RZ is right. What happens is that we normally call churches like Lutheran, Anglican and Presbyterian "Historical Protestant" and we call the others just "Protestant". However, since Protestantism is a historical movement and not just "an abstract idea", it is clear that only historic Protestant churches are in fact Protestant.
Remember guys, the most important thing is that we keep dividing Christians over every single disagreement. That way people have an easier time going to Hades :{D
I can see where you're coming from, but there's a reason the vast majority of the comments (who are almost entirely protestant) disagree with you and him. The Protestant reformation directly caused the existence of the denominations which you would term as evangelical. The underlying idea behind the Protestant reformation was that the traditions of the Church can be questioned or even overruled by one's own interpretation of scripture. This is exactly what the "Radical Reformation" and other movements like Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals etc. did to the "Historic Protestants" and it's what the Non-Denom/Evangelicals have done to those movements (or they did it to Protestantism in general in the case of Non-Denom lol). Not to mention the SDAs, JWs etc.. Your point kinda divorces historical movements from the abstract ideas that *cause* them.
Evangelical and non-denoms are also clearly descendants of that movement as well though. It doesn't make sense to draw an arbitrary line based on this institutionally-based thinking.
Do you ever worry that you might be becoming too concerned with all the issues that divide protestants Catholics and non-denominational Christians and not concerned enough on the message of the Bible? On the work Jesus did? Sometimes I worry about that for you. I started down that path and it's definitely not what Jesus wants This isn't a saying that there are not issues that need to be pointed out, like if a denomination does not affirm the Trinity, they don't believe that Jesus is actually God, that's a big issue and I would not consider them Christian. But sometimes I feel like you get too hung up on worship style, what creed's a denomination affirms, things that really shouldn't divide us in the slightest I say this all out of deep appreciation for what you do. You bring biblical truths to a lot of people who might not want to sit through a 45 minute long discussion with other TH-cam channels. I just don't wanna see you become jaded at all against your fellow brothers and sister sisters
@ I used to enjoy this channel and watch it literally every day but I noticed I was becoming cynical towards any other denomination that wasn't mine. Too focused on the gaps and not on what unit us in Christ
This is how I feel about myself I can’t speak for redeemed zoomer here but I know it’s messing with my faith Do I become Catholic because they were first, do stick with my nondenominational church because I don’t really fit anywhere on the Christian spectrum Or do I just do my own thing and try to follow Jesus the best way I can I don’t know What I can say that’s helped me a little bit mentally as of late is a quote someone said online “If I’m at the gates of heaven and Jesus won’t let me in because I chose the wrong kind of Christianity, then I can take solace in the fact that he is a good, and perfect judge” It was a powerful statement and I’ve commented it before on other videos
If you don’t like evangelicalism that’s fine but it’s clearly Protestant. I like Zoomer, but he tends to redefine things by his own extremely narrow terms to suit his argument.
It is not Protestant. To be Protestant, the "protest" part is kinda important, don't you think? It's the main part of the word. To be protestant, you either have to be, or come from a group started as a protest against corruption in the Catholic Church.
@@BXAC23 It is indeed Protestant. I am saying this as Reformed Christian who most closely alligns with the Presbyterian Denomination. Evangelicals are undeniably Protestant. They do indeed "protest" the Catholic Church as they are Christians who don't subscribe to that church but do believe in Jesus as the savior. I wouldn't say that being one of the original protesting groups is what defines you as protestant. Furthermore, even if it did, Baptists have their roots of faith with the Anabaptists who were indeed a protesting group from the beginning of the reformation. All in all, Evangelicals still believe that The Bible has more authority than the church, Salvation is by faith alone through grace alone, and don't believe in Catholic practices like transubstantiation, purgatory, confession, prayer to saints and Mary, etc. I'm not at all saying this just to start an argument or to say I disagree merely to disagree. But it does frustrate me to see my Evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ being labeled as "Not protestant" because I really believe they are
@@joshandleahulmer9220 Not all Baptists are evangelical. I'm a mainline ABCUSA Baptist, and far from evangelical. Also, we don't come from anabaptists. We come directly from the Chruch of England, with some influence from the anabaptists and puritans. The most I'll give Evangelicals is they're Protestants who Protestant too hard.
Philip Scaff made the same point as RZ, it is not like this a new problem or just something he has dreamed up. Reform was never meant to mean revolution or restoration.
While accepting the new testament books that the church accepted as canon rather than some gnostic gospels and the other writings floating around at the time.
In my country, Argentina, we call Protestants as "Evangélicos" indistintly. Literally, there are 7 protestant churces less than 100m/300ft from my house and the most say "Iglesia Evangélica..." (... Evangelical church).
If we're defining terms right, we need to also define Evangelical correctly. Protestant denominations like Lutherans, Anglicans, and others can be evangelical and use the term to define themselves. For example, the Evangelical Church of Germany is a combination of the Reformed and Lutheran churches in Germany. These aren't "evangelical" as you describe it; you're using evangelical to refer to non-denominational. If you look at the churches part of the World Evangelical Alliance, this includes plenty of churches that are very clearly Protestant. There are 600 million Christians part of a denomination part of the World Evangelical Alliance. This would quite literally include the majority of Protestants in the world, including a lot if not most of the Methodists, Reformed, Lutherans and the other seven Protestant denominations in the world. If you want to use a term to refer to low church non-denominationals who don't see themselves as a continuation of the Catholic Church, you need a new term for them other than Evangelical, because many of those Protestant churches still call themselves Evangelical and are part of the World Evangelical Alliance while the low church non-denominationals are typically not part of the World Evangelical Alliance. Call them Renewalists or Revivalists or something else that actually describes their position and theology, aka churches that are seeking to transcend denominational barriers and don't see a heritage in the Catholic Church, often believing in a Great Apostasy that took place when Rome converted. To call all these churches evangelical and seperate the term evangelical from Protestant history does a disservice to both because Evangelical definitionally just means preaching and prioritizing the Gospel, which most Protestant churches are still doing.
This is an excellent point. Many would call the PCA evangelical, and Zoomer would certainly call it Protestant. Even if it is granted that non-denominationals are not Protestant, evangelicalism is simply too imprecise a term that is used to refer to so many things. Maybe Restorationalism? IDK.
@tianming4964 technically all churches do this, the reason why low church are more prone to be called evangelical is because they are more likely to do it concerning various situations.
"I'm not here to insult anyone's denomination", spends 10 minutes insulting various denominations. I think that instead of trying to say that "these churches aren't protestant", we should instead label certain churches "magisterial reformation churches". This not only is more descriptive, it doesn't break the way that *almost everyone* uses the term protestant! Saying that non-denom churches aren't in some way connected to the Protestant reformation is completely ahistorical. You yourself have previously stated that most of those churches come from a mixture of the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement, Particular Baptists, and Anabaptists. At least 2/3 of those are *definitely* downstream of the magisterial reformation. (I would also argue the Anabaptist are just a more radical splinter from the reformation, which sprang up at around the same time (almost like there was a general protest going on around that time). 95% of these non-denom churches you are talking about would affirm the Filioque and the contents of the early church creeds (even if they won't necessarily adopt them fully), is that in itself not evidence that they are downstream of Roman Catholicism? Also the people that start these new churches come from a tradition (hint it's not EO or directly RC), so at what point are they not protestant any more?
RZ is right. What happens is that we normally call churches like Lutheran, Anglican and Presbyterian "Historical Protestant" and we call the others just "Protestant". However, since Protestantism is a historical movement and not just "an abstract idea", it is clear that only historic Protestant churches are in fact Protestant.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Okay, I'll bite. What is the delineation between protestant and this new category of "evangelical protestant"? It's pretty clearly not *just* what time they started, so there is *some* element of doctrine involved. You clearly don't think that heritage from an existing protestant denomination is enough, so what is it? Are Methodists not protestant by your definition, then why, (or why not) Pentecostals? Particular Baptists seem to be protestant by RZ's definition, then why not the non-denom churches that are Particular Baptist in almost everything but name (and are often associated with them in some way)?
This is etymologically and historically illiterate. The magisterials claimed the title of evangelical, and the Protestant label was given initially as an insult for all dissenting from Rome. Not just this, but there’s an extremely parochial definition in play here - ‘evangelical’ developed its own connotations in the states as distinct from the UK and the continent. If zoomer has his own American-centric reasons for disliking the mega churches, fine: but let’s not pretend that (say) the free churches of England aren’t Protestant. What nonsense.
The origin of the word "Protestant" comes from the fact that the Protestants presented a letter of protestation and the first diet of Speyer. Back then, the word did not mean what people today think it does.
Out of interest, what did it mean back then? Was the specific protestation you mentioned limited to the time or an expression of what they were doing? I.e. were they Protestants because they had protested (in the original sense) at that time, or because they were protesting something in general? And would you say that protestants are still unified in protesting one thing (in the original sense of the word)?
@@peterholden2016 Today, we generally think of protest as arguing against something. In the 1500's, it only meant to argue in favor of something. We still have this usage in some contexts, but it is definitely a secondary meaning nowadays. Consider the sentence, "The defendant protested his innocence." The defendant is not arguing against his innocence, but in favor of it. Likewise, the primary thrust of the Protestant claims was that their own theology was correct. Any argument against Catholicism was only incidental, in that where Protestant and Catholic doctrines disagree, the Protestants would naturally favor their own interpretation of things--but their main goal was not to stand in opposition to Catholicism simply because it is Catholic. Their main goal was to promote their own ideas. Protestant denominations are still unified in the sense that each denomination protests the accuracy of their own theological interpretations. The are disunified in the sense that, since they don't all preach the same message any more, they're no longer all protesting for the exact same thing.
Seems needlessly pedantic. Logic does not dictate the meaning of a word, only usage does. If you purposefully choose to use a word differently then the majority of other people do, you are causing the confusion not they.
That can't be true in every case. Defintions and usage are both necessary for language to be possible. If there were never meanings assigned by defintional fiat at some point in every language's history, language would not even exist.
So: Evangelicals are NOT Protestant, but Baptists ARE. Most Baptists are categorized as Evangelical. You need to sort this out. I suggest you visit as many Baptist Churches as possible.
There are a lot of historical Baptist churches and particular Baptist churches came from the reformation. You could consider Mennonites Protestant simply because they were the anabaptist
@ most non-denoms came out of the Baptist. American Baptist emphasizes independence and non-denoms goal is typically to be out of the “my denomination is best” argument.
As a former evangelical turned Episcopalian...I really have no problem saying that they're Protestant too. The only groups I would deem as non Protestant would be the Mormons and JWs, because once you've denied the Trinity, you've lost the right to call yourself Christian in any sense.
Evangelical here. You can't just gate keep Protestantism because we were't part of the "original departure" from Catholicism. We believe the same thing as any other Protestant. This discussion causes more division than unity
Evangelical what? Because the "Lutheran" church was really called the evangelical catholic church. To not define your denomination further, you're probably a Darby/Scofield/Hagee judeobaptist?
@VndNvwYvvSvv what does that even mean? All I know is that one of my main jobs is to spread the gospel to as many people as I possibly can. Evangelizing if you will
@@joshuahicks7798 What do you believe "True i-wordthatyputubewontletmesayhere" is? Is it the fulfillment in the body of believers in Jesus? Or the deniers?
Do you believe baptism saves? Do you believe real presence in communion? What creeds & confessions does your church use? Does your church emphasize sacredness in worship & a proper liturgy?
@@BXAC23 Because he sees Evangelicals as Protestant therefore their opinions count on whether Evangelicals are Protestant because they themselves see themselves as Protestant.
@@BXAC23 According to them yeah. But to the Redeemed Zoomer most Protestants do not think Evangelicals are Protestant since Evangelicals are not Protestant they're opinion on Evangelicals being Protestant does not count with Protestants opinion on Evangelicals being Protestant.
So this is 28 minutes of the "No True Scottsman" falacy all because Zoomer dislikes evangelicals. Buddy shirked his "protestant apologist" role because he rightly recognized it was needlessly divisive towards our Eastern brother just so he could set his sights on fellow western churches. Lets hope he does like he did with the Baptists and eventually realize hes being needlessly harsh over unimportant matters.
There really is only 4 Protestant traditions though. Hussites, Calvinists, Anglicans and Lutherans. Everyone else comes from radical reformation, not protestant magisterial reformation, or from the great awakenings or from heretical movements etc. The 4 Protestant traditions I mentioned agree more than disagree. But we disagree more than agree with Baptists, Adventists, Mormons, or extinct heresies like Arians, Gnostics, Docetists, etc. If your denomination wasn't a state movement from the 1500s-1600s you weren't referred to as protestant until the 1900s. If Anglicanism wasn't a schizophrenic via media between Lutheranism, Catholicism and Calvinism, And Martin Luther successfully united with the Hussites liked he planned, Or if John Calvin and Melanthon unified sects, ideally there's only two protestant denomination. Reformed Christianity and Lutheranism. But there's four because Hussites and Anglicans. I only get my theology from the Reformed because I'm a Reformed, and in house debate between Arminians and Calvinist I lean Calvinist but both are reformed, but sometimes burrow from Lutherans. I don't know anything about Hussites though. And whatever Catholic and pre great schism theologian from 100-1054 and 1054-1517 whatever Catholic, Orthodox or Assyrian church of the east theologian the Protestants agree with. The Restorationist, Great awakening denominations, and radical reformation, cannot be protestant, Because they don't agree with Magisterial Reformers or don't come from that time period. John Calvin, Martin Luther, Jan Hus, and England can gatekeep the term protestant, because we have been from the start. How can Baptists or Anabaptists be protestant? They separate from university, church and state. And they hate infant baptism and the were super individualistic. Terms exist for a reason. Day one hour one second one minute one first use definition for Protestant exclusively refers to whom I listed.
@noahtylerpritchett2682 yeah it's not an incoherent definition by any means but it's clearly disconnected from the common parlance thus the falacious nature of it. The whole of what we call Protestantism still flows from the original reformation. Notice how evangelicals don't have bishops? Was their faith conceived in a vacuum? Of course not. Yall are acting like a bunch of stupid reddit hipsters "we were protestant before it was cool" just to distance yourself from normies or theological opponents. The reformation sought to reform the church. The churches that followed long after the original protestant reformation still adhere to these reforms. If the Modern evangelical isn't protestant, than neither are modern lutherans. Because guess what? None of yall were around when the reformation happened. Like petulant street whelps insisting on who is "OG" just to put down the "young bloods" you don't respect. It's shifting the goal post. It's the no true scottsman fallacy
@noahtylerpritchett2682 Besides, you wanna tell me every synod of Lutheranism is adhering to the reformation? Really? The evangelicals are way closer than the Gay-pastor-ordaining lefties in some modern Lutheran synods. You're starting a dangerous purity cycle brother. Lord have mercy
@@arc7gamingRestorationist usually refers to the 2nd great awakening restoration movement, or more specifically the churches of Christ (as the other groups like jw are heretical). It's a fair question to ask whether evagelical eccelesiology is similar to anabaptists, but "restorationist" already has a different meaning.
The issue with your explanation is that it starts to lack when you ask questions: If the issue with Evangelical churches is that they start out of nowhere, does that mean they'd be protestant if they simply stuck around until they got kicked out? If a church switches from the mainline protestant denomination to a newer evangelical one, does it stop being protestant? And biggest question is, "why is it okay specifically when these people do it, but suddenly it's not okay to split off when other people do?"
Reading this comment section and then trying to imagine protestants and other non apostolic uniting their nation under one banner. This reinforces my theory that any attempt to unite protestants of whatever variety will just lead to more intense splintering as every single theological opinion is going to want to be the tip of the spear so to speak. Semper reformanda and all of that.
So by Zoomer's definition the evangelical wing of the Church of England isn't evangelical, and neither are those non-denominational denominations which have roots in, for example, a baptist denomination.
If the title “Protestant” can only be rightly applied to churches which directly and formally succeed from the Magisterial Reformation, then it follows the title Christian can only be rightly applied to churches which affirm and continue formal apostolic succession. As a Presbyterian, if I’m not mistaken, you cannot affirm apostolic succession, unless you affirm it as succession of true doctrine rather than succession of individual bishops.
There's a saying in Brazil that says: an ugly child has no parents. Meaning, no one wants to be responsible for a bad outcome. Trying to distance protestantism from evangelicalism is one such case. Evangelicalism is just the tail end development of protestantism. It is the ideals of the reformation taken to its logical extremes. One can't simply disavow it now because they "weren't there" from the beginning.
Judging by the comments, it seems to have worked. To those wishing he would call them something other than evangelicals, may I recommend the TMBH video on that word? Look up "TMBH evangelical" or "matt whitman evangelical".
@@lectorintellegat Very. I generally like RZ, despite disagreements (I don't believe evolution is consistent with a biblical view of origins) but he seems to be devoted to spreading the message of Christ. But he's been really been cynical towards those that lean Evangelical.
@@lectorintellegat Bro you don’t like anything about our historical Protestant beliefs or heritage, what on Earth motivates you to try to leach on to our label to describe your different beliefs?! It’s frankly creepy.
Well, you admit being an elitist. I think that explains a lot of the positions you take here. Anyways, I don't think there are many churches that agree they were started by a random guy who said this is the way christianity should be. I also think that that is an accusation that is easy to throw around against basically anybody. To prove it is a totally different proposition. God is the judge of these matters.
So if someone calls him or herself, Roman Catholic but supports literally everything that goes against Roman Catholicism is that person still Roman Catholic? .
@ except there’s no such thing as thousands of protestant denominations even honest Roman Catholics admitted this like the national Catholic register .
@@memesouls8653 just because someone calls him or herself protestant does not make that person Protestant just like someone call him or herself Roman Catholic does not make that person Roman Catholic . you can’t just claim to be part of a certain group & at the same time literally support & believe in things that goes against everything that group stands for . That’s like someone calling him or herself Muslim but supports eating pork & drinking alcohol it contradicts each other .
People who dont like Protestants want to lump them together. Makes it easier to attack. Magisterial Protestantism has been fighting this two front war against Romans and Anabaptists since the beginning.
True, was the world created in 6000 years, how about 10,000, how about a million? Is the bible ENTIRELY inerrant? Did evolution create the animals? How about the human body? Do you accept female priests/pastors/preachers? How about gays/lesbians? Can [insert a denomination that is different from yours] get to heaven? How about moral muslims? Ok maybe that's too much:)))
As a non-denom in a decade old church, please don't call me evangelical. We don't know what we are, but I get the vibe we're trying to reinvent Orthodox. Check back in after 30 years when we schism from ourselves.
As far as I’m aware, Time has never been a factor in drawing lines between denominations, so why do it now? I would argue that theology is the main issue, and while Historic Protestantism does have some differences to Modern Evangelicalism, I do not believe they are big enough to constitute an outright rejection from Protestantism.
Evangelicals just believe in worshipping jesus in spirit and in truth like jesus proscribed, "God is Spirit and he must be worshipped in spirit and in truth", this barebones approach leaves the churches looking unremarkable, but their inner temple is full of peace from true spiritual relationship with God. Naturally because of this barebones approach, there are many evangelicals in other denominations who see The Holy Spirit as a sifting mechanism for their churches and so they agree on the primacy of evangelism.
Man's just invented apostolic Protestantism. While I agree with pretty much all of his complaints about evangelicals, as an evangelical myself (kinda, the EFCA isn't just a random nondenom church, but still) wouldn't leaving my church for a different one be doing exactly what got all the mainline churches in trouble? Why are the trad-Protestant churches worth reconquering but not evangelical churches? I'm sorry, I love your videos & your mission but this just seems hypocritical
Facts I think we should try to retake the mainline but also influence non-denominational churches to become more traditional Protestant as well. I’ve seen multiple nondenominational churches become more traditional Protestant, I don’t think they’re a lost cause
If you accept Apostolic succession and having continuity with the early church of the apostles as important why in the fuck would anyone be protestant when there's a Catholic or Orthodox church next door. As much as historical protestants try to claim continuity with the early church, they can never have more claim to continuity than the Catholics and Orthodox do.
Man this is further division, i absolutely hate this, i am perfectly fine with calling out false teachers because they give Christ a bad name but this just goes further beyond the call of pointing out false preaching... this entire comment sections nearly unanimously agrees that hey this type of video just isn't right man, we affirm the solas.
Bro didn't even bring up the Bebbington Quadrilateral... please do more research on what Evangelicalism actually is. It's not just any church that popped up after the Reformation, it's a set of principles emphasized within Protestantism.
So ultimately the only difference between your definition of "Protestantism" and "Evangelicalism" is temporal, I mean, of a sequence of events as arbitrarily chosen from an spectrum of time and place. But, essentially, there is no difference between both categories besides cultural (again, temporal) influence, and there is no arguments possible to refute a new denomination to be born, if it is made by people following their conscience on truth by reforming previous churches or ideas. Quoting Martin Luther: "Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason-I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other-my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen." To Protestantism be consistent, the same ideals should apply forever.
Non-denominationals, Pentecostals, and Evangelicals are 1900s denominations. Protestantism is 1517-1630 maybe 1400s when including Hussites/Moravians. Exclusively magisterial reformation which is protestant not radical reformation which is baptist/Anabaptist. Only state churches with intrinsic extreme theology matters on nitty gritties are Protestant. Hussites, Calvinists, Lutherans, and Anglicans. No i won't mention the Waldensians from the 1200s because they all became apart of the Calvinist tradition. Baptists and Anabaptists come from the radical reformation, thee end, not magisterial reformation who are protestant. Jehovah's witnesses, Adventists, Mormons, Messianic Judaism, Holiness groups, Quakers, Churches of Christ, Pentecostals and Non-denominationals all came later in the various awakening movements or elsewhere. The strictest definition ever needs to define protestant by looking at origins, differences, similarities and common or disparate origins. I can say this, Protestantism is true! Anglicans, Calvinists, Lutherans, Hussites. I purposely failed to mention Methodist and Pietist because I don't know what to think about them. Offshoots of Anglicanism and Lutheranism. The Protestants regurgitate and inherit and claim thousands of Catholic theologians circa 1054-1517 we use various Catholic laws, and theologians we agree with, and we use hundreds of universities, hospitals, churches and other institutions we inherited from the Catholic Church. Not build from scratch. We have forerunners and theologically proto-protestant movements circa 100-1054 as well. And if we disagree with a particular group we call them heretics. I seen Gnostics, Docetists, Donatists, Arians, etc. Claimed by Baptists, or various evangelical groups, either in their ignorance or falsified agenda.
@TheSignofJonah777 your silly. Anabaptists aren't protestant because they were radical reformation not magisterial reformation, And the Waldensian church actually joined the Reformed Calvinist communion. We have letters from the Waldensian clergy submitting to the conventions of John Calvin and they use the Helvetic and Belgic confessions.
@TheSignofJonah777 "When the news of the Reformation reached the Waldensian Valleys, the Tavola Valdese decided to seek fellowship with the nascent Protestantism. At a meeting held in 1526 in Laus, a town in the Chisone valley, it was decided to send envoys to examine the new movement. In 1532, they met with German and Swiss Protestants and ultimately adapted their beliefs to those of the Reformed Church. The Swiss and French Reformed churches sent William Farel and Anthony Saunier to attend the meeting of Chanforan, which convened on 12 October 1532. Farel invited them to join the Reformation and to emerge from secrecy. A Confession of Faith, with Reformed doctrines, was formulated and the Waldensians decided to worship openly in French. The French Bible, translated by Pierre Robert Olivétan with the help of Calvin and published at Neuchâtel in 1535, was based in part on a New Testament in the Waldensian vernacular. The churches in Waldensia collected 1500 gold crowns to cover the cost of its publication" source - wiki Citation - "history of the Waldensians" 1888 by Wylie J. A
Linguistic prescriptivism? We can talk about church history all we want, but a very common usage of "protestant" is just non-Catholic/Orthodox. Saying something like "*historically* protestant" is far more helpful.
@maxxiong or we shouldn't become lazy like we did in the 1900s catch all terming everything THAT DID NOT HAPPEN in the 1800s and centuries prior. If a new religious movement came today. They aren't protestant. Deal with it. Different theology, deal with it, different origins, deal with it, therefore different labels. With a repetitious as I already have said, deal with it.
As a Catholic I find this video to be genuinely hilarious, not because Zoomer is wrong, but because he’s actually right. He put a fair case forward for why it’s important to make a category definition between Protestantism and Evangelicals/ Non-Denoms that I actually found to be quite thoughtful. In saying that, he did no whilst once again having a video that was riddled with Presbyterian presuppositions and contradictions that made me predictably roll my eyes and think “just become Catholic dude, all this running after your tail to try uphold your shaky ground position is exhausting”
Mr. Zoomer, I like your content and admire your zeal for taking back mainline churches. You're no doubt aware, and likely take pride in the fact, that your perspective is very unapologetically that of a New Englander. Christian charity compells me to say, New England is a very fine part of America (i suppose😂), but you must admit it's also one of the most priviledged and wealthy parts of America, where it's easy to have institutions and tradition dating back centuries. Down here in the south, there's tons of evangelical "non denominatial" churches (at least in name and worship style), but if you look at the fine print, they're actually SBC or United Methodist. So, the idea that all the evangelical churches are brand new, recently made up, backyard institutions and are better called "miscellaneous christianity" and not protestant, doesnt ring true to me, at least for my corner of the country. Maybe your characterization is true in California where wacky new religions form all the time, but the southeast, is a place of strong traditions, if not strong institutions (because $). The south has historically been poorer, racially divided, and doesnt have as many ancient, fancy, architecturally-traditional churches. Where they do exist, sometimes they're not where the population is anymore, or they're run down, or they're too small, or they're dying out because they remained stuck in their ways (and im not talking in good ways, like remaining theologically conservative, im talking bad ways, like racism). And while I know that churches building ugly metal buildings, or meeting in stripmalls, etc., is abhorrent to your traditional asthetic, I must say its the inevitable consequence of a thrifty people trying to best serve a growing church, the body of Christ. I come from a tradition where historically, many come to Christ in outdoor tent revivals, where people are baptised in the river. It was good enough for Jesus, good enough for us. Just something to keep in mind maybe, while you're putting down the sheet metal buildings, soundstages, and bathtub baptismals of the stereotypiclal evangelical non-denominational. Sure maybe its trendy and cliche and some people are there with weird motivations. But for some of us, we're just there because we love Jesus, and it's a previously unobtainable luxury to have even these things you consider ugly. I imagine (but dont know for certain having no personal experience) that this is equally true in areas like Africa where the church is theologically conservative, and growing, but poor. This state of affairs could be construed as a sign of historic poverty, but I think you often intone a less charitable conclusion, that its from a backward predisposition to reject all tradititonal institutions....
Evangelicalism is more of a pan-demoninational movement than a denomination itself. The question of if it is Protestant or not would probably best be answered "yes and no" or "it depends."
I feel like defining Protestant churches as those who come from the Protestant Reformation makes sense on its face, but that definiton leaves out a lot of churches who share 75-90% of Protestant beliefs.
RZ enchant your tools/armor PLEASE! You need feather falling especially. Watching you take fall damage every 3 seconds and eat 14 carrots is killing me.
Redeemed Zoomer, please change the way you talk about “evangelical churches”. You seem to enjoy belittling them and constantly present straw man arguments when talking about them. This is not right and it is causing further division in the Church. Here are four points I just want to make. 1. Many if not most of these newer denominations can track their history directly from historic Protestant denominations. I don’t know if I understand why you consider the Methodists to be Protestant and other denominations not to be. They both started way after the Reformations beginning, and they both broke off from older Protestant denominations. So please stop mischaracterizing newer denominations as starting in someone’s back yard. 2. Stop using that accent when referring to newer denominations. It’s an offensive stereotype which is definitely not helpful and likely is harmful for the cause of Christian unity. That stereotype belittles Christians from the South by displaying them as uneducated and gullible. 3. Newer denominations often do work together and are in a sense “in communion” with one another. They may not technically be organized together, but they often joyfully work together in ministry. 4. Please also stop being so blanketing with how you criticize modern worship music. Sure there are songs to criticize, but there is no need to criticize them all at once. People enjoy music differently than others. There’s nothing wrong with that. There also isn’t anything inherently wrong with churches (like Calvery Chapel) presenting themselves in a way through music that is welcoming to certain demographics. Please keep in mind that all old hymns were once brand new. Also songs can totally get emotional. I know you’ve read the Psalms. Please continue to call out heresy and share your personal convictions. But please just stop with these thoughtless accusations and assertions that belittle God’s beloved children.
He is young, and often makes mistakes, but at the very least non-denominational churches are not Protestant. By their own form of self-identification they refuse affiliation. There are just a few historic Protestant denominations and reform movements. Most of the newer denominations are reboot movements, who don't quite understand the historic issues with Rome. Are they Sola Scriptura? Maybe, but that also depends on the church. Are they reform movements? No, they're more like reboot movements which reject all tradition and just decided to start over from scratch.
@@ivorkovac303 Things definitely get a bit more complicated with non-denominational churches because of the potential variety of beliefs, but a large portion of them seem to just be Baptist or Pentecostal. I’d push back that it would be impossible for them to be considered Protestant for a few reasons. 1. Many of them can still trace their history back to Protestantism. They weren’t created in a vacuum. They may be the result of a church split from a denomination or they simply left their previous denomination. 2. They still would affirm Protestant beliefs which I think is what’s most important in labeling a church as Protestant or not. 3. Regarding a point you made, “Protestantism” isn’t a denomination. So labeling yourself as “non-denominational” wouldn’t automatically mean you’re not Protestant. I definitely think that non-denominational churches have many of their own issues to still deal with as while there may be some marketing and local decision making benefits, there definitely are many disadvantages. They need our prayers.
Zoomer, sometimes your videos are great, sometimes they miss the mark. This one missed the mark. You can't claim some protestants aren't protestant because you don't like how they protestant. That's not how it works. Like it or not, Evangelicals are part of the Protestant branch of Christianity, even the non-denominationals.
As an Evangelical I'm completely fine with not being labelled as Protestant. I'm happy to just follow the Bible and the leading of the Holy Spirit. I don't need to learn from the fathers of Protestants or Catholics to know God.
Hey Zoomer, I started reading Nevin’s “The Mystical Presence” due to your recommendation. It’s really fascinating and has greatly strengthened my understanding of the reformed view of the Eucharist.
A person who leaves Protestant/evangelical denoms for RC or EO is just as subjective. The traditionalists just pretend they aren't being subjective because they agree with somebody who claims absolute authority. The decision to stay in RC or Ortho is also pretending that it isn't a subjective decision. It is impossible to make a decision that isn't subjective, unless you're talking about deciding whether or not 2+2=4.
Orthodix to Catholic: Hey you can't change Christianity! Catholics to Prodestants: Hey you can't change Christianity! Prodestant to other Prodestant: Hey you can't change Christianity! Ect. ect.
Catholics do not come from Orthodox. The East and West split up. The bishops excommunicated each other. Same for the Orientals and Assyrians. Groups of Bishops in different territories just stopped communing with each other. None came before the other.
Perhaps because there is a continued detachment from institutions, we have evangelicals who don't hold to old creeds, baptists who don't hold to the 1689 confession, and Christians who hate authority.
Would it be fair to say (using this argument) that the Methodists are not protestant then? due to the fact that the non-denominational churches split from Baptists and anabaptists just as the Methodists did from Anglicans?
The Methodist in the USA were called the Methodist Episcopal Church until 1939. John Wesley died an Anglican Priest in the Church of England. He never intended to start a new denomination. just revive the Anglican Church. Methodists have considered themselves Protestant and Episcopal from the beginning. Interestingly enough most Baptist I know claim they aren't Protestants. They like to tell me they didn't protest anything.
I see the vocabulary as a bit off. I think we’re all Protestant. However I think there’s a difference between classical Protestant and evangelical Protestant mostly centered around the worship style and the place that sacraments have in the church. So long as they affirm the creeds and baptism and lord’s supper it’s pretty good actually.
Bro, you’re wicked smart and I admire your passion. But if think you need some refinement and mellowing. Have you considered seminary like RTS to put some meat on those bones???
"The king was literally catholic but he was kicked out from the church" Why? Why was he kicked out? Oh right, he wanted to be able to divorce. Not very Catholic I'd assume.
as Soon as we get a different pope id consider converting. depending on the church its more like Inter-denomination, like mine still does commuion fasting baptist and some other essential practices that some mega-church type places dont. Though denominations arent even a thing biblically. We can try to chase the "true" church but if the thief on the cross got to heaven I think we'll be fine.
@@addman1952 You shouldn't decide on whether you should become Catholic based solely on who the Pope is. Instead of thinking about the next Pope pray for the current one!
@DanteRizzolini I cant pray for someone meant to be infallible when hes so clearly lost. "All Religions are pathways to reach God" -Pope Francis "-No man comes to the father except through me" -Jesus Christ I think ill wait for a different pope. Because if the next one is worse id rather him not drag me down spiritually. Though you have a better attitude about than me ✝️👍
Evangelicals believe in Inerrancy of Scripture, a Born Again Experience, and the Great Commision. RZ usually just says its a non denominational mega church. He needs to google what evangelical is😂
Hey Zoomer I wanted to ask, what is with the Moravian Chruches, that are descended from Jan Hus, aren't they Protestant or have you just forgotten them?
They were Protestant before the reformation even happened, soooo, theologically I would say yes but chronologically no? Much like history and church politics its a bit messy.
Do you believe baptism saves ? That Infant can be baptized ? That Jesus is truly present in communion ? These beliefs are absent from traditions that emerged in the awakenings from the 19th and 20th centuries.
I believe that the 40,000 is 4,000. In the early 2000's, the number was 23,000. But a mistake was made, and the comma got moved. So, it was 2,300, I was told.
Why aren’t they? Not enough historical buildings and universities for your liking? The entire premise is utterly ridiculous man. You take this stuff too far.
I think he meant the TULIP terms specifically. And I do think "limited atonement" is not a good summary, as most take it to exclude hypotehtical universalism as an option, even though some at Dort affirmed that (I'd go as far as saying denying Christ died for all in some sense removes any objective ground for assurance).
I believe one way to express this idea without using a comparison between "evangelicals" and "protestants" would be: Churches that care about the catholicity (a term that is not related to the Catholic Roman Church) of the historic church and those that do not look for that because they want to be apart as possible from anything related to the Roman Catholic church. This a term I lernt from the book "The Drama of Doctrine" written by Kevin Vanhoozer. There are TH-cam videos where he talks about this topic.
Nah, it has its own origin in The judeobaptist hypotheses of James Nelson Darby and C.I. Scofield and Hagee almost from scratch, but really more like a branch of phariseeical... Stuff I can't mention apparently.
100% wrong Evangelicalism has nothing to do with protestantism & it does not come from the protestant reformation . Evangelicalism came from the radical revolution aka the radical “reformation” which is led by Servet, Marpeck, Schlatter, Joris, and the best known Menno Simon and Fausto Socin not Martin Luther . Protestants believe in the true presence of the Eucharist , they don’t . Protestants believe & follow sacred tradition , they don’t . Protestants believe & follow the church fathers , they don’t. Protestants believe in the sacraments in general especially infant baptism , they don’t , protestants believe in the Marian Dogmas , they don’t etc . They don’t even have the same 5 Sola’s as protestants do .
@@VndNvwYvvSvv my evangelical church comes from a babtist group of churches that believed that only baptists will be saved, so a division occurred. i have read the origins of my church and nowhere did it mention any of that. maybe there was one evangelical chuch with that origin idk.
@ Die evangelische Kirche ist dasselbe wie die protestantische Kirche. Es sind synonyme, die Evangeliken sind einer der protestantischen Kirchen bzw. Strömungen. Bspw. heißt die Kirche in meiner naehe Evangelische-Luther Kirche
I knew there was a very nice traditional and confesional Presbyterian church in my town, but i didn't realize how many of them exist until I saw your map and I did some research. I am so jealous because the Lutheran churches that are beautiful and traditional are borderline heretical here. While most of the churches of the confesional branch are very small.
You seem ignorant of Evangelical churches. They have the same beliefs and practices of all Protestant churches. Adherence to the 5 Solas, Baptizing believers, Communion often, some even believe in the real presence, altar calls and prayer in every service, significant focus on bible study and literacy, small group fellowships called lifegroups. They practice the charismatic supernatural gifts, But most evangelical churches place evangelism at the center of there mission. You Redeemed Zoomer sound like a religious person. I enjoy your content but Pentacostal/Charismatic churches are the fastest growing demographic within the Christian religion because of their focus on leading people to Jesus and discipling them. 400 million evangelicals worldwide
@MarkStein-o7uAccording to many Christian perspectives, Christians should not be solely focused on "being religious" in the sense of following strict rules and rituals, but rather should prioritize a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ, which is often described as being more about a "relationship" than a set of religious practices; therefore, while being Christian inherently involves religious belief, the emphasis is on a deeper connection with God rather than just adhering to outward religious acts. I am in the Assembly of God denomination
Traditional Protestant churches don't have altar calls and don't practice charismatic gifts. Most also are willing to baptize infants. (That said, I definitely have a bit more positive view than Zoomer seems to-lots of Christians there that I can respect, even if I much prefer traditional Protestantism.)
@MarkStein-o7u To be fair religion doesn’t actually have a single clear definition. It is something that is notoriously hard to define. So technically neither side is right or wrong in this case.
I think this may be painting with too broad of a brush. I’ve spent most of my life in a evangelical Presbyterian church and it has a higher church view than any other church I have attended. We sang hymns, the pastor said benedictions, and said liturgy. It did not have a focus on emotions and definitely no smoke and lights. I understood that we were evangelical because we focused on evangelizing.
Something to consider since many Southern Baptists and American Baptists consider themselves to be evangelical: evangelical comes from the Greek word for to bring good news. Thus, evangelicals and those who identify as evangelicals see it as vitally important to share the gospel. This can easily be taken to an extreme, however, when one compromises one's own doctrines for the sake of sharing the Gospel. Essentially, I think your problem with nondenominational churches could be solved with dialogue, especially encouragement to hold fast to orthodoxy and to not compromise in the name of evangelism. All of that to say, you have a large platform on the internet and a great amount of influence. Be careful that you do not push away those who have a love and a desire to spread the Word of God and bring it to the nations by speaking poorly of those who desire to do so. Inspire people to spread the Good News, but also to ensure that their own church is able to be the salt and light that our Lord Jesus Christ has called us to be by fighting the corruption of our sinful flesh. Apologies for the rant, God bless.
Actually those who are leaving protestantism are leaving magesterial/reformed the most if you look at the polls (this includes more conservative forms)
Strange. What I heard so far is that every "Protestants" historically were identical to Evangelicals (in contrast to "Catholic" which increasingly viewed as "Papal" or "Romish"). Evangelicals are Protestants, and Protestants are Evangelicals until emergence of Modernist Liberalism in 19th century and early 20th century. Then those who maintained "fidelity" to (Reformers view of) the Bible became fundamentalist, which due to being viewed as too isolationist, literalist, and exclusivist, and triggered some sort of "moderation" within it which we then dub "Evangelicalism" in contemporary sense Instead, RZ proposed a distinction between "Confessional" and "Evangelical" (in contemporary senses) as if there are confessional churches within older mainline churches and outside contemporary evangelicalism which he sees as "non-denominationals"
You know Richard Burnett taught at Gordon Conwell right? I'm not saying the statistic is correct but you didn't mention that it's actually one of the based seminaries.
One note on the congregationalist. If I remember correctly they were a group that believed in a called out chruch and not a national one. By that I mean instead of being born into the english church because one was born English, one choose to join the church because they took their faith seriously.
For someone who claims to value ecumenicalism so much, you are extremely derisive toward your brethren who don't ascribe to your personal beliefs. It seems you're making no effort to understand nondenoms and what we actually believe. Those of us who have thought out our beliefs have real reasons to not put ourselves and our families under the teaching of traditional denominations. Would love to have a conversation with you about it sometime.
I'm not gonna watch this so can anyone tell me if he's just being narrow-minded, cynical, and arrogant again or does he make actual good points this time?
Well, I haven't gotten around to watching the full thing yet, but I figured the comment section would be fun. I was right, and he certainly made a salt mine. This also seems to be one of those videos where what you think about the arguments therein will depend entirely on your preexisting opinions on the topic.
Well Lutherans, the Reformed, and Anglicans believe in Christ's true presence in the Eucharist. It's a small segment of the church that adopts a Zwinglian view.
Sorry RZ, but the logic fails simply because "Protestant" is not a denomination. It's obvious why you would want to institutionalize it, but the best definition of "protestant" is what Gavin explains in his "5 Minute Case For Protestantism" video: Simply any church within orthodoxy that doesn't claim to be the "one true church." This is a good example of how your institutional zeal is (ironically) drawing more lines and engendering more division.
RZ is right. What happens is that we normally call churches like Lutheran, Anglican and Presbyterian "Historical Protestant" and we call the others just "Protestant". However, since Protestantism is a historical movement and not just "an abstract idea", it is clear that only historic Protestant churches are in fact Protestant.
As a catholic I would argue Protestanism is the rejection of the Church as an institution (both orthodox and catholic)
@@NajmilleNo what you described is evangelicalism not Protestantism.
Remember guys, the most important thing is that we keep dividing Christians over every single disagreement. That way people have an easier time going to Hades :{D
I can see where you're coming from, but there's a reason the vast majority of the comments (who are almost entirely protestant) disagree with you and him. The Protestant reformation directly caused the existence of the denominations which you would term as evangelical. The underlying idea behind the Protestant reformation was that the traditions of the Church can be questioned or even overruled by one's own interpretation of scripture. This is exactly what the "Radical Reformation" and other movements like Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals etc. did to the "Historic Protestants" and it's what the Non-Denom/Evangelicals have done to those movements (or they did it to Protestantism in general in the case of Non-Denom lol). Not to mention the SDAs, JWs etc.. Your point kinda divorces historical movements from the abstract ideas that *cause* them.
Evangelical and non-denoms are also clearly descendants of that movement as well though. It doesn't make sense to draw an arbitrary line based on this institutionally-based thinking.
Do you ever worry that you might be becoming too concerned with all the issues that divide protestants Catholics and non-denominational Christians and not concerned enough on the message of the Bible? On the work Jesus did? Sometimes I worry about that for you. I started down that path and it's definitely not what Jesus wants
This isn't a saying that there are not issues that need to be pointed out, like if a denomination does not affirm the Trinity, they don't believe that Jesus is actually God, that's a big issue and I would not consider them Christian. But sometimes I feel like you get too hung up on worship style, what creed's a denomination affirms, things that really shouldn't divide us in the slightest
I say this all out of deep appreciation for what you do. You bring biblical truths to a lot of people who might not want to sit through a 45 minute long discussion with other TH-cam channels. I just don't wanna see you become jaded at all against your fellow brothers and sister sisters
I agree!
@ I used to enjoy this channel and watch it literally every day but I noticed I was becoming cynical towards any other denomination that wasn't mine. Too focused on the gaps and not on what unit us in Christ
This is how I feel about myself
I can’t speak for redeemed zoomer here but I know it’s messing with my faith
Do I become Catholic because they were first, do stick with my nondenominational church because I don’t really fit anywhere on the Christian spectrum
Or do I just do my own thing and try to follow Jesus the best way I can
I don’t know
What I can say that’s helped me a little bit mentally as of late is a quote someone said online
“If I’m at the gates of heaven and Jesus won’t let me in because I chose the wrong kind of Christianity, then I can take solace in the fact that he is a good, and perfect judge”
It was a powerful statement and I’ve commented it before on other videos
^^^
I agree! Richard please be cautious
If you don’t like evangelicalism that’s fine but it’s clearly Protestant. I like Zoomer, but he tends to redefine things by his own extremely narrow terms to suit his argument.
It is not Protestant. To be Protestant, the "protest" part is kinda important, don't you think? It's the main part of the word. To be protestant, you either have to be, or come from a group started as a protest against corruption in the Catholic Church.
Can't be protestant if you didn't protest during the Reformation..
So no refutation for any of his arguments? Just “no?”
@@BXAC23 It is indeed Protestant. I am saying this as Reformed Christian who most closely alligns with the Presbyterian Denomination. Evangelicals are undeniably Protestant. They do indeed "protest" the Catholic Church as they are Christians who don't subscribe to that church but do believe in Jesus as the savior. I wouldn't say that being one of the original protesting groups is what defines you as protestant. Furthermore, even if it did, Baptists have their roots of faith with the Anabaptists who were indeed a protesting group from the beginning of the reformation. All in all, Evangelicals still believe that The Bible has more authority than the church, Salvation is by faith alone through grace alone, and don't believe in Catholic practices like transubstantiation, purgatory, confession, prayer to saints and Mary, etc.
I'm not at all saying this just to start an argument or to say I disagree merely to disagree. But it does frustrate me to see my Evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ being labeled as "Not protestant" because I really believe they are
@@joshandleahulmer9220 Not all Baptists are evangelical. I'm a mainline ABCUSA Baptist, and far from evangelical. Also, we don't come from anabaptists. We come directly from the Chruch of England, with some influence from the anabaptists and puritans.
The most I'll give Evangelicals is they're Protestants who Protestant too hard.
I remember a video where he said that protestant means the bible is more important than the church and thats the definition...
That was before he realized the disastrous consequences of the protestant revolution.
Accruate and true. Catholic heap mountains of church-based dogma ontop of the Bible.
Philip Scaff made the same point as RZ, it is not like this a new problem or just something he has dreamed up.
Reform was never meant to mean revolution or restoration.
While accepting the new testament books that the church accepted as canon rather than some gnostic gospels and the other writings floating around at the time.
Yes. The Bible is, indeed, more important than the denominational branding.
In my country, Argentina, we call Protestants as "Evangélicos" indistintly.
Literally, there are 7 protestant churces less than 100m/300ft from my house and the most say "Iglesia Evangélica..." (... Evangelical church).
In the Caribbean they call themselves "Cristianos" as if Catholics aren't Christians.
@@kevinfromsales9445didn’t Jesus tell us to call ourselves that
In Brazil, it's also used indistintly
@@Carlos_1946Yes and that's the problem.
i wanna live in a place with that many churches...
If we're defining terms right, we need to also define Evangelical correctly. Protestant denominations like Lutherans, Anglicans, and others can be evangelical and use the term to define themselves. For example, the Evangelical Church of Germany is a combination of the Reformed and Lutheran churches in Germany. These aren't "evangelical" as you describe it; you're using evangelical to refer to non-denominational. If you look at the churches part of the World Evangelical Alliance, this includes plenty of churches that are very clearly Protestant. There are 600 million Christians part of a denomination part of the World Evangelical Alliance. This would quite literally include the majority of Protestants in the world, including a lot if not most of the Methodists, Reformed, Lutherans and the other seven Protestant denominations in the world.
If you want to use a term to refer to low church non-denominationals who don't see themselves as a continuation of the Catholic Church, you need a new term for them other than Evangelical, because many of those Protestant churches still call themselves Evangelical and are part of the World Evangelical Alliance while the low church non-denominationals are typically not part of the World Evangelical Alliance. Call them Renewalists or Revivalists or something else that actually describes their position and theology, aka churches that are seeking to transcend denominational barriers and don't see a heritage in the Catholic Church, often believing in a Great Apostasy that took place when Rome converted. To call all these churches evangelical and seperate the term evangelical from Protestant history does a disservice to both because Evangelical definitionally just means preaching and prioritizing the Gospel, which most Protestant churches are still doing.
Totally agree 💯
This is an excellent point. Many would call the PCA evangelical, and Zoomer would certainly call it Protestant. Even if it is granted that non-denominationals are not Protestant, evangelicalism is simply too imprecise a term that is used to refer to so many things.
Maybe Restorationalism? IDK.
well said
Great point. I’ve personally fallen into this and I appreciate the call out!
@tianming4964 technically all churches do this, the reason why low church are more prone to be called evangelical is because they are more likely to do it concerning various situations.
This literally just theological " im not Ike other girls*
The Romans and Radical Reformers have been fighting the Magisterial traditions since day 1. This is hardly a new issue, wars were fought it...
RZ is just a fake Christian who attacks Protestants to get validation from Catholics and Orthodox.
Glad to see so many calling out Zoomer on his theological gatekeeping and Pharisaic views on what makes a “true Protestant.”
With all this infighting, I can’t understand why people are running in droves to the apostolic churches/s
One schismatic telling other schismatics, who schismed from his schismatic movement, that he amongst others gets to claim OG schismatic status
"I'm not here to insult anyone's denomination", spends 10 minutes insulting various denominations.
I think that instead of trying to say that "these churches aren't protestant", we should instead label certain churches "magisterial reformation churches". This not only is more descriptive, it doesn't break the way that *almost everyone* uses the term protestant!
Saying that non-denom churches aren't in some way connected to the Protestant reformation is completely ahistorical. You yourself have previously stated that most of those churches come from a mixture of the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement, Particular Baptists, and Anabaptists. At least 2/3 of those are *definitely* downstream of the magisterial reformation. (I would also argue the Anabaptist are just a more radical splinter from the reformation, which sprang up at around the same time (almost like there was a general protest going on around that time). 95% of these non-denom churches you are talking about would affirm the Filioque and the contents of the early church creeds (even if they won't necessarily adopt them fully), is that in itself not evidence that they are downstream of Roman Catholicism? Also the people that start these new churches come from a tradition (hint it's not EO or directly RC), so at what point are they not protestant any more?
Snowflake rant. How’s he insulting
@@Brainboxreview If RZ gets to be hyperbolic, so do I.
Also, you didn't at all respond to any of my actual criticisms.
RZ is right. What happens is that we normally call churches like Lutheran, Anglican and Presbyterian "Historical Protestant" and we call the others just "Protestant". However, since Protestantism is a historical movement and not just "an abstract idea", it is clear that only historic Protestant churches are in fact Protestant.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Okay, I'll bite. What is the delineation between protestant and this new category of "evangelical protestant"? It's pretty clearly not *just* what time they started, so there is *some* element of doctrine involved. You clearly don't think that heritage from an existing protestant denomination is enough, so what is it? Are Methodists not protestant by your definition, then why, (or why not) Pentecostals? Particular Baptists seem to be protestant by RZ's definition, then why not the non-denom churches that are Particular Baptist in almost everything but name (and are often associated with them in some way)?
Hmm, you also sound like you're making fair points on the matter.
Idk, I'm Catholic.
This is etymologically and historically illiterate. The magisterials claimed the title of evangelical, and the Protestant label was given initially as an insult for all dissenting from Rome.
Not just this, but there’s an extremely parochial definition in play here - ‘evangelical’ developed its own connotations in the states as distinct from the UK and the continent. If zoomer has his own American-centric reasons for disliking the mega churches, fine: but let’s not pretend that (say) the free churches of England aren’t Protestant. What nonsense.
The origin of the word "Protestant" comes from the fact that the Protestants presented a letter of protestation and the first diet of Speyer. Back then, the word did not mean what people today think it does.
RZ is just a fake Christian who attacks Protestants to get validation from Catholics and Orthodox.
As an Englishman I agree.
Out of interest, what did it mean back then? Was the specific protestation you mentioned limited to the time or an expression of what they were doing? I.e. were they Protestants because they had protested (in the original sense) at that time, or because they were protesting something in general?
And would you say that protestants are still unified in protesting one thing (in the original sense of the word)?
@@peterholden2016 Today, we generally think of protest as arguing against something. In the 1500's, it only meant to argue in favor of something. We still have this usage in some contexts, but it is definitely a secondary meaning nowadays. Consider the sentence, "The defendant protested his innocence." The defendant is not arguing against his innocence, but in favor of it. Likewise, the primary thrust of the Protestant claims was that their own theology was correct. Any argument against Catholicism was only incidental, in that where Protestant and Catholic doctrines disagree, the Protestants would naturally favor their own interpretation of things--but their main goal was not to stand in opposition to Catholicism simply because it is Catholic. Their main goal was to promote their own ideas.
Protestant denominations are still unified in the sense that each denomination protests the accuracy of their own theological interpretations. The are disunified in the sense that, since they don't all preach the same message any more, they're no longer all protesting for the exact same thing.
Seems needlessly pedantic. Logic does not dictate the meaning of a word, only usage does. If you purposefully choose to use a word differently then the majority of other people do, you are causing the confusion not they.
That can't be true in every case. Defintions and usage are both necessary for language to be possible. If there were never meanings assigned by defintional fiat at some point in every language's history, language would not even exist.
So: Evangelicals are NOT Protestant, but Baptists ARE.
Most Baptists are categorized as Evangelical.
You need to sort this out. I suggest you visit as many Baptist Churches as possible.
Most American Evangelical churches are offshoots of Baptists. That is what Calvary Chapel is.
There are a lot of historical Baptist churches and particular Baptist churches came from the reformation. You could consider Mennonites Protestant simply because they were the anabaptist
he means non-denoms
@ most non-denoms came out of the Baptist. American Baptist emphasizes independence and non-denoms goal is typically to be out of the “my denomination is best” argument.
@@Swiftninjatrevlook at any non-denom statement of faith. 9/10 are Baptists without the name.
As a former evangelical turned Episcopalian...I really have no problem saying that they're Protestant too. The only groups I would deem as non Protestant would be the Mormons and JWs, because once you've denied the Trinity, you've lost the right to call yourself Christian in any sense.
Evangelical here. You can't just gate keep Protestantism because we were't part of the "original departure" from Catholicism. We believe the same thing as any other Protestant. This discussion causes more division than unity
Evangelical what? Because the "Lutheran" church was really called the evangelical catholic church. To not define your denomination further, you're probably a Darby/Scofield/Hagee judeobaptist?
@VndNvwYvvSvv what does that even mean? All I know is that one of my main jobs is to spread the gospel to as many people as I possibly can. Evangelizing if you will
@@joshuahicks7798 What do you believe "True i-wordthatyputubewontletmesayhere" is? Is it the fulfillment in the body of believers in Jesus? Or the deniers?
Do you believe baptism saves? Do you believe real presence in communion? What creeds & confessions does your church use? Does your church emphasize sacredness in worship & a proper liturgy?
@@VndNvwYvvSvv I have no idea what you are even talking about
Now we are just arguing over word definitions.
Welcome to Philosophy
@ 😂
There's no argument. He's providing his definitive definition as the Super Pope™ of Protestantism.
@ I guess I forgot to bow down.
Well yeah that’s at the center of all theological discourse.
I disagree, and so do most Protestants
Why?
@@BXAC23 Because he sees Evangelicals as Protestant therefore their opinions count on whether Evangelicals are Protestant because they themselves see themselves as Protestant.
@ So if Evangelicals say they're protestant, that makes them Protestant?
@@BXAC23 According to them yeah. But to the Redeemed Zoomer most Protestants do not think Evangelicals are Protestant since Evangelicals are not Protestant they're opinion on Evangelicals being Protestant does not count with Protestants opinion on Evangelicals being Protestant.
@ protesting
So this is 28 minutes of the "No True Scottsman" falacy all because Zoomer dislikes evangelicals. Buddy shirked his "protestant apologist" role because he rightly recognized it was needlessly divisive towards our Eastern brother just so he could set his sights on fellow western churches. Lets hope he does like he did with the Baptists and eventually realize hes being needlessly harsh over unimportant matters.
They are western as being in the western hemisphere
There really is only 4 Protestant traditions though.
Hussites, Calvinists, Anglicans and Lutherans.
Everyone else comes from radical reformation, not protestant magisterial reformation, or from the great awakenings or from heretical movements etc.
The 4 Protestant traditions I mentioned agree more than disagree.
But we disagree more than agree with Baptists, Adventists, Mormons, or extinct heresies like Arians, Gnostics, Docetists, etc.
If your denomination wasn't a state movement from the 1500s-1600s you weren't referred to as protestant until the 1900s.
If Anglicanism wasn't a schizophrenic via media between Lutheranism, Catholicism and Calvinism,
And Martin Luther successfully united with the Hussites liked he planned,
Or if John Calvin and Melanthon unified sects, ideally there's only two protestant denomination. Reformed Christianity and Lutheranism. But there's four because Hussites and Anglicans.
I only get my theology from the Reformed because I'm a Reformed, and in house debate between Arminians and Calvinist I lean Calvinist but both are reformed, but sometimes burrow from Lutherans. I don't know anything about Hussites though.
And whatever Catholic and pre great schism theologian from 100-1054 and 1054-1517 whatever Catholic, Orthodox or Assyrian church of the east theologian the Protestants agree with.
The Restorationist, Great awakening denominations, and radical reformation, cannot be protestant,
Because they don't agree with Magisterial Reformers or don't come from that time period.
John Calvin, Martin Luther, Jan Hus, and England can gatekeep the term protestant, because we have been from the start. How can Baptists or Anabaptists be protestant? They separate from university, church and state. And they hate infant baptism and the were super individualistic.
Terms exist for a reason. Day one hour one second one minute one first use definition for Protestant exclusively refers to whom I listed.
@noahtylerpritchett2682 yeah it's not an incoherent definition by any means but it's clearly disconnected from the common parlance thus the falacious nature of it. The whole of what we call Protestantism still flows from the original reformation. Notice how evangelicals don't have bishops? Was their faith conceived in a vacuum? Of course not.
Yall are acting like a bunch of stupid reddit hipsters "we were protestant before it was cool" just to distance yourself from normies or theological opponents.
The reformation sought to reform the church. The churches that followed long after the original protestant reformation still adhere to these reforms. If the Modern evangelical isn't protestant, than neither are modern lutherans. Because guess what? None of yall were around when the reformation happened.
Like petulant street whelps insisting on who is "OG" just to put down the "young bloods" you don't respect. It's shifting the goal post. It's the no true scottsman fallacy
@noahtylerpritchett2682 Besides, you wanna tell me every synod of Lutheranism is adhering to the reformation? Really? The evangelicals are way closer than the Gay-pastor-ordaining lefties in some modern Lutheran synods. You're starting a dangerous purity cycle brother. Lord have mercy
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 real
😭 Zoomer’s lack of water bucket hurts my soul, i’ll be praying for your very cube legs
I looked and he does have one in his inventory. It’s just that it’s not in his hotbar.
Who needs water bucket, when you can't clutch?
Zoomer do be needing that water bucket like Gendo and Fuyutsuki when the power went out in that one episode of Evangelicalis-I mean, Evangelion.
Considering "Evangelical" can refer to different things, I tend to use the term "Revivalist" to refer to these Churches.
Neah Creationist churches sounds better, including the Baptists:)
Isn't restorationist the actual term?
@@arc7gaming revivalist isn't I believe, restorationist is.
@@arc7gamingRestorationist usually refers to the 2nd great awakening restoration movement, or more specifically the churches of Christ (as the other groups like jw are heretical).
It's a fair question to ask whether evagelical eccelesiology is similar to anabaptists, but "restorationist" already has a different meaning.
Hadn’t heard of that one tbh. That works too.
The issue with your explanation is that it starts to lack when you ask questions:
If the issue with Evangelical churches is that they start out of nowhere, does that mean they'd be protestant if they simply stuck around until they got kicked out?
If a church switches from the mainline protestant denomination to a newer evangelical one, does it stop being protestant?
And biggest question is, "why is it okay specifically when these people do it, but suddenly it's not okay to split off when other people do?"
Reading this comment section and then trying to imagine protestants and other non apostolic uniting their nation under one banner. This reinforces my theory that any attempt to unite protestants of whatever variety will just lead to more intense splintering as every single theological opinion is going to want to be the tip of the spear so to speak. Semper reformanda and all of that.
Half of Europe had established Protestant churches. The rich northern part.
So by Zoomer's definition the evangelical wing of the Church of England isn't evangelical, and neither are those non-denominational denominations which have roots in, for example, a baptist denomination.
Fair enough, as a Protestant I don’t want to be associated with Baptist.
But they are part of the Church of England. I dont see why RZ would have a problem with negotiating an agreement to join a real Protestant Church.
Catholic here, just thought id stop by with some popcorn to read the comments on this one. 🍿
😅
Orthodox here, pass me some of that popcorn too.
If the title “Protestant” can only be rightly applied to churches which directly and formally succeed from the Magisterial Reformation, then it follows the title Christian can only be rightly applied to churches which affirm and continue formal apostolic succession.
As a Presbyterian, if I’m not mistaken, you cannot affirm apostolic succession, unless you affirm it as succession of true doctrine rather than succession of individual bishops.
Bring back John the independent fundamental baptist junior
Praying for John🙏
There's a saying in Brazil that says: an ugly child has no parents. Meaning, no one wants to be responsible for a bad outcome.
Trying to distance protestantism from evangelicalism is one such case. Evangelicalism is just the tail end development of protestantism. It is the ideals of the reformation taken to its logical extremes. One can't simply disavow it now because they "weren't there" from the beginning.
This is going to make some people MAD lol
Like me.
Judging by the comments, it seems to have worked. To those wishing he would call them something other than evangelicals, may I recommend the TMBH video on that word? Look up "TMBH evangelical" or "matt whitman evangelical".
Yeah, because it’s silly.
@@lectorintellegat Very. I generally like RZ, despite disagreements (I don't believe evolution is consistent with a biblical view of origins) but he seems to be devoted to spreading the message of Christ. But he's been really been cynical towards those that lean Evangelical.
@@lectorintellegat Bro you don’t like anything about our historical Protestant beliefs or heritage, what on Earth motivates you to try to leach on to our label to describe your different beliefs?! It’s frankly creepy.
Well, you admit being an elitist. I think that explains a lot of the positions you take here. Anyways, I don't think there are many churches that agree they were started by a random guy who said this is the way christianity should be. I also think that that is an accusation that is easy to throw around against basically anybody. To prove it is a totally different proposition. God is the judge of these matters.
Me as a Catholic: A Protestant is a Protestant 😂
So if someone calls him or herself, Roman Catholic but supports literally everything that goes against Roman Catholicism is that person still Roman Catholic? .
@ The Catholic Church stands as a single entity. Protestantism is made up of thousands of denominations. Your question makes no sense.
@ except there’s no such thing as thousands of protestant denominations even honest Roman Catholics admitted this like the national Catholic register .
@@memesouls8653 just because someone calls him or herself protestant does not make that person Protestant just like someone call him or herself Roman Catholic does not make that person Roman Catholic . you can’t just claim to be part of a certain group & at the same time literally support & believe in things that goes against everything that group stands for . That’s like someone calling him or herself Muslim but supports eating pork & drinking alcohol it contradicts each other .
People who dont like Protestants want to lump them together. Makes it easier to attack.
Magisterial Protestantism has been fighting this two front war against Romans and Anabaptists since the beginning.
I did find a good church to attend on Sundays thanks to your map - thank you, RZ.
Evangelicanism is a spectrum
Evangelicals are on more than one spectrum
True, was the world created in 6000 years, how about 10,000, how about a million? Is the bible ENTIRELY inerrant? Did evolution create the animals? How about the human body? Do you accept female priests/pastors/preachers? How about gays/lesbians? Can [insert a denomination that is different from yours] get to heaven? How about moral muslims? Ok maybe that's too much:)))
@@ViguLiviu ye that's what I mean
Might be onto something here.
"Evangelical" means relating to the gospel.
Christ teaches that the gospel is a very narrow path, not a wide all-encompassing spectrum.
So how is this carrying the cross?
It isnt
Meaning what?
Bringing people back to seeing the importance of the Magisterial Reformation Churches.
Pretty obvious.
How is your comment carrying your cross?
That's not what the video is about lol
As a non-denom in a decade old church, please don't call me evangelical. We don't know what we are, but I get the vibe we're trying to reinvent Orthodox. Check back in after 30 years when we schism from ourselves.
Was this video really necessary? Evangelical is such broad term.
As far as I’m aware, Time has never been a factor in drawing lines between denominations, so why do it now? I would argue that theology is the main issue, and while Historic Protestantism does have some differences to Modern Evangelicalism, I do not believe they are big enough to constitute an outright rejection from Protestantism.
Evangelicals just believe in worshipping jesus in spirit and in truth like jesus proscribed, "God is Spirit and he must be worshipped in spirit and in truth", this barebones approach leaves the churches looking unremarkable, but their inner temple is full of peace from true spiritual relationship with God. Naturally because of this barebones approach, there are many evangelicals in other denominations who see The Holy Spirit as a sifting mechanism for their churches and so they agree on the primacy of evangelism.
If you don't know the difference between "prescribe" and "proscribe," you should be careful giving any kind of opinion on this.
Man's just invented apostolic Protestantism. While I agree with pretty much all of his complaints about evangelicals, as an evangelical myself (kinda, the EFCA isn't just a random nondenom church, but still) wouldn't leaving my church for a different one be doing exactly what got all the mainline churches in trouble? Why are the trad-Protestant churches worth reconquering but not evangelical churches? I'm sorry, I love your videos & your mission but this just seems hypocritical
Facts I think we should try to retake the mainline but also influence non-denominational churches to become more traditional Protestant as well. I’ve seen multiple nondenominational churches become more traditional Protestant, I don’t think they’re a lost cause
If you accept Apostolic succession and having continuity with the early church of the apostles as important why in the fuck would anyone be protestant when there's a Catholic or Orthodox church next door. As much as historical protestants try to claim continuity with the early church, they can never have more claim to continuity than the Catholics and Orthodox do.
It doesn't really matter what denomination you belong to as long as you understand the Gospel, that we are justified by our faith.
Man this is further division, i absolutely hate this, i am perfectly fine with calling out false teachers because they give Christ a bad name but this just goes further beyond the call of pointing out false preaching... this entire comment sections nearly unanimously agrees that hey this type of video just isn't right man, we affirm the solas.
most evangelical pastors are false teachers.
Bro didn't even bring up the Bebbington Quadrilateral... please do more research on what Evangelicalism actually is. It's not just any church that popped up after the Reformation, it's a set of principles emphasized within Protestantism.
So ultimately the only difference between your definition of "Protestantism" and "Evangelicalism" is temporal, I mean, of a sequence of events as arbitrarily chosen from an spectrum of time and place. But, essentially, there is no difference between both categories besides cultural (again, temporal) influence, and there is no arguments possible to refute a new denomination to be born, if it is made by people following their conscience on truth by reforming previous churches or ideas.
Quoting Martin Luther: "Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason-I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other-my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen."
To Protestantism be consistent, the same ideals should apply forever.
Non-denominationals, Pentecostals, and Evangelicals are 1900s denominations.
Protestantism is 1517-1630 maybe 1400s when including Hussites/Moravians.
Exclusively magisterial reformation which is protestant not radical reformation which is baptist/Anabaptist.
Only state churches with intrinsic extreme theology matters on nitty gritties are Protestant.
Hussites, Calvinists, Lutherans, and Anglicans.
No i won't mention the Waldensians from the 1200s because they all became apart of the Calvinist tradition.
Baptists and Anabaptists come from the radical reformation, thee end, not magisterial reformation who are protestant.
Jehovah's witnesses, Adventists, Mormons, Messianic Judaism, Holiness groups, Quakers, Churches of Christ, Pentecostals and Non-denominationals all came later in the various awakening movements or elsewhere.
The strictest definition ever needs to define protestant by looking at origins, differences, similarities and common or disparate origins.
I can say this, Protestantism is true!
Anglicans, Calvinists, Lutherans, Hussites.
I purposely failed to mention Methodist and Pietist because I don't know what to think about them. Offshoots of Anglicanism and Lutheranism.
The Protestants regurgitate and inherit and claim thousands of Catholic theologians circa 1054-1517 we use various Catholic laws, and theologians we agree with, and we use hundreds of universities, hospitals, churches and other institutions we inherited from the Catholic Church.
Not build from scratch.
We have forerunners and theologically proto-protestant movements circa 100-1054 as well.
And if we disagree with a particular group we call them heretics.
I seen Gnostics, Docetists, Donatists, Arians, etc. Claimed by Baptists, or various evangelical groups, either in their ignorance or falsified agenda.
Don’t forget the waldensians. Whom were anabaptist. But now often join with Methodists.
@TheSignofJonah777 your silly. Anabaptists aren't protestant because they were radical reformation not magisterial reformation,
And the Waldensian church actually joined the Reformed Calvinist communion. We have letters from the Waldensian clergy submitting to the conventions of John Calvin and they use the Helvetic and Belgic confessions.
@TheSignofJonah777 "When the news of the Reformation reached the Waldensian Valleys, the Tavola Valdese decided to seek fellowship with the nascent Protestantism. At a meeting held in 1526 in Laus, a town in the Chisone valley, it was decided to send envoys to examine the new movement. In 1532, they met with German and Swiss Protestants and ultimately adapted their beliefs to those of the Reformed Church.
The Swiss and French Reformed churches sent William Farel and Anthony Saunier to attend the meeting of Chanforan, which convened on 12 October 1532. Farel invited them to join the Reformation and to emerge from secrecy. A Confession of Faith, with Reformed doctrines, was formulated and the Waldensians decided to worship openly in French.
The French Bible, translated by Pierre Robert Olivétan with the help of Calvin and published at Neuchâtel in 1535, was based in part on a New Testament in the Waldensian vernacular. The churches in Waldensia collected 1500 gold crowns to cover the cost of its publication" source - wiki
Citation - "history of the Waldensians" 1888 by Wylie J. A
Linguistic prescriptivism?
We can talk about church history all we want, but a very common usage of "protestant" is just non-Catholic/Orthodox. Saying something like "*historically* protestant" is far more helpful.
@maxxiong or we shouldn't become lazy like we did in the 1900s catch all terming everything THAT DID NOT HAPPEN in the 1800s and centuries prior. If a new religious movement came today. They aren't protestant. Deal with it. Different theology, deal with it, different origins, deal with it, therefore different labels. With a repetitious as I already have said, deal with it.
As a Catholic I find this video to be genuinely hilarious, not because Zoomer is wrong, but because he’s actually right.
He put a fair case forward for why it’s important to make a category definition between Protestantism and Evangelicals/ Non-Denoms that I actually found to be quite thoughtful.
In saying that, he did no whilst once again having a video that was riddled with Presbyterian presuppositions and contradictions that made me predictably roll my eyes and think “just become Catholic dude, all this running after your tail to try uphold your shaky ground position is exhausting”
Mr. Zoomer, I like your content and admire your zeal for taking back mainline churches. You're no doubt aware, and likely take pride in the fact, that your perspective is very unapologetically that of a New Englander. Christian charity compells me to say, New England is a very fine part of America (i suppose😂), but you must admit it's also one of the most priviledged and wealthy parts of America, where it's easy to have institutions and tradition dating back centuries.
Down here in the south, there's tons of evangelical "non denominatial" churches (at least in name and worship style), but if you look at the fine print, they're actually SBC or United Methodist. So, the idea that all the evangelical churches are brand new, recently made up, backyard institutions and are better called "miscellaneous christianity" and not protestant, doesnt ring true to me, at least for my corner of the country. Maybe your characterization is true in California where wacky new religions form all the time, but the southeast, is a place of strong traditions, if not strong institutions (because $).
The south has historically been poorer, racially divided, and doesnt have as many ancient, fancy, architecturally-traditional churches. Where they do exist, sometimes they're not where the population is anymore, or they're run down, or they're too small, or they're dying out because they remained stuck in their ways (and im not talking in good ways, like remaining theologically conservative, im talking bad ways, like racism). And while I know that churches building ugly metal buildings, or meeting in stripmalls, etc., is abhorrent to your traditional asthetic, I must say its the inevitable consequence of a thrifty people trying to best serve a growing church, the body of Christ.
I come from a tradition where historically, many come to Christ in outdoor tent revivals, where people are baptised in the river. It was good enough for Jesus, good enough for us.
Just something to keep in mind maybe, while you're putting down the sheet metal buildings, soundstages, and bathtub baptismals of the stereotypiclal evangelical non-denominational. Sure maybe its trendy and cliche and some people are there with weird motivations. But for some of us, we're just there because we love Jesus, and it's a previously unobtainable luxury to have even these things you consider ugly. I imagine (but dont know for certain having no personal experience) that this is equally true in areas like Africa where the church is theologically conservative, and growing, but poor. This state of affairs could be construed as a sign of historic poverty, but I think you often intone a less charitable conclusion, that its from a backward predisposition to reject all tradititonal institutions....
Evangelicalism is more of a pan-demoninational movement than a denomination itself. The question of if it is Protestant or not would probably best be answered "yes and no" or "it depends."
I feel like defining Protestant churches as those who come from the Protestant Reformation makes sense on its face, but that definiton leaves out a lot of churches who share 75-90% of Protestant beliefs.
RZ enchant your tools/armor PLEASE! You need feather falling especially. Watching you take fall damage every 3 seconds and eat 14 carrots is killing me.
Bro really likes carrots man come on
Redeemed Zoomer, please change the way you talk about “evangelical churches”. You seem to enjoy belittling them and constantly present straw man arguments when talking about them. This is not right and it is causing further division in the Church.
Here are four points I just want to make.
1. Many if not most of these newer denominations can track their history directly from historic Protestant denominations. I don’t know if I understand why you consider the Methodists to be Protestant and other denominations not to be. They both started way after the Reformations beginning, and they both broke off from older Protestant denominations. So please stop mischaracterizing newer denominations as starting in someone’s back yard.
2. Stop using that accent when referring to newer denominations. It’s an offensive stereotype which is definitely not helpful and likely is harmful for the cause of Christian unity. That stereotype belittles Christians from the South by displaying them as uneducated and gullible.
3. Newer denominations often do work together and are in a sense “in communion” with one another. They may not technically be organized together, but they often joyfully work together in ministry.
4. Please also stop being so blanketing with how you criticize modern worship music. Sure there are songs to criticize, but there is no need to criticize them all at once. People enjoy music differently than others. There’s nothing wrong with that. There also isn’t anything inherently wrong with churches (like Calvery Chapel) presenting themselves in a way through music that is welcoming to certain demographics. Please keep in mind that all old hymns were once brand new. Also songs can totally get emotional. I know you’ve read the Psalms.
Please continue to call out heresy and share your personal convictions. But please just stop with these thoughtless accusations and assertions that belittle God’s beloved children.
He needed someone to belittle after he finally stopped doing it to baptists😂
He considers Methodists Protestant because they "have pretty buildings," obviously.
@WatfordJames1 The vast majority of evangelicals in the US are southern baptists... Seems old habits die hard.
He is young, and often makes mistakes, but at the very least non-denominational churches are not Protestant. By their own form of self-identification they refuse affiliation. There are just a few historic Protestant denominations and reform movements. Most of the newer denominations are reboot movements, who don't quite understand the historic issues with Rome. Are they Sola Scriptura? Maybe, but that also depends on the church. Are they reform movements? No, they're more like reboot movements which reject all tradition and just decided to start over from scratch.
@@ivorkovac303 Things definitely get a bit more complicated with non-denominational churches because of the potential variety of beliefs, but a large portion of them seem to just be Baptist or Pentecostal. I’d push back that it would be impossible for them to be considered Protestant for a few reasons.
1. Many of them can still trace their history back to Protestantism. They weren’t created in a vacuum. They may be the result of a church split from a denomination or they simply left their previous denomination.
2. They still would affirm Protestant beliefs which I think is what’s most important in labeling a church as Protestant or not.
3. Regarding a point you made, “Protestantism” isn’t a denomination. So labeling yourself as “non-denominational” wouldn’t automatically mean you’re not Protestant.
I definitely think that non-denominational churches have many of their own issues to still deal with as while there may be some marketing and local decision making benefits, there definitely are many disadvantages. They need our prayers.
it shouldnt need to be said, but church should not be a carnival, but a house of worship instead.
Zoomer, sometimes your videos are great, sometimes they miss the mark. This one missed the mark. You can't claim some protestants aren't protestant because you don't like how they protestant. That's not how it works. Like it or not, Evangelicals are part of the Protestant branch of Christianity, even the non-denominationals.
Hi everybody.
hello
Thanks for being chill. We could always rely on you in that way.
@ you’re welcome.
@@Chill_Calvinist_guy A chill Calvinist may be a rare sight, but is always a welcome one.
Its the guy who lives in the middle of nowhere
I mean I’d make the case that evangelical isn’t a real thing. It’s a political classification
Joshua on the Ready to Harvest channel made this point in a video a few weeks ago.
As an Evangelical I'm completely fine with not being labelled as Protestant. I'm happy to just follow the Bible and the leading of the Holy Spirit. I don't need to learn from the fathers of Protestants or Catholics to know God.
Well I’m evangelical but by following the bible you are following the church fathers
Hey Zoomer, I started reading Nevin’s “The Mystical Presence” due to your recommendation. It’s really fascinating and has greatly strengthened my understanding of the reformed view of the Eucharist.
Well if you're not "protestant* at least you know the zoomer really feels about you
A person who leaves Protestant/evangelical denoms for RC or EO is just as subjective. The traditionalists just pretend they aren't being subjective because they agree with somebody who claims absolute authority.
The decision to stay in RC or Ortho is also pretending that it isn't a subjective decision. It is impossible to make a decision that isn't subjective, unless you're talking about deciding whether or not 2+2=4.
10:19 There's a historical error here - Cranmer was dead by the time Elizabeth I became Queen.
Orthodix to Catholic: Hey you can't change Christianity!
Catholics to Prodestants: Hey you can't change Christianity!
Prodestant to other Prodestant: Hey you can't change Christianity!
Ect. ect.
Catholics do not come from Orthodox. The East and West split up. The bishops excommunicated each other. Same for the Orientals and Assyrians. Groups of Bishops in different territories just stopped communing with each other. None came before the other.
Prodestant to Unitarian: Hey you can't take Christ out of Christianity!:))))
Perhaps because there is a continued detachment from institutions, we have evangelicals who don't hold to old creeds, baptists who don't hold to the 1689 confession, and Christians who hate authority.
Would it be fair to say (using this argument) that the Methodists are not protestant then? due to the fact that the non-denominational churches split from Baptists and anabaptists just as the Methodists did from Anglicans?
The Methodist in the USA were called the Methodist Episcopal Church until 1939. John Wesley died an Anglican Priest in the Church of England. He never intended to start a new denomination. just revive the Anglican Church. Methodists have considered themselves Protestant and Episcopal from the beginning. Interestingly enough most Baptist I know claim they aren't Protestants. They like to tell me they didn't protest anything.
They have female pastors. They aren't even Christian
It sure doesn't make sense not to call the Holiness/Pentacostal churches when technically they did branch from Methodists...
I see the vocabulary as a bit off. I think we’re all Protestant. However I think there’s a difference between classical Protestant and evangelical Protestant mostly centered around the worship style and the place that sacraments have in the church.
So long as they affirm the creeds and baptism and lord’s supper it’s pretty good actually.
If I had a nickel for everytime someone assumes the history of Pentecostalism and gets it wrong, I would be rich.
Bro, you’re wicked smart and I admire your passion. But if think you need some refinement and mellowing. Have you considered seminary like RTS to put some meat on those bones???
@@SC_153 an Evangelical Presbapterian seminary? Nah
Dude, what is your deal with Baptists?
@@jonathannerz1696 We're kinda lame, a lot of our churches are ugly, and we take the bible autistically literally except on the sacraments.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Bro 🤣🤣
"The king was literally catholic but he was kicked out from the church"
Why? Why was he kicked out? Oh right, he wanted to be able to divorce. Not very Catholic I'd assume.
I’ve abandoned trying to be “Protestant.” I don’t wanna leave non denominationalism to go back one step to Protestantism. I’m going Catholic.
as Soon as we get a different pope id consider converting. depending on the church its more like Inter-denomination, like mine still does commuion fasting baptist and some other essential practices that some mega-church type places dont.
Though denominations arent even a thing biblically. We can try to chase the "true" church but if the thief on the cross got to heaven I think we'll be fine.
LET'S GOOOOOO
@@addman1952 You shouldn't decide on whether you should become Catholic based solely on who the Pope is. Instead of thinking about the next Pope pray for the current one!
@DanteRizzolini I cant pray for someone meant to be infallible when hes so clearly lost.
"All Religions are pathways to reach God" -Pope Francis
"-No man comes to the father except through me" -Jesus Christ
I think ill wait for a different pope. Because if the next one is worse id rather him not drag me down spiritually. Though you have a better attitude about than me ✝️👍
@@addman1952 Or you just become Orthodox
Evangelicals believe in Inerrancy of Scripture, a Born Again Experience, and the Great Commision. RZ usually just says its a non denominational mega church. He needs to google what evangelical is😂
I unironically think that if RZ were born 500 years ago, he'd be a member of a Spanish Inquisition.
Hey Zoomer I wanted to ask, what is with the Moravian Chruches, that are descended from Jan Hus, aren't they Protestant or have you just forgotten them?
They were Protestant before the reformation even happened, soooo, theologically I would say yes but chronologically no? Much like history and church politics its a bit messy.
Discussing Christianity in mincraft while building traditional style church, is the most zoomer thing i've ever heard of
Bro's living up to his name
We affirm the five solas. Let’s stop unnecessarily dividing ourselves.
Do you believe baptism saves ? That Infant can be baptized ? That Jesus is truly present in communion ? These beliefs are absent from traditions that emerged in the awakenings from the 19th and 20th centuries.
@@JBP4500The historic Protestants themselves have different views of these things. What’s your point?
I believe that the 40,000 is 4,000. In the early 2000's, the number was 23,000. But a mistake was made, and the comma got moved. So, it was 2,300, I was told.
Why aren’t they? Not enough historical buildings and universities for your liking? The entire premise is utterly ridiculous man. You take this stuff too far.
yeah, this is arguably your worst take yet.
Luther and the Lutherans still rejected Calvin's spiritual presence view of the Eucharist as it denies the bodily presence of Christ.
The 5 points of Calvinism is a 20th-century invention? Ummm.... Synod of Dort?
I think he meant the TULIP terms specifically.
And I do think "limited atonement" is not a good summary, as most take it to exclude hypotehtical universalism as an option, even though some at Dort affirmed that (I'd go as far as saying denying Christ died for all in some sense removes any objective ground for assurance).
maxxiong's correct. TULIP is just a later mnemonic tool to remember what Dort said, and a pretty flawed one.
My country Indonesia considers charismatics protestants, and that's good enough for me
WE ARE PROTESTANT! THE WOKE AINT
Bruh 💀
Tell that to every mainline church in New York . They’ll keep waiving those pride flags and tell you otherwise
Considering how infiltrated the institutional Protestant churches are, they're practically one and the same.
I believe one way to express this idea without using a comparison between "evangelicals" and "protestants" would be:
Churches that care about the catholicity (a term that is not related to the Catholic Roman Church) of the historic church and those that do not look for that because they want to be apart as possible from anything related to the Roman Catholic church. This a term I lernt from the book "The Drama of Doctrine" written by Kevin Vanhoozer.
There are TH-cam videos where he talks about this topic.
When I think of Protestantism I think of the movie the wild one starring Marlon Brando - “what are you rebelling against Jonny? “What do you got?””
i disagree. i believe that evangelism is protestant. it was influence by pietism, Presbyterianism and puritanism.
Evangelicalism is the newest phase of Protestantism
Nah, it has its own origin in The judeobaptist hypotheses of James Nelson Darby and C.I. Scofield and Hagee almost from scratch, but really more like a branch of phariseeical... Stuff I can't mention apparently.
100% wrong Evangelicalism has nothing to do with protestantism & it does not come from the protestant reformation . Evangelicalism came from the radical revolution aka the radical “reformation” which is led by Servet, Marpeck, Schlatter, Joris, and the best known Menno Simon and Fausto Socin not Martin Luther . Protestants believe in the true presence of the Eucharist , they don’t . Protestants believe & follow sacred tradition , they don’t . Protestants believe & follow the church fathers , they don’t. Protestants believe in the sacraments in general especially infant baptism , they don’t , protestants believe in the Marian Dogmas , they don’t etc . They don’t even have the same 5 Sola’s as protestants do .
@@VndNvwYvvSvv my evangelical church comes from a babtist group of churches that believed that only baptists will be saved, so a division occurred. i have read the origins of my church and nowhere did it mention any of that. maybe there was one evangelical chuch with that origin idk.
Wouldn’t Restorationists be ‘Protestant’? They were indirectly descended from the reformation as they were started by Presbyterian ministers.
Oof Finney
In Germany protestantism and evangelism are just synonymous
No. Evangelisch =/= Evangelikal
@ Die evangelische Kirche ist dasselbe wie die protestantische Kirche. Es sind synonyme, die Evangeliken sind einer der protestantischen Kirchen bzw. Strömungen.
Bspw. heißt die Kirche in meiner naehe
Evangelische-Luther Kirche
like in most countries and for most people
I knew there was a very nice traditional and confesional Presbyterian church in my town, but i didn't realize how many of them exist until I saw your map and I did some research.
I am so jealous because the Lutheran churches that are beautiful and traditional are borderline heretical here. While most of the churches of the confesional branch are very small.
You seem ignorant of Evangelical churches. They have the same beliefs and practices of all Protestant churches. Adherence to the 5 Solas, Baptizing believers, Communion often, some even believe in the real presence, altar calls and prayer in every service, significant focus on bible study and literacy, small group fellowships called lifegroups. They practice the charismatic supernatural gifts, But most evangelical churches place evangelism at the center of there mission. You Redeemed Zoomer sound like a religious person. I enjoy your content but Pentacostal/Charismatic churches are the fastest growing demographic within the Christian religion because of their focus on leading people to Jesus and discipling them. 400 million evangelicals worldwide
@MarkStein-o7uAccording to many Christian perspectives, Christians should not be solely focused on "being religious" in the sense of following strict rules and rituals, but rather should prioritize a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ, which is often described as being more about a "relationship" than a set of religious practices; therefore, while being Christian inherently involves religious belief, the emphasis is on a deeper connection with God rather than just adhering to outward religious acts. I am in the Assembly of God denomination
Traditional Protestant churches don't have altar calls and don't practice charismatic gifts. Most also are willing to baptize infants.
(That said, I definitely have a bit more positive view than Zoomer seems to-lots of Christians there that I can respect, even if I much prefer traditional Protestantism.)
@MarkStein-o7u To be fair religion doesn’t actually have a single clear definition. It is something that is notoriously hard to define. So technically neither side is right or wrong in this case.
I think this may be painting with too broad of a brush. I’ve spent most of my life in a evangelical Presbyterian church and it has a higher church view than any other church I have attended. We sang hymns, the pastor said benedictions, and said liturgy. It did not have a focus on emotions and definitely no smoke and lights.
I understood that we were evangelical because we focused on evangelizing.
Something to consider since many Southern Baptists and American Baptists consider themselves to be evangelical: evangelical comes from the Greek word for to bring good news. Thus, evangelicals and those who identify as evangelicals see it as vitally important to share the gospel. This can easily be taken to an extreme, however, when one compromises one's own doctrines for the sake of sharing the Gospel. Essentially, I think your problem with nondenominational churches could be solved with dialogue, especially encouragement to hold fast to orthodoxy and to not compromise in the name of evangelism. All of that to say, you have a large platform on the internet and a great amount of influence. Be careful that you do not push away those who have a love and a desire to spread the Word of God and bring it to the nations by speaking poorly of those who desire to do so. Inspire people to spread the Good News, but also to ensure that their own church is able to be the salt and light that our Lord Jesus Christ has called us to be by fighting the corruption of our sinful flesh.
Apologies for the rant, God bless.
What denominations do you even consider ‘evangelical’ ?
I feel like I'm listening to Technoblade but talks about Christian Denominations
I miss techno alot sometimes
Actually those who are leaving protestantism are leaving magesterial/reformed the most if you look at the polls (this includes more conservative forms)
Strange. What I heard so far is that every "Protestants" historically were identical to Evangelicals (in contrast to "Catholic" which increasingly viewed as "Papal" or "Romish"). Evangelicals are Protestants, and Protestants are Evangelicals until emergence of Modernist Liberalism in 19th century and early 20th century. Then those who maintained "fidelity" to (Reformers view of) the Bible became fundamentalist, which due to being viewed as too isolationist, literalist, and exclusivist, and triggered some sort of "moderation" within it which we then dub "Evangelicalism" in contemporary sense
Instead, RZ proposed a distinction between "Confessional" and "Evangelical" (in contemporary senses) as if there are confessional churches within older mainline churches and outside contemporary evangelicalism which he sees as "non-denominationals"
You know Richard Burnett taught at Gordon Conwell right? I'm not saying the statistic is correct but you didn't mention that it's actually one of the based seminaries.
Wow, your videos are always so informative!
One note on the congregationalist. If I remember correctly they were a group that believed in a called out chruch and not a national one. By that I mean instead of being born into the english church because one was born English, one choose to join the church because they took their faith seriously.
For someone who claims to value ecumenicalism so much, you are extremely derisive toward your brethren who don't ascribe to your personal beliefs.
It seems you're making no effort to understand nondenoms and what we actually believe. Those of us who have thought out our beliefs have real reasons to not put ourselves and our families under the teaching of traditional denominations. Would love to have a conversation with you about it sometime.
I'm not gonna watch this so can anyone tell me if he's just being narrow-minded, cynical, and arrogant again or does he make actual good points this time?
Well, I haven't gotten around to watching the full thing yet, but I figured the comment section would be fun. I was right, and he certainly made a salt mine. This also seems to be one of those videos where what you think about the arguments therein will depend entirely on your preexisting opinions on the topic.
It really just depends on how narrowly you want to define it.
Imagine going against thousands of years of Church history and not believing in Christ's true presence in the Eucharist.
Well Lutherans, the Reformed, and Anglicans believe in Christ's true presence in the Eucharist. It's a small segment of the church that adopts a Zwinglian view.
@jahnvantuttlesma8215 I didn't deny that. I agree that is the view of the reformed.
@@roborob347 "just a symbol" 😭
Sort of like how Christians broke off from traditional European paganism
The natural consequence of separating yourself from Christ' church. ☦
Sorry RZ, but the logic fails simply because "Protestant" is not a denomination. It's obvious why you would want to institutionalize it, but the best definition of "protestant" is what Gavin explains in his "5 Minute Case For Protestantism" video: Simply any church within orthodoxy that doesn't claim to be the "one true church." This is a good example of how your institutional zeal is (ironically) drawing more lines and engendering more division.