omni-God is doing it this way because it IS truly better this way in ways that we will only understand when we have the 30,000 foot view. The kind of profound, soul-shattering experience of the Divine is glorified and magnified by the messy world of human free will. The evil, the suffering, the injustice, it TESTS us, it sharpens us, and guess what? Jesus SAVES US. Because OmniGod LOVES us. When I think about a good movie, you can’t even enjoy it without the bad guys. You can’t feel the drama without the lows. What’s the point in a world where there aren’t any consequences to free will? What is an existential experience like when there is no contrast? Can there even be a good God at all without the existence and possibility of evil? And would an act be evil if it was not in some way an assault on good?
I really find the depth of the Easten Orthodox Church, the physicality of the ritual life, and the existence of theological “goalposts,” so to speak, within the tradition very attractive and aligned with my evolving understanding of Christianity. They also reject penal substitution, which was one of my big concerns also.
The Orthodox writer, Elder Cleopa, writes a trilogy of books of short stories that act as theological thought experiments which I have found very helpful: “How God Judges People,” is a good one. It gives some very interesting folk illustrations of how suffering may fit into life better than we understand.
I was a previous agnostic/atheist, this is what I probably sounded like when explaining stuff. There is no "logic" to miracles and that's where he is getting lost. But hopefully this is just the beginning for him.
Happy to have you as a believer in Yeshua.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._*
And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality.
1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god.
2. I personally have never observed a god.
3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god.
4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality.
6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true.
7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
God doesnt speak to you because you'd check yourself into a mental hospital if you felt his presence. He's sparing you that and acting only through nature until you find him within it and can thus open your heart to him once the mind comes to realise his presence was there all along
You may get cordial responses, but youll definitely not get _coherent_ responses.
I can’t help but think how young earth creationism, if Goff could believe it, would actually also solve all of his perceived issues with suffering in the world due to the process of evolution.
The lies and bad science underpinning young earth creationism destroyed my faith or desire to contend with religious questions for many years. I simply don’t believe it’s a reasonable position to take based on the available evidence.
@@namarie325 Have you considered the mathematics don't work for evolution? There's not enough time for DNA, RNA, etc to change enough for the times the fossil record has. There's never been an observed new generation of DNA/RNA data that benefited a creature, so the mechanism doesn't even have any evidence. Turning on and off dormant genes doesn't allow for new appendages to be formed.
Also if you assert God created the first information, how come he didn't just create the more advanced versions for the various creatures? Even a limited God could do so.
The YECs are overly certain in their pet theories, but that's probably because mainstream biology is so utterly wrong. They have no theory on the origin of life, Their "Theory of Evolution" only has fake evidence, and they totally reject consciousness effecting matter.
I’m sorry to hear that. I still think there’s room for it as a viable option and there certainly seems to be YECs who are neither liars nor ignorant of modern science.
I used to be a Young Earth Creationist.. I am now an Old Earth Creationist who believes in the big bang theory and is on the fence about evolution
Thanks Cameron for all the great work you do! God bless!
I thought Cameron did a great job of asking good questions and pushing back on certain ideas when necessary but not in excess. It remained a discussion, not a debate. Some good ideas raised. I really liked this one
Two points warrant more discussion: fine tuning, therefore God (are there other possibilities?)
And, God, therefore Jesus. He did discuss some at the end, but it mainly seemed to be a matter of one tradition resonating with him more than others.
Dr. Goff believes God has the power to create the entire universe but is somehow limited in His ability to eliminate evil? I have a hard time following that ‘logic’
I’ve long said that most of the “answers” theists give end up knee-capping god and ignoring his supposed omnipotence.
Evil is the results of human choosing wicked things. God allowed men to have free will, or we're just robot who are programmed to do good instead of choosing good on our own will.
He explains it very well, this universe has ceratin laws of physics and they are incredibly fine tuned for existence of life, and intelligent life. You cannot have humans with other laws of physics, either God has an exclent reason to want a universe with humans and other sentient beings or he would have just left the universe being a perfect neutral sphere of "something".
God limited himself with our freewill.
@@DM-dk7jsactually the best answer is by affirming God’s ultimate omnipotence and in that his ultimate freedom which shows he has no moral obligations which shows there’s no contradiction with him supposedly abstaining from stopping evil
I set aside my expectations based on what I read and (I think) the first thumbnail and just enjoyed the conversation. Thanks for hosting it. I'm someone who finds the idea of "progressive" Christianity to be something adjacent to the faith once for all delivered to the saints... but I love the philosophical and theological discussion you all went through and I do agree with Dr. Goff that the position he is in now, given all his prior beliefs about things like the problem of pain, fine tuning, personal experience, etc fit far better in a Christian-adjacent worldview. I pray those lingering barriers slowly fall for him. Cheers to you both!
@@AaronGrosch29 What do you think about Islam? Because many people write in the comments on this channel many lies about the Islam that we know. If you want to discuss, go ahead.
@@AaronGrosch29 What do you think about Islam? Because many people write in the comments on this channel many lies about the Islam that we know. If you want to discuss, go ahead…
@@HanaAhmed-x7n No thanks!
This guy must be having the most exhausting mental gymnastics ever.
This is cool. Thanks for hosting this and sharing.
Good for you, Cameron! This kind of content is exactly what atheists need to hear to come to Christ. Much appreciated for this.
I’ll leave a comment later about what I think.
Deities most likely don’t exist. The supernatural is a silly concept.
I was an atheist 3 years ago, and this conversation horrifies me. I see no evidence of him having been born again by the grace of God.
Instead he has synthesised for himself a belief that, as he himself said, let's him have his cake and eat it.
But Christ does not share. His people are His alone. There is no middle way, and a good god of limited power is not the Almighty God of the Bible.
@@andrewmiles2370 You’re so gullible.
@@machineelf9459 This is the exact opposite of what atheists need to hear. This dude literally created his own perverted version of who Christ was and what Christianity is to meet his preferences. Worst of all, the host did absolutely nothing to correct him.
🙄
42:47 Goff is 100% correct here, I am not a scholar but here are 3 things I learned based on the academic sources I have read up to this point. Feel free to correct any mistakes or point out if I have missed something.
1. We do not have a single gospel manuscript from the first century. Not one. This presents huge problems for New Testament scholars and some are now calling for a reset on origins of the gospels(in their final forms) to the second century. First century Christianity is basically a black box at this point from a historical perspective.
2. Paul's genuine epistles show evidence of, or at the very least-contain verses that can be misinterpreted as Gnosticism. "hidden wisdom" teaching and the demiurge "god of this world" “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom”
3. The two largest groups outside Orthodoxy in the second century claimed their teaching descended from none other than Paul. The Marcionites and the Valentinians. Valentinus(who was almost declared bishop of Rome) claimed he was taught by Paul’s disciple Theudas who allegedly passed down Paul's secret teachings. Paul(in his uncontested letters) never quotes from the 4 gospels or even mentions their existence. Only "the gospel" singular which Marcion claimed to have in his New Testament alongside the seven letters of Paul that most scholars today still attribute as genuine. Coincidentally without any of the known forgeries.(1 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews) Marcion is attested to have claimed that the gospel he used was original and that the canonical Luke was a falsification. The accusations of alteration are therefore mutual between the opposing groups.
John may have been written to convert gnostics to orthodoxy.
1. We don't have the originals for anything. The words I see on my screen are a copy of the words you typed. In ancient history, the gap between the original and the earliest copies we have are much larger for any other work. For Josephus, the earliest copies we have are from the 11th century! You refer to groups like Marcionites and the Valentinians. We only know of the existence of these groups from writings of Church Fathers, the earliest copies of which are centuries later... so how do you know they existed?
2. Paul was a second-temple Jew, a Pharisee. This requires commitment to affirming the God of Israel, the goodness of creation etc. All his letters are soaked in the worldview of the Tanakh, that alone rules out any kind of Gnosticism.
3. Of course, Paul doesn't quote the Gospels - his writings predate them. But he does quote the oral traditions which went into them. He talks about the Last Supper, for instance. The heretical groups give the game away by taking about "secret teachings". There's no reason why Paul or any other apostle would give secret teachings to a subset of Christians. But it makes sense for a heretical group with novel innovations to say that their ideas were the "secret" teachings of the apostles - it contradicts what is publicly known. Thay had to explain why their innovations were not known before...
After 1 min: "I don't believe in the virgin birth, i don't believe in an all powerfull God, i think the Bible is wrong about a lot of stuff"...ok ok, he isn't a christian.
Nasty Christians. It's journey. Christians should help him not discourage him.
Those are not necessary tenets of salvation (according to the Bible)
@@serendipity1237 The virgin birth isn't a necessary tenet? Well for one thing the Bible explicitly claims the virgin birth was how Our Lord came into this world which is a fairly big deal, so if that's not necessary than what is? Besides which there is more to life and Christianity than salvation, we were not originally created "to be saved" being saved only became necessary after the fall. Meaning the purpose of life extends past what you call being saved.
If he believes Jesus rose from the dead, he is a Christian by essentially every standard definition of the term.
@@47StormShadow it’s not a belief necessary for salvation.
And of course salvation is just the BEGINNING of the Christian walk--and this man clearly IS just at the beginning.
But a comment section filled with people judging him instead of encouraging him certainly isn’t going to do anything to encourage him to explore faith any further…
Loved this! Can’t wait to look into Philip’s views more
Did he just discover liberalism?
Lol yep
which is basically intellectually honest protestantism lol
I understand the people who say he's not a Christian yet. But i love the fact that mister Goff is becoming more open minded. People, pray for him and welcome him!
I’m very puzzled by this whole discussion/video. I’m not very far from Goff’s line of thought (and I’ve been wrestling through it for awhile) but I still wouldn’t call myself a Christian. To me that’s really reserved for those who can (relatively) confidently confess a traditional Christian creed like the Apostles Creed and/or Nicene Creed.
Another idea that struck me is that many of the greatest minds of centuries past argued most of these issues out at various church councils and throughout Western literature.
Being a Christian is not being able to agree with a creed.
It's being born again by the Spirit of God. A new birth that gives a new life of intimacy with the Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit.
A great mind can wrestle with the many treasures of God after receiving this new life, but no greatness of mind is capable of resurrecting a dead spirit into fellowship with God.
May the Lord call you and give you this very life as He gave to me just over 3 years ago. I pray He knows you, and that you will know His great love and forgiveness.
@@andrewmiles2370 Thank you, and I‘m trying not to discount what you’ve said. It’s not necessarily either/or, but if someone flat out rejects the fundamental doctrines of the creeds I think most Christians throughout history would call that heresy. Perhaps such persons could have a relationship with God, but I don’t think the line between Christian and non-Christian is or should be so fuzzy. Not that a person should rotely mouth creeds that they haven’t thought through, and not that a person can’t be a Christian while still doubting a certain point. But for example JWs, Mormons, and Marcionites aren’t Christians definitionally, it’s nothing against them personally.
For context, I grew up in and believed in Baptist theology before going through a number of years of doubt and deep depression, combined with increased understanding of the problems with the Young Earth Creationism which was a requirement of my religious community and feeling alienated from my church for other social and economic reasons, that led me to reconsider everything and since my framework was so all or nothing I ended up in the New Atheist camp for a long time.
Over another period of years I’ve softened into a much more uncertain agnosticism and have been going through the Catholic and Orthodox perspectives. Recently I attended a Mass for the first time in my life and I thought it was beautiful. I appreciate Dr Goff’s willingness to share his thoughts and experiences. I’m going to listen to the interview again, there’s a lot here. I’m generally a pretty analytical and organized, not overly emotional or spontaneous sort of person. I’m also cautious about saying more than I’m ready to because I already been on the belief “side.”
But on the other hand I’ve resonated with Jordan Peterson’s “I act as though it’s true” ethos for a while. After a period of debauchery, I’ve lived for years in a manner where a conversion/reversion wouldn’t require me to make any significant moral changes.
I’ve also been very impressed with the consistency of Catholic social/political teachings and how well I think it aligns with human flourishing after having wandered ALL over the political map. But seeing the atheist/agnostic sphere literally unable to reason their way out of a paper bag regarding COVID or transing the kids, I knew that wasn’t as firm of ground as I’d thought. I don’t know where I’ll end up, I’ve worked through some of the things I’ve been stumbling over. Anyway I could go on but I do appreciate your prayers.
@@namarie325praying for you 🙏🏼 I highly recommend OCIA classes at your local Catholic Church. Catechism taught at OCIA will help get into the details of Christian doctrine , the whys of each and compelling reasons for each belief. You’ll be blown away when you learn about the Eucharist ❤
It is preposterous to claim that adopting a position based on faith reflects a search for or interest in truth. It is the abandonment of intellectual integrity and rejection of reason to sate psychologically comforting beliefs.
We shouldn’t judge him too much as he’s obviously at the beginning of his journey. When I became Christian I also believed something very similar as my mindset was still very naturalistic. The virgin birth and other stuff was just too silly and kinda hard for me to believe. Now I pretty much believe Catholic Christianity and I have no problem believing that god can do these things. Once he tackles his naturalistic worldview and accepts that, if god exists, miracles like the virgin birth are no problem at all, especially considering that there are amazing theological aspects connected with it, he will eventually shift more towards traditional Christianity
So true. It took me a while to escape naturalistic thinking. But I eventually did
Same brother!
1:05:25 I love that he puts out his own version of Pascals wager here, years after it was put to him by the priest and he rejected it.
Yeesh….
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,”
2 Timothy 4:3 ESV
Boom!
This man is still on his spiritual journey. He has already come a long way….let’s rejoice and be encouraging.
I’m proud of how compassionately this interview was handled.
@@serendipity1237that is probably true, however as ambassadors for Christ we should, through the Word, lovingly correct erroneous teachings on essential doctrine. It is obvious that his Christology is marred by 1) false teaching, 2) borderline Gnosticism, and 3) a corrupt desire to reconcile that which can only be known spiritually through faith and allegiance to Christ with human philosophy and reason.
@@bennettlacour3095 or maybe he's just not as insane as you to believe that infants and animals are evil and should be killed (according to Yahweh)
Person who believes weird thing now believes another weird thing
A lot of people are saying this, but I want to emphasize: he is not a christian.
Well, he made a first step. He approached Christianity intellectually a bit. Now let the Holy Spirit do its work and after a few years, he will open his heart for the truth.
@@CIA.2024-u9b You both are right, I just hope he will continue his search and not stop where he is at now
@@FirstNameLastName-cw3ug Same here. It started the same way for me. I found intellectual interest in Christian philosophy and Jesus words but my initial take of the religion was highly sacrilegious (is that correct?) and I continued to sin which I somehow rationalised conveniently. Only after a pilgrimage with lots of rosaries, I had a conviction of heart which is a hole different thing. But - as we all - the flesh always tempts my thoughts, my heart and my hands to sin and so I am not yet totally within the truth of the Lord.
This chap here is just a step further behind, but on a good path.
@@CIA.2024-u9b I think that this is just like hoping that gnostic leaders will convert to true Christianity in the earliest days of Christianity.
@@CIA.2024-u9bYet another win for Our Lady ;) That's a beautiful journey you're on, it's tough (trust me, I know..) but I think you're already halfway there when you WANT to be closer to our Lord and not have anything separating you from Him. You will get there before you know it. It's so heartening and so rare to see men striving to improve despite being constantly tested. Thank you for sharing and for your honesty, I'm sure a lot of people will find it edifying.
HOLY COW, PHILLIP GOFF IS A CHRISTIAN???
Does this mean he's an idealist now? Can't wait to hear this. This blew my mind, I'm so happy!
Great interview. Thanks
Isn’t this sort of clickbait then? What separates his Christianity from something like Mormonism? He doesn’t believe the core tenants of the faith
I would even go as far to say hi a view of God sounds Mormonish
He doesn't believe in the great apostasy for one.
What would you call someone who thinks Jesus was divine and brought salvation but lacks some of the beliefs of traditional Christians? Is there any point in getting so hung up about language use? Why do don't we just have a civilised discussion about which view is more likely to be true?
Great and interesting interview!
Thank you Cameron!
It's interesting to see how modern philosophy low key rediscovers paganism. Limited, small g god or gods. Panpsychism, Spinoza god which basically is mother nature.
Interesting.
Interesting journey Philip is on, and I totally agree that logically one can arrive at a conclusion that God does exist. There another step he can explore - Praying and asking for a revelation from God about his character, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. But seeing that he is open to it is wonderful and I’m Praying that he shall receive this very soon :)
50 seconds in and he says “ I DONT BELIEVE IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH. I DONT BELIEVE IN A ALL POWERFUL GOD”. This guy is still thinking to outsmart Christianity with his rationality. That’s all but what being a Christian is. Very misleading title.
Let’s call it ”a rational guy on his way on getting closer to God, with a big ego still on his way.”
I would argue most Christian’s try to outsmart Christianity in some way. Catholics would accuse probably every other denomination of exactly that. For a good example of Christian’s doing this look at Kant’s view on the story of Abraham.
Do you need to believe in the virgin birth?
@@DIBBY40 Yes… it is heretical not to and yes it is essential to salvation to affirm this… you even have some Christian’s defending this in the comments not knowing from which ignorance they speak… if Jesus was not conceived of a virgin it means that he is not God, nor the begotten son of God… it would also mean he’s the son of Joseph or someone else marry had intercourse with… this isn’t even counting the other issues…
@@universe8649 I'm not sure how believing a virgin birth as a historical event can "save" one. However, if it did occur surely one couldn't claim that Jesus was fully human as well as being fully divine? To be fully human necessitates having human parents who procreate. If one parent isn't involved I'm not sure how one could be fully human.
@@DIBBY40 The fact is, is that contradicts the clear reading of the text of the Bible. The text of scripture clearly states Mary conceived without a man and so Christ was infact fully man because he had to eat and sleep, but fully God because he was the word which came from above (John 1) if you deny he was God you believe in a different Jesus Christ, if you deny he was man you believe in a different Jesus Christ. The early church already dealt with heretics who denied these things because they in their wisdom knew what it would lead to. Now if you aren’t a Christian well then yes, it would be hard to believe.
I really respect his honesty and openess, God bless him.
Cam,
We need to listen to Dr. Goff more, especially in his criticism of Trump, where he highlights how dangerous it is for a democracy to have a leader who shows little regard for facts and reason. In various interviews and writings, Goff has emphasized the importance of truth in political discourse. He argues that Trump’s repeated dissemination of falsehoods represents not only a threat to the integrity of political debate but also weakens the fabric of democracy itself. Goff is particularly concerned with the normalization of “alternative facts,” a term that gained prominence under the Trump administration, as it opens the door for a culture where truth is increasingly subjective and manipulated to serve political ends.
He warns that leaders like Trump, who prioritize power and personal gain over communal well-being, create a societal environment where self-interest reigns supreme. This, Goff argues, undermines collective efforts to address pressing global challenges, such as the climate crisis, inequality, and political instability.
That rich to go after Trump and not the left and main stream media who are full of blatant lies and misinformation.
@@malirk I would wholeheartedly agree that "truth is increasingly [perceived as] subjective and manipulated to serve political ends" and that "the repeated dissemination of falsehoods...weakens the fabric of democracy itself." Where I would differ with your characterization is the insistence that this trend emanates exclusively, or even principally, from Trump or his supporters. Instead, I would argue that the relativization of truth and the dissemination of falsehoods to serve political ends is part and parcel of the modern American Left wing. I could give myriad concrete examples of "alternative facts" that are routinely purveyed by the Left, but suffice it to recognize that the phrase "*my* truth" originates with the campus activist social justice flavor of Leftism, as does the focus on the speaker's identity (race, gender, orientation, etc) rather than the content of speech as the determining factor for whether the speaker's ideas have merit.
@@mattmalcolm534 Give a specific example and let's talk about it. Here are three specific examples of Trump with "his truth".
1) Trump denies climate change.
2) Trump denies he lost the election.
3) Trump thinks windmills cause cancer.
4) Trump doesn't know that buildings end way more birds than windmills.
5) Trump thinks Biden didn't contact Georgia.
6) Trump thinks everyone wanted Roe V Wade sent to the states but virtually no one from either side wanted that!
7) Trump thinks weird things abouts cats and dogs because some guy on tv said it.
Trump lives in a fantasy world where he often says, "Everyone is saying" but when you check it out.... no one is saying that!
@@mattmalcolm534 So what specifically is a "my truth" from the left? I gave you 7 "my truths" from Trump.
Fascinating conversation! I always find it fascinating to hear intelligent people's thoughts when they're sort of at the precipice and really considering the merits of both sides with really no skin in the game at that point, a sort of neutral point of view that is hard to attain for people who already have a decided worldview.
It also makes me happy that he's going to church and praying and just doing these things. I love going back on forth on smart and fascinating intellectual arguments and theory, but the pudding is really in the doing. When he said that philosophy and worldview is something he has to live out in actual life, that really resonated with me.
so he isn't a Christian but identifies as a Christian 🤣🤣
Bruh, came here to say that lol 😂
Yeap, that is about it.
While not knowing what a Christian is.
I’m an orthodox reformed Protestant and I’m thankful to God he has started down the road to Christ.
Translation: Goff is now a deist. That doesn’t make him a Christian. Even Satan believes in Jesus.
Satan doesn't believe in salvation through Jesus because of faith in God, he found out the hard way because he lost. Now that he lost he has doubled down on deception.
@@Captain_Fantasy The point is belief in God/Jesus is a necessary but insufficient condition for salvation.
Which of my beliefs/lack of beliefs entails I'm not a Christian?
@@philipgoff7897 This requires a significant response, but I'll offer a quick rejoinder here.
First, the rejection of biblical inerrancy means the Bible cannot be the inspired Word of God (John 1:1-3) if it's "wrong about a lot of stuff" (e.g., the virgin birth, etc.). Jesus cannot be perfect if the Word (as reification) is flawed. Law of the Excluded Middle.
Second, the concept of a limited God as a way to circumvent the Problem of Evil is untenable. If God exists, He must be the "omni-God" version. That holds both logically and scripturally, which, again, circles back to the issue of biblical inerrancy. Protestant/Evangelical theology sufficiently addresses the problem of "evil," but that involves too much to unpack here.
Finally, the Bible is extraordinarily clear on the doctrine of "penal substitution" (1 John 2:2, 1 Peter 2:24, Mark 10:45, Isaiah 53, John 1:29, Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, etc.), which requires belief in Christ (John 3:16) as a person of the Trinity (100% God) who set aside His godhead to become (100%) man (1 John 4:1-3) and stand as the propitiation of sin for mankind. Jesus' sacrifice-reified in His physical death and bodily resurrection (John 20:24-29)-is available to all but is not automatically applied to all (John 3:36); this should be considered the very heart of Christian doctrine and must be unequivocally embraced by all who call themselves "Christians." Rejecting Jesus as Savior is equivalent to rejecting Christ. (And if you understand the myriad adumbrations of Christ in the OT, the NT emerges as incredibly satisfying intellectually.)
There are other issues of interest that should be addressed (e.g., "hiddenness," etc.), but this response is already too long. I think we all appreciate your willingness to embrace an intellectual worldview that makes room for (some version of a) god, but that's a deist claim that cannot be understood to be isomorphic with the Christian (theist) position.
@@philipgoff7897 I posted my response in a separate comment above. Thanks for asking.
Great job with this interview Cameron!!
Loved this intellectually honest discussion. Also loved the ending about certainty, and the encouragement to believe when likelihood is 30%… balancing the fear of believing something is wrong vs the fear of rejecting something that is true.
I also don’t think that his view on the resurrection is heretical if he believes there was a bodily resurrection and that body was not exactly as it was before, but rather more like all our bodies will be in the resurrection, a sort of super body. That seems true and coherent with the gospels and creeds.
Really disappointed that Cam would even sell this as a conversion. It appears that his channel is not what it once was, he lost the thread. Makes me not want to watch his channel anymore.
There's a difference between a person converting and a person converting to your particular denomination. Is the guy orthodox? Obviously not, is he in a better state than when he was strictly an atheist? Obviously yes.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I would agree in most cases. Not in this. The theological ramifications of not believing in the Virgin birth are huge. I would argue that it refutes any claim that you hold to Christianity.
@@maxpsishop I agree 😔
@@maxpsishop
It's a christological heresy obviously, but also one that existed in the early Church. A denial of the virgin birth amounts to adoptionism.
Alternatively, some Pentecostals and other low church protestants deny the virgin birth because they figure the virgin Mary's hymen must have been ruptured during labor. An ignominious heresy too, but it doesn't mean they aren't Christian for it.
@@maxpsishop
Some protestants deny the virgin birth for various reasons
It's interesting to hear his thoughts on how he came to faith. The question that immediately stood out to me from his 'limited God' hypothesis is this: Even if God used evolution and survival of the fittest because He had no other choice, the fact that He still achieved His desired outcome suggests to me that He knows exactly how to accomplish what He intends.
His choice to be limited doesn’t diminish His abilities-much like a person playing a video game may choose to play by the rules of the game, but that doesn't mean they are truly limited in their capacity.
Sounds like a "cultural" Christian
Exactly what I was thinking! Reminds me a lot of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I actually think “cultural” and “political Christianity” can be more frustrating at times than atheism. In fact, Alex O’Connor has argued for the same thing, but from the opposite end
I love how we can see different views on our beliefs, keep up the good work!
I'm sorry to hear that you think you're a Christian when you believe a lot of things that aren't compatible with Christianity. I pray it's a step on the road to orthodoxy and not a dead end into deception.
The fine tuning argument only mskes sense if you put the cart before the horse.
Is this universe and our position in it fine tuned for our type of life, or is our form of life fine tuned to this part of the universe?
It makes a big difference which way you look at it.
I've never understood how the problem of suffering can be an "argument" against Theism and in particular, Christianity. Christianity is the only single world view that actually deals with suffering. Christianity explains suffering and why we have it in our world, and we also have Christ becoming man and actually suffering amongst us, offering himself as a sacrifice to deal with suffering and sin. Suffering exists basically through disobeying God and through sin. If Adam and Eve never sinned, they would've never suffered. Sin is a result of disobedience to God and brings with it the consequence of suffering and death. Sin is doing the opposite of Good. The Bible, in it's very first chapter explains why we have a broken world and a mix of good and evil in our world. It's not a world that is purely bad, nor purely good. It is a mixed picture.
It’s a problem because suffering was endured by life forms on earth long before humans ever walked the earth.
Even if you’re a young earth creationist, why do animals today need to suffer?
Why would a supposedly Omni benevolent god design the world this way. The reality of the world we live in is a direct contradiction of the omni benevolent version of god characterised by Christians.
@739jep
Yeah, as a Christian myself this topic does weigh heavily on me at times...but then again I remember just how little I know about reality.
I think too that we may have false expectations about what God would and should do, we anthrapamoriphize ( I know I butchered the word sue me) on God's behalf and then think... we'll if he doesn't do x y or z than he is in contradiction...but honestly we could just simply be wrong, there could be very good reasons for the suffering, sometimes I ask myself If after having made it through this wretched life, given the chance would I want to live again, and I find myself answering yes, despite all the woes of existence.
In summary I think the problem weighs heavily on our expectations, but they could be false, and in the very end I don't think morals or the idea of good and evil can even exist without an ontological ground like God.
@@739jep We were given dominion over them, and so if we suffer, they suffer by default, but unlike us, they dont have the option of going to hell because they're innocent, because we were supposed to take care of them, and we didnt, so they arent to blame.
@@LeonJohn4444 yes so they suffer and its not their fault.
An all powerful/good god would not have designed a world this way. Anyone with two brain cells could immediately improve this ‘design’ by eliminating animal suffering. If a human tortured an animal we don’t consider them a good person do we ?
Why do newborns suffer? Go into a maternity ward and honestly tell me a newborn baby is a sinner.
You need to suspend all your intellect and humanity to do this .
@@LeonJohn4444 then an all benevolent/powerful god wouldn’t allow them to suffer. It’s really not that complicated.
Anyone with two brain cells could improve on this supposed ‘design’ by eliminating animal suffering.
Wonderful conversation. I have so many things to say. I’ll just preface by saying where I’m coming from. I was raised Theist, was atheist for a short while, but after experiencing a lot of DMT, I couldn’t help but be a Theist once again for a myriad of reasons. I now hold to what mainstream members would consider a more heretical view of Christianity/Mormonism, but it’s only due to modern-day restrictions, admonitions, and lack of experience. Every single Mormon text has an expansion in the following, and my experiences with DMT provided veracity.
Nature of God:
A “good God of ‘limited’ power” is the Mormon God, but “limited” isn’t quite the angle it takes. It’s more fleshed out. So, “God-ish” as you sort of say. Lots to get into on this topic. Deep down it also answers the question of why the atonement was even necessary.
Participatory Interpretation:
The participatory interpretation where you’re trying to graft two seemingly opposing organisms, the metaphysical ontology of Mormonism, and a DMT experience, bridge the metaphysical hang-ups and wonders here.
Resurrection:
The nature of the resurrection being a physical event but not a bodily event, is again, answered in Mormon ontology, metaphysics, and even cosmology. The state of mind and being necessary to understand this can actually be experienced in everyday life in brief moments, in visionary experiences, or through the use of DMT. Mormons have this same debate actually in regards to the “Golden Plates” of the Book of Mormon and how some eyewitness accounts seem to make it out to be a more spiritual rather than physical event. Yet Mormons texts can and do explain what is happening. I tried to describe this mechanism to a top Mormon apologist and he said he was “somewhat perplexed” by the notion and would have to think about it for a time. It’s so funny, because the answer is right there in their books. But I didn’t see it when I was raised an OG Mormon. It took much intellectual rumination, and a handful of natural (sleep paralysis, meditation, etc.), and psychedelic experiences to comprehend. The underlying question here is, did the witnesses see the Golden Plates with their “spiritual eyes”, or their physical eyes; because there appears to be visionary confusion among some of them, yet clarity of experience from others. Ontological Mormonism has a very unique answer and that answer applies to the resurrection.
As far as resurrection being the final blueprint to a radically new form of existence, this has also been revealed. “Perceived with the senses” definitely needs clarification here and I have interesting ways to go about that. You’re half correct. So maybe that 30-50% margin is fine enough. 😉
A “new kind of physicality that can’t be seen or touched” is something I can expand on. “Is it a new visionary physicality that people can tune in and out of?” It’s not new by any stretch, but it can be tuned in and out of.
Faith, Truth, Knowledge:
The way you discuss faith is also apt. There’s a particular scripture in the Book of Mormon I reference to best explain the end goal of Faith in Mormonism. The goal is to “have faith no more, nothing doubting.” (Ether 3:19) One wants to know, but it first takes faith, then trust, then when you know, that can be refined into wisdom. It is true that “God wants to be intimately involved.”
Nice bit of pragmatic on that penultimate question.
We could have a fascinating conversation here I think. I was going to write an essay for your Panpsychism competition thing, but health and time bested me this year. The essay will cover much of these topics.
Let’s chat some!
Penal Substitution: God (the son) came to save us from God (the father). God the father just has to lash out at someone, so thankfully for us he lashed out at God the son. This is not Christian theology and its not contained in scripture, as A R Rillera's book demonstrates. W L Craig clearly has some pathological need for violent forms of 'justice', as many Evangelicals do.
No!
God, in three persons, creates a plan by which those they choose to save can be freed from the penalty for their rebellion.
They each take a role, the Son chooses to take the punishment His people deserve for their wickedness & in return grant to them His righteousness. The Father takes the role of drawing those who are to be saved to the Son so that the Son can save them. The Spirit takes the role of supporting & teaching the Son's people while their mortal life continues.
Penal Substitution is the choice of the Son to bear His people's sin. A choice freely made out of love for them.
That is Christian, biblical, theology. What have you got?
@@bayreuth79
True
@@martinploughboy988
It isn't biblical and antagonizes the Son with that Father. It's literally dialectic.
@@martinploughboy988 It's rather surprising that no one believed in PSA until John Calvin! You are mistaken: it is not in scripture (Andrew Rillington Rillera demonstrates as much in his magisterial book on the subject) and none of the church fathers believed in it. What you described misses a key element: the wrath of God the father for sinners. You _conveniently_ decided to leave that out. God did not need to torture his son to death in order to forgive us. Moreover, its a denial of forgiveness! If you owe $1000 to me but someone else pays on your behalf, I have not forgiven the debt. To forgive the debt would be to say: you owe me $1000 but you do not have to repay it because you can't. That's forgiveness. And that's scriptural. If God is all-powerful and all-good, which he is, then he can forgive us without exacting punishment and since he is all-good he wouldn't (if one repents and amends). John Calvin invented this miserable nonsense; shame on him.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I fail to see any antagonising between the Father & Son, they are united in the design & procurement of Creation.
but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)
Great chat! And to be fair i haven't finished the video, but I'm curious what dr goff thinks about the open theist position on God.
Dr. Goff's work really dismantles atheism! The third option fits better with the data way better than atheism.
You can't dismantle atheism without dismantling theism too. Until there are people believing in gods, there will be people disagreeing with that. It's like saying one being married dismantles all bechelors, it makes no sense.
Goff has taught me so much. I love his books.
So, in the very opening he denies the virgin birth, rejects an omnipotent God, and thinks much of the Bible is wrong.
But he accepts the resurrection. Very odd version of Christianity to say the least.
Sounds like he wants his cake and eat it too.
Not sure if his position is globally coherent.
How is holding to those positions incoherent? The acceptance/rejection of any of them does not entail rejecting/accepting the others.
Sure, if you deny the virgin birth/conception, then his biological father was Joseph or whomever.
And if that be the case, then how do you square this claim with the incarnation?
Is Jesus the incarnate Second Person? If so, then you have to come up with a whole new theology on how Christ can be the incarnate logos by having been naturally born of two biological parents. Good luck with that.
Moreover, he states from the beginning that he rejects many parts of what the Bible says.
So what is his criteria for picking and choosing what he doesn’t like?
So, some of it is inspired and some of it is not?
Certainly, sounds like all sorts of entailment relations are going on.
Entailment relations that lead to incoherence, or at the very least the need for a bizarre unorthodox (or even heretical) theology.
@@JasonJones-u9s There’s no logical entailment between the incarnation and the virgin birth. While later Christian theology will connect these two, there is no such connection in the New Testament. Those who teach a virgin birth (the authors of Matthew and Luke) do not have an incarnational theology, and those who have an incarnational theology (Paul and the author of John) do not teach a virgin birth. If you believe God can incarnate himself in an unfertilized egg, then there’s no reason he can’t incarnate himself in a fertilized egg.
You also strawman Goff by saying he’s “picking and choosing what he doesn’t like [from the Bible]” when that’s not what’s going on. He’s clearly following what actual scholars conclude about the Bible, which they do based on research, comparison with other texts, and abductive reasoning. Scholars might conclude one part of the Bible is historically plausible (or even very likely), while concluding another part is implausible or nearly impossible.
For example: While historians cannot say whether Jesus was raised from the dead, what they can say is that the belief Jesus rose was extremely early and widespread among the early Christians. Paul mentions it in his first letter (1 Thessalonians) less than 20 years after it supposedly happened, gives more details about it in another (1 Corinthians), and talks about it constantly in relation to his theology and pastoral work. Paul claims that he and Jesus’ early followers (such as Peter and the twelve) had some kind of experience that they interpreted as seeing the risen Jesus. Most scholars would probably say they did indeed have those experiences.
Compare all this to the virgin birth, which does not show up in Christian writings till over eight decades after the event supposedly took place (when Matthew was written around 80 A.D.). The account of the virgin birth there contradicts the history we have from Josephus and nothing in it was even hinted at in any earlier Christian writings. The only other account of the virgin birth is in Luke, which was probably written even later than Matthew (perhaps even as late as the early second century) and also contradicts Josephus. It states highly improbable things like having Joseph go to Bethlehem for a census because his ancestor 1000 years ago lived there. And it completely contradicts the account in Matthew.
There is then almost no historical basis for thinking there was a virgin birth. It seems to be a later Christian legend that ended up getting more prominence than it actually has in the New Testament because later Christian writers connected it with other theological ideas surrounding the incarnation and Mary. It’s actually an incredibly minor part of the New Testament.
Thus, Goff is not cherry-picking anything or being unreasonable. He’s actually following what the best evidence indicates.