There are liberal churches within Presbyterianism that don't follow their confessions of faith and there are conservative and confessional churches. The Presbyterian Church of Brazil (my church) has 200 years, has more than 700k members and 6k congregations and is still conservative.
I got saved in a Methodist church (that left the denomination to become Wesleyan), spent time in a Baptist church after, and just got back tit he US after a 6 month stay in Korea where I attended a reformed PCK (Presbyterian church of Korea) church. Now that I’m back home, I’m checking out a reformed PCA church
There are many hyper conservative Reformed denominations. The PRC (Protestant Reformed) is one of them, and I like that he put them on the compass -- yet, they occupy the same space as the RPCNA did for Presbyterians lol. The PRC is FAR more conservative than the RPCNA. Other conservative denominations include the FRC, the HRC, the actually hypercalvinistic NRC, as well as, on the Presbyterian side, the PRC (Presbyterian Reformed) and the Free Church of Scotland Continuing. The Netherlands actually has THREE hypercalvinistic Reformed denominations. THREE. In a country of that size -- and at least two have some presence in the US.
@@matthewsoules7193 If with those THREE hypercalvinistic Reformed denominations you mean HHK, OGGiN, and GGiN, you are rather evidently mistaken. Hypercalvinism is a more modern movement; these three are not hypercalvinist but traditional calvinist.
@@TheNabOwnzz Of course they would say that. No one wants to admit to being a hypercalvinist. A few genuine markers of hypercalvinism -- first, a denial of the need to preach the gospel to all; second, a form of fatalism whereby the possibility of someone desiring to be saved and yet being unable to come on account of not being elect is posited; third, a denial of duty-faith. From all that I have heard and read, the second of these positions would appear to be the existent in that strain of Dutch Reformed thought. Of course, I am more familiar with the Netherlands Reformed Congregations (the United States), but they are sister churches with the Gereformeerde Gemeenten. If 80%-90% of your (hypothetical "you," not you personally) congregation doesn't take communion because they don't have assurance of salvation, that would seem to indicate a serious problem. If your teaching holds that we must wait for an unmistakable (and borderline mystical) internal feeling before we may come to Christ, you are sorely mistaken. Indeed, how many in the NRC are waiting on their knees even now, hoping that they would be regenerated, yet refusing to simply trust in Christ to save them because it would be PRESUMPTUOUS to come to Christ until one thinks himself to have been made regenerate?
@@TheNabOwnzzThose churches are with no doubt very conservative, but what I have understood is that the Dutch make a distinction between "Orthodox Reformed" and "experimental Reformed" folks? The experimental Reformed are more pietistic and find personal religious experience very important, even seeking assurance for their salvation from it. I have heard that in churches like the NRC, almost nobody (except for maybe the elders and some older people) in the services partakes in communion since they are careful in not eating and drinking for their damnation even though they want to follow the faith really closely. To my knowledge, not many people in the confessionally Reformed/Presbyterian circles hold to this position: the sacrament is instituted for believers who have laid their trust in Christ. But it indeed is pretty interesting how the most conservative reformed/presbyterians come from these ethnically-affiliated churches from Scotland and the Netherlands. A Dutch Wikipedia page about the experimental Reformed: nl.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bevindelijk_gereformeerden&diffonly=true
@@TheNabOwnzzI think he means GG, GGiN and OGGiN. GG and OGGiN are not hypercalvinist by definition, although it does occur in these denomonations. I would call GGiN hyper calvinist, because they formally believe that the Gospel only has to be preached to those that feel their depravity. While they really appreciate theologians from the Reformation and firmly stick to a traditional form of church services, their beliefs are based on modern theologians (ds. Mallan, dr. Steenblok).
Hello Zoomer, as a Catholic I want to say you taught me a lot about Reformed teaching and cleared up many misconceptions I had about it. I can now safely say that to me it is the Protestant denomination that makes the most sense!
We have a family visiting our church and she was a Catholic who married a Protestant. She said she felt comfortable in a Reformed Church as it was similar to Catholicism. I didn't really get it, because I was thinking in certain theological terms. But it makes sense in a lot of ways.
As a catholic I have visited lutheran and Presbyterianer churches, lutheran ones in Germany and Denmark. In a lutheran church I feel confortable, much more in a good Traditionalismus anglican church. Many years ago I prayed vespers with the schismatics in Birmingham, with the old Prayerbook and it was a beautiful experience. Lutherans Are good too: Hymns, Not very Long Sermons but pitily a mockery of Eucharist... However, prebyterians do Not have the minimal required true worship. Good anglicans, they are schismatics but I love them and I have prayed with them. Good lutherans, they are heretics but I love them and I have prayed with them. Presbiterians have a blasphemous theology, a Blasphemous Notion of God, their false worship comes from the Francs of Satan. I have visited their infernal Meetings BUT I have NEVER Prayed with them.
The far left PCUSA church I grew up in didn’t teach most of these points. As far as the images of Christ, they had a massive stained glass portrait of Him at the front of the sanctuary. I didn’t really learn about Calvinism (or the Bible, for that matter) until I moved to a PCA church.
It would be better to say that we don't believe the Divine Nature of Christ can communicate its attributes to the Human nature of Christ, but both can communicate its attributes to the Person of Christ. While Lutherans and Catholics believe the divine Nature can communicate its attributes (like "being everywhere) to the human nature (Christ flesh and blood). For us, this believe mixes the natures and violates Calchedon.
Yeah it's tough. Like when He says He is the vine. If we takes "is" means "is" then He is a literal wooden door, a literal physical gate, and vine as well. I'm not even necessarily against the Lutheran interpretation but I find the "is" argument a little muddy in light of what else we are told He is.
Actually, the Scottish enlightenment had a profound impact on the development of the U.S's founding fathers e.g. Thomas Jefferson. Many of the instructors at the early universities during the colonial era were Scottish. After breaking off from the catholic church Presbyterians believed all Christians should be able to read their own bibles and thus Scotland's literacy rates ended up being significantly higher than Britain's. Which led to many teaching over seas in the English colonies. P.S. not a Presbyterian lol (but like actually I'm not)
@@uncagedzebra6941 Are you deaf? “Calvinism is the most God centered form of Christianity” and “most successful and intellectual societies to ever exist were Calvinist"
@@DrGero15 he also said "Baptists have had the biggest impact on the modern world" and "Orthodoxy has conserved their tradition the best of any Christian denomination"
This was so helpful! The idea of predestination is still hard for me to grasp and is something I will continue researching and praying about, but I can definitely see the beauty of reformed theology and deeply appreciate Calvinist churches and their contributions
The Bible is full of tension between God's sovereignty (predestination, elections, etc) and human responsibility (free will, need for obedience, etc). Don't try too hard to resolve it. If you remove the tension you will fall into all kinds of heresies.
As a Sydney anglican, I always feel left out of the party. We're evangelical and calvinist down here as well, you know! When you do a video on Anglicanism, can you mention GAFCON? It's like a group of biblical anglicans to protect the preaching of the word in anglican churches in opposition to the liberality of the CoE. (Global Anglican Futures CONference)
@J-ky8qg Thanks. I've always been reformed in my soteriology. It was studying the Covenants in ALL of scripture and seeing it as one book that made me fully Reformed.
You should check out the London Baptist Confession. A surprisingly large amount of he says here is within historic baptist teaching, along with a credobaptist view. "Only a symbol" doesn't represent the historic baptist view of the sacraments. (Also, Gavin Ortlund's channel has helped me a whole lot!)
I’m really enjoying these denomination-introduction videos. Maybe there’s already one and I’m simply overlooking it, but I’d like to see one on Anglicanism as well.
It may have indirectly led to it because of the challenging of Rome's authority, but the Reformed definitely did NOT believe in societal equality or democracy. Calvin's ideal form of government was an oligarchy similar to Plato's, and he believed a democracy more perilous than a monarchy. And they all emphasize the importance of a distinction in social positions, also in manner of comportment and dress; that is, a king should never act like a commoner and a commoner never act like a king.
Yeah, but if he said that Calvin was not for democracy then he would have to admit Baptists (who were born out of the Calvinists) get credit for Democracy.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 As a tradition the same applies. The Scottish and the Dutch were certainly not in favour of Democracy, in spite of their issues with English and Spanish kings, respectively. It's a post-Enlightenment nonsensicality based on pagan (mostly Greek) notions. Neither Scotland nor the Netherlands ever considered it a good idea to establish a government based on the majority of a benighted populace, and so a set group of people (regents, who came from wealthy merchants, and not from the people's vote, in the Netherlands for one) were invariably the ones who ruled, and they were not picked by a majority of the general populace.
It's kind of an annoying thing. I do personally find his previous claims(in other videos) that Calvinists were responsible for the Am. Revolution a bit overstated: they played a role but it was really Enlightenment ideals in general that influenced the Founders so if Presybterianism influenced them, it wasn't direct. Also, maybe it's my own Baptist priors but I do find his not mentioning in his previous video the fact that Baptists were the main driving force between religious freedom and the separation of church and state here in America, a bit annoying. Roger Williams, the radical founder of disestablishmentarianism here, who got kicked out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony by the Calvinist Puritans for it, and founded Rhode Island as a haven for all kinds of religious dissidents, was the founder of the Baptist Church in America.
@@HistoryNerd808 The chain is Anglican Monarchy, to Puritan, to Baptist Democracy/Separation of Church and State. Both Presbyterians and Baptists are types of Puritan. Presbyterians held what could be seen as a king of halfway position on Church and State. The Anglicans held to the traditional view of Church & State, the Puritans/Presbyterians held to Church and State Separate but the State does what the Established Church tells it too and the Puritan Congregationalists/Baptists held to a separation of the two. It was Presbyterian views on their right to overthrow and kill the King, which they did, that led ultimately to Baptist separation, but they themselves didn't hold to it as even a brief survey of history will show, and I am sure you are aware of, since Calvinists persecuted Baptists here more than the Anglicans did back in England.
Dude I just love your videos. I’ve been sitting on the fence of Lutheranism for 4 years and your Lutheran video has made me decide to go for it. Thanks.
6:35 a little more context on the lutheran view here: We do believe even unbelievers objectively recieve the body and blood of Christ, but is has no value to them, because they don't have any faith. It's the same for baptism. Luther says something along the lines of that we only recieve the "treasure" of what is in the sacraments through faith. An unbeliever can't claim to be saved based on his baptism or that he recieved the body and blood. Only believers can, and for those it is an assurance of salvation. So, again: Even though both objectively recieve the body and blood, it only has an effect for the believer.
"only has an effect" in so far as a bestowal of grace. We do believe one receives communion at their own spiritual detriment if one is faithless, so we would say there is a negative effect.
@markstein2845 No one unbaptized or unbelieving can receive it in any tradition. Why would an unbeliever want to? And if you are in unrepentant sin you must confess and repent first, apostates are unbelievers.
That was actually pretty good. Correction on the predestination. Luther, Calvin, Bullinger, and other early Reformers view predestination in terms of who initiates the salvific grace. Nowadays, we always talk in terms of who is saved and who is not (man focused). Early Reformers were about God's char (God focused).
@@martijnnvermeulen7515 Ryan Reeves who is a professor Gordon-Conwell Seminary has a TH-cam channel. Search for "Luther and Calvin on Predestination". I like Zoomer and he is very knowledgeable. However, if you really want to learn theology, you should learn from pastors and professors (conservatives churches). That's why God gave "teachers/pastors" to the church as the Scripture teaches. While Zoomer is good, he is influenced by his New York Jewish upbringing. He focuses on non-essentials too much and too much of his opinions and misses the mark. Zoomer is good for introductory teaching but if you are really interested, search for those who are pastors/teachers.
1) The strongest view of human sin. 2) The strongest vision of God's grace and mercy. 3) The balance between Sola Scriptura and Systematic Theology. 3) Christology and a view of the Sacraments more consistent with Chalcedon. 4) The affirmation of the biblical doctrine of Predestination without excuses. 5) The centrality of the majesty and glory of God in His doctrines. 6) The Christian tradition most targeted by straw men and false testimonies from other Christians for placing man in his rightful place of total vulnerability and dependence on God. Yes, I am a Catholic reformed by the Word of God.
As a Catholic, I have notifications on for when this premieres! Also, what’s your opinion of Eucharistic Adoration/Procession? We literally worship the Eucharist.
The biggest gripe I have with Calvinism is the idea of the elect. I've always believed much more that anyone can be saved, but that person must choose to accept it. Some could call this a radical free will view. My view is we are all corrupted, but there is a part in all of us that can see that and, therefore, we can choose to pursue Christ. The path to justification and sanctification is open to all, but the individual must choose to walk down it.
It’s a matter of perspective. From our earthly and chronological point of view, anyone indeed can be saved because we can’t possibly comprehend who are the elect and why. Only from God’s eternally existent, outside-of-time, POV do the elect exist. So any half-decent Presbyterian would never give up on someone as simply not being one of the chosen. Because to us (not to God) the future hasn’t happened yet, thus, everyone could potentially be graced by God at any point in the future. Not my best explanation, but hope it helps🫡
I like your videos and think this is a great outlet for me to dive deeper into God’s word. The only thing that frustrates me with this video is usually you are very informational and explain what different Christians believe, but understandably, I feel like this was very defensive of Calvinism, and a ton of(Calvinism is not) comments instead of (Calvinism is) comments. I think I speak for most of us when I say that you do not have to prove anything to anybody. Just keep doing what you’re doing!
2:38 was very helpful for helping me understand this, because I was starting to get confused because of the Lutheran videos saying that Irresistible Grace can't be true.
I think you need to speak to more Reformed Baptists. Everything you just explained would be heartily affirmed by my church. I mean, the LBC1689 is basically a carbon copy of the Westminster Confession.
Came here to say this as well. The 1689 Baptist Confession affirms a huge amount of what he's saying in this video (especially about the sacraments). A gigantic number of Southern Baptists also affirm Covenant Theology. They just adhere closer to the biblical example of credobaptism. Also, Gavin Ortlund's channel has helped me a whole lot!
@@ikemeitz5287 1689 London Confession affirms a slightly different covenant theology than the Reformed. Infant Baptist has been seen as a fundamental issue for the Reformed Tradition. Whatsmore, the very few baptists church that affirm the 1689 London Confession also usually affirm the Philadelphia Confession, which affirms an explicitly memorial view of the Lord Supper. So,it is very rare, even among 1689 london Baptist, to find someone who affirms spiritual presence (Gavin Ortlund is an exception). And even among those, they never claimed to be part of the Reformed Tradition until 1980 during the New Calvinism movement.
Would be cool if you could do a video contrasting each denomination’s views of something like evangelism? (Campus Minister here, so I’m curious how others think about the great commission/other evangelistic verses!)
Isn't the lower middle picture in 9:43 the Reformed church of Szilágyi Dezső square, Budapest, Hungary? Greetings from a Reformed Hungarian. God bless you! Edit: I looked up for it. It is.
what's skibidi is that there's a lodge right next door to a local presby church. some presby cemetaries even have obelisks as gravestones on the church ground. skibidi ties from freemasonry in scottish history and presbyterianism. wild, and im a 5 pointer and see dat predestination.
Calvinism created societies so intellectual that they ultimately concluded that God doesn’t exists, or Christian morality is relative The overwhelming majority of Calvinists today support women’s ordination and gay marriage and are buried in humanistic rationalism (which makes sense considering Calvin himself was a humanist).
Not in defense of Calvin but humanism at that time was not secular like today. It was Renaissance humanism which was pretty much Christian-based classical studies. Erasmus was a great humanist and moderate reformer, unlike Luther, Zwingli and Calvin.
@@cabriniryanvu How would “renaissance humanism” differ from secular humanism. While humanists of the past may have professed Christianity, the rationalism employed by humanists of all stripes is the same - that’s what defines them as humanists. And it’s that - their rationalism - that the Church has always found incompatible with the Christian faith.
Name a branch of Christianity that isn't dealing with mass apostasy and indifference. Catholicism? Look at France and Ireland. Lutheranism? Look at Sweden. Baptists? The USA. Calvinists? Scotland. Anglicans? England. Orthodoxy? Greece (yeah, it's got single digit percentages of actual belief in God and is starting to trend liberal *fast*. Don't get me started on the actual faith of Russians). I don't even like Calvinism but this is a silly objection.
8:53 Curious how the territories of Protestant societies correspond closely with the territories of Germanic societies. Is there something in Germanic culture that attracts them to these traditions?
Presbiterian Jesus: "Hei, James, write down that sick people must be annointed with oil but ONLY until the last apostle dies. The sacrament is abolished afterwards. Do not forget to write down these precise instructions".
Presbyterian Jesus after resurrection: "Receive the Holy Gosh. Whoever has the sins pardoned, has them pardoned from eternity because I have decreed so. Actually, they are pardoned even BEFORE they sin. However, remember it to them."
Me, a Scotch-Irish, hearing "Calvinism produce the most successful and intellectual societies" than seeing a Scottish flag up there couldn't help push out a barking laugh. There is a lot of great stuff that has come out of Scotland(mostly soldiers, engineers, and John Locke), but I wouldn't be so bold to label Scotland in such words. That being said, you did finally answer a question in history I've been puzzling over for long time. King Charles of England preferred Arminianism over Reformed Theology which led eventually to Puritans leading a civil war against him and eventually taking his head. I never saw anything in Arminianism that could explain his draw to that, but it was the rejection of holy saintly kings of reformed thought that convinced him that he should go the other way. Thanks for that.
I detect prejudice in your statement. You feel and express contempt ("push out a barking laugh") for the suggestion that Scotland produced one of "the most successful and intellectual societies." I say; (a) Treating anybody with contempt (feeling haughty, superior, looking down at, sneering) is vulgar, arrogant and unchristian. (b) You are obviously ill-educated concerning the global impact of 'the Scottish Enlightenment' - just look it up on the internet. Amongst other achievements not included in your brief caricature of a list, Scotland was renowned for innovating one of the finest education systems in the world. Scots benefitting from this included Adam Smith and Alexander Fleming. Summed up by you as "a lot of great stuff." Indeed, and most disturbing that your contempt invites contempt in return. Time for prayer and contemplation of Buddhist Conditioned Genesis; "This arising, that arises...". How very sad.
hey RZ, important question for you. How do I know if my theological beliefs are biased and not really mine? Im a little worried that everything I believe as a new Christian isnt what I really think. any advice?
Your theological views probably ARE biased if you're a new Christian! But you have the Holy Spirit in you and God's word through which he works. God promises that he will "sanctify us in truth," so trust him and learn about him, and let him guide you based on what the text says. It's also worth talking to the leaders in your church about this. They're, ideally, going to be able to show you how their beliefs come from God's word. A study of hermeneutics (how to read the Bible and understand it) is also super helpful! Ask your pastor about some authors he trusts.
this comment section is like the catholic catechesis-in-progression groups got early access to the video just to sperg about Calvinism. gotta give respect to the office of ecclesial soy, they really do use their resources lol
Gayness is the product of the fall, not Calvinist theology or any type of theology for that matter. LGBT Affirming individuals exist in every theological tradition including Roman Catholicism
I'm a baptist who believes everything about calvinism (tulip) except your view of the sacraments. we still call ourselves reformed but aren't fully reformed
@@thomasthellamas9886 "If we have to wait for God to convert them to let them participate fully in the church, then why not wait to baptize them until after that happens?" - a Calvinist Puritan capable of logic, 12 seconds before starting a Baptist Church.
@@DrGero15 I was raised baptist, but the more I learn about Reformed Tradition, I'm drawn to it for it's more rational, thoughtful foundation, and for it's lack of (IMO, downright evil) teachings like The Rapture and Dispensationalism which are common in Baptist/S.Baptist churches. Then they get to baptizing babies, and I'm just like... "WHY?"
What do Calvinists believe about damnation? Is it extreme torture for all eternity, like an actual lake of fire, or worse? That's horrible in and of itself, and even more so if you believe that God created people to be sent there, with no real chance of escaping it (determinism). That's why many critics have rightfully pointed out that Calvinism portrays God as worse than the devil.
Here’s Paul’s response: “What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.” Romans 9:14-24 NASB1995
@@hermanessences Fair enough. For the record, I was not trying to be rude. What I will say is, the helpful thing about Paul in this chapter of Romans is that he gives us the response that he expects to hear from the reader. This is helpful for us to interpret it correctly, because if your interpretation of Paul here does not match the objection that Paul raises, then the odds are that you’re not interpreting it correctly.
This confirms that I will never embrace Calvinism. The notion of double predestination means that God knowingly created most people without even the free choice to come to Him. It means He made most people to suffer eternally in hell. Meanwhile undee Catholic theology, indeed some are elected for salvation, but none are elected for damnation. You are free to choose or reject God.
You believe in the same thing as the Calvinist does unless you’re an open theist. Hypothetical: Did God create blasphemous bob knowing he would go to hell? Yes he did. Why then would God create him knowing he would be dammed? Why did he just not create him? He was under no obligation to right ? You also believe in double predestination. I know you’ll say he loved us so much he gave us the choice. But if he’s so loving why did he not just not create the unbelievingly? Wouldn’t his love overridden their terrible choice? But no, God owes no man salvation. If God was fair, we’d all go to eternal punishment. For some he showed mercy to the others they received his justice. Read Romans 9 and then Ephesians 1
@@HumbleRustic God is all knowing, so yes he knows what we will choose. That doesn't negate creating us with the ability to choose. It is not unjust to create someone who will willingly choose evil. It is unjust to create someone who has no choice but to be evil, and then punish them for it eternally.
@@Rivian_JediUnbelievers have free will, not just libertarian free will. Man is dead in sin, not just sick. Man hates God , there must be a supernatural act of grace in order for him to be saved(Ephesians 2:1-10). But at the same time man is responsible for his sin and actions and will be judged accordingly. Read acts 4:27-28. How this all works we cannot truly understand. But scripture makes clear that God ordains the salvation of both the elect and non elect. Your arguments are exactly what Paul anticipated in Romans 9:19. Paul makes clear from an Old Testament analogy of the potter and the clay , that it is irrational and arrogant for men to question God’s choice of election and reprobation as for a piece of clay to question the purposes of the potter.
@@HumbleRustic Saint Paul and Saint Peter make it clear that Christ came to save EVERYONE in 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9. However the saving Grace of God must be received and maintained by man. Matthew 19:16-30 and 25:31-46 make it quite clear that we need to cooperate with this salvation. In the proper context, Romans 9 is referring to God's unfolding plan in history. Not predetermining the fate of souls for eternity. Were I to accept Calvin's warped version of God, I would be accepting an imperfect deity. One who is in fact not all-loving. This view also immediately falls apart when we consider Adam and Eve. They were born free from Original Sin correct? So this would mean they had free will right? Does this mean that Adam and Eve were neither part of the elect or the unelected? Did they ever have the true choice to not take the fruit from the tree or was that predestined?
@@HumbleRustic The letters of Paul and Peter as well as the Gospels make it clear that Christ came to save everyone, but we must receive His salvation and maintain it. In proper context Romans 9 is about God's plan of history, not the predestination of souls. Were I to accept Calvin's god, I would be accepting a false god. One who is not perfect, because he is not all-loving. Apparently this god of Calvin gave precisely two people in history the freedom to choose, and then created most other people to punish eternally.
A lot of Protestantism ends up regressing into things that sound like Islam. If I had to take a *purely* uneducated but slightly observant guess, it's largely because Islam itself is just a rip-off of Christianity and Judaism and knock-offs are going to have similar signs.
"Rapture" depends on how you define the word. I Th 4:17 uses the phrase "caught up" (Greek harpazo, Latin rapturo). So, there is an event that occurs which could properly be called a "rapture"....however it is not the event that dispensationalists call the rapture, which allegedly occurs 7 years before Christ's return. I believe it is talking about the glorification and "catching up" of the living righteous at Christ's return to meet Him in the air.
7:40 in Scotland, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, where Presbyterians/Reformists took over from the Catholic Church during the Reformation, did they destroy the Catholic stain-glassed windows and also statues and relics?
Calvinism is like a house of cards. Its a very elaborate theology based on a few biblical principles but it’s foundations are based on extremely contradictory concepts. For instance, PSA turns the father against the son but they affirm the trinity. How can god be set against god even temporarily? Christ wept for Jerusalem saying it was because they would not choose him. Imagine the potter weeping for vessels he made for the garbage and as he was throwing them away he was weeping and blaming the pot for not choosing to be a vessel worth keeping? Lastly Calvin said god is in no way the author of sin and is responsible for no evil. He also said god decrees all evil and sin, for Calvin this is a central mystery. He could not reconcile this in any logical fashion but concluded this must be true because he would not accept a different theology. Did god cause adam to sin? Was adam the last man to have free will? The calvinist is free to espouse either position but cannot reconcile them. Either god caused the fall or allowed it to happen. If he caused/decreed the fall then humans cannot be truly responsible for their sins. If the unelect can do nothing to avoid hell, how can they be at fault? If the elect can do nothing to avoid heaven, whats the point of them choosing to do good works? Calvinism falls apart on every doctrine when you really think about each one. The point is they like to feel like they have superior theology but really its a facade based on inconsistent interpretation of scripture. One more, Calvins view of the eucharist is totally illogical and he himself couldnt really explain it’s nature. He believed in real presence but not in transubstantiation or con substantiation. He never really articulated how christ is present, just that he is. Calvin basically built a complicated theology on a handful of passages taken out of context. When the rest of scripture is brought to bear, it simply reinterprets clear passages or ignores them to maintain the theology.
Exactly, I would add that in their attempt to raise God and lower man they horseshoed back around and made God the only sinner and freed man of his responsibility for evil. Calvinism is pseudo-intellectual.
@@DrGero15 amen! You can’t take such contrary and extreme positions and then claim you have the truth. The thing is St Paul only talks about the elect as people who choose to remain in christ. God saves that person but it has to be their choice. With calvinism god is the only one making choices that pertain to salvation. They grasp at straws and prooftext scripture, they’ll say see! Our good deeds are as filthy rags but fail to see how that passage praises good deeds as well. Only through context can you understand why those people’s good deeds were as filthy rags and why other’s good deeds were praised. The calvinist just ignores the praise part, focuses on the negative part, applies it to everyone, and then uses it to bolster their theology. This is the worst part of calvinism if you ask me, it’s complete nonchalance when it comes to harmonizing scripture. The reason? Simple. It would cause them to abandon their broken theology.
@@timboslice980 Indeed. The most logical and consistent ones become Baptist. There is no way to split Baptism into two different things which are separated by time and have a good reason to say that it saves or that you should do it to children. Have you heard of the Halfway Covenant?
@@pedroguimaraes6094 ever heard of the 1689 London Baptist confession of faith. Idc if the term only started 40 years ago it is simply a literary expression not of doctrinal significance
@@TheScholarlyBaptist Baptist that believe in the 1689 Confession never claimed to be part of the Reformed Tradition and they called themselves "Particular Baptist". The term "Reformed Baptist" and the Baptist association with the Reformed Churches started 40 years ago during the " New Calvinism" movement. And the 1689 LCF don't have the same theology of the sacraments and the same covenant theology as the Reformed Churches.
The better question is "Why does God save anybody?" The gospel if offered to all, but because of our spiritual state only those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit can possibly believe. I dead man can't rise from the dead on his own, regardless of what medical care is avaliable. A proper doctrine of both God and man is needed in order to understand election.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
"Not just the men, but the women and the children too." 💀
What's funny about that?
i was thanking the same thing
@@BenjaminAnderson21Star Wars quote
@@Dead_guy138 I knew I had heard that phrase somewhere before! Thanks
bro thought he was slick
I was genuinely researching Presbyterianism and it autocorrected to pride festival, this is a Godless world
Bro those words are barely similar. And by barely I mean not at all.
There are liberal churches within Presbyterianism that don't follow their confessions of faith and there are conservative and confessional churches. The Presbyterian Church of Brazil (my church) has 200 years, has more than 700k members and 6k congregations and is still conservative.
Sad
Google helped you out because heresy is worse than homosexuality
:(
If I had to say one thing good about Presbyterians They know a lot about theology
Yet there still liberal.
@@TheScholarlyBaptistnot all
@@JustusWpiano I wouldn’t say not at all ever heard of the PCUSA
@@TheScholarlyBaptist He didn't say "not at all" he said "not all".
@@TheScholarlyBaptistNot as they were originally.
I died when you said “But not just the men but the women and children too” 😂
I thought I would be the only one who got that lol
I got saved in a Methodist church (that left the denomination to become Wesleyan), spent time in a Baptist church after, and just got back tit he US after a 6 month stay in Korea where I attended a reformed PCK (Presbyterian church of Korea) church. Now that I’m back home, I’m checking out a reformed PCA church
Are you a Calvinist?
“Most intellectual societies on earth”
Shows a picture of Scotland
Well, you know what they say about genius and madness.
Until recently, Scotland was one of the most educated countries in Europe and produces some of the most important Enlightenment thinkers.
@@lanesmith1465and the “Enlightenment” led to their destruction.
@@unit2394 same for everyone else
@@unit2394 A good thing the Scots moved to America and contributed to Western Civilization here.
And then there's the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, which is so conservative it doesn't even fit on the compass
There are many hyper conservative Reformed denominations. The PRC (Protestant Reformed) is one of them, and I like that he put them on the compass -- yet, they occupy the same space as the RPCNA did for Presbyterians lol. The PRC is FAR more conservative than the RPCNA. Other conservative denominations include the FRC, the HRC, the actually hypercalvinistic NRC, as well as, on the Presbyterian side, the PRC (Presbyterian Reformed) and the Free Church of Scotland Continuing.
The Netherlands actually has THREE hypercalvinistic Reformed denominations. THREE. In a country of that size -- and at least two have some presence in the US.
@@matthewsoules7193 If with those THREE hypercalvinistic Reformed denominations you mean HHK, OGGiN, and GGiN, you are rather evidently mistaken. Hypercalvinism is a more modern movement; these three are not hypercalvinist but traditional calvinist.
@@TheNabOwnzz Of course they would say that. No one wants to admit to being a hypercalvinist.
A few genuine markers of hypercalvinism -- first, a denial of the need to preach the gospel to all; second, a form of fatalism whereby the possibility of someone desiring to be saved and yet being unable to come on account of not being elect is posited; third, a denial of duty-faith.
From all that I have heard and read, the second of these positions would appear to be the existent in that strain of Dutch Reformed thought. Of course, I am more familiar with the Netherlands Reformed Congregations (the United States), but they are sister churches with the Gereformeerde Gemeenten. If 80%-90% of your (hypothetical "you," not you personally) congregation doesn't take communion because they don't have assurance of salvation, that would seem to indicate a serious problem. If your teaching holds that we must wait for an unmistakable (and borderline mystical) internal feeling before we may come to Christ, you are sorely mistaken. Indeed, how many in the NRC are waiting on their knees even now, hoping that they would be regenerated, yet refusing to simply trust in Christ to save them because it would be PRESUMPTUOUS to come to Christ until one thinks himself to have been made regenerate?
@@TheNabOwnzzThose churches are with no doubt very conservative, but what I have understood is that the Dutch make a distinction between "Orthodox Reformed" and "experimental Reformed" folks? The experimental Reformed are more pietistic and find personal religious experience very important, even seeking assurance for their salvation from it. I have heard that in churches like the NRC, almost nobody (except for maybe the elders and some older people) in the services partakes in communion since they are careful in not eating and drinking for their damnation even though they want to follow the faith really closely. To my knowledge, not many people in the confessionally Reformed/Presbyterian circles hold to this position: the sacrament is instituted for believers who have laid their trust in Christ. But it indeed is pretty interesting how the most conservative reformed/presbyterians come from these ethnically-affiliated churches from Scotland and the Netherlands.
A Dutch Wikipedia page about the experimental Reformed: nl.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bevindelijk_gereformeerden&diffonly=true
@@TheNabOwnzzI think he means GG, GGiN and OGGiN. GG and OGGiN are not hypercalvinist by definition, although it does occur in these denomonations. I would call GGiN hyper calvinist, because they formally believe that the Gospel only has to be preached to those that feel their depravity. While they really appreciate theologians from the Reformation and firmly stick to a traditional form of church services, their beliefs are based on modern theologians (ds. Mallan, dr. Steenblok).
Hello Zoomer, as a Catholic I want to say you taught me a lot about Reformed teaching and cleared up many misconceptions I had about it. I can now safely say that to me it is the Protestant denomination that makes the most sense!
We have a family visiting our church and she was a Catholic who married a Protestant. She said she felt comfortable in a Reformed Church as it was similar to Catholicism. I didn't really get it, because I was thinking in certain theological terms. But it makes sense in a lot of ways.
Yes, regardless if one agrees or disagrees with Reformed theology, it is consistent and logical.
I hope you find Jesus Christ. Join an IFB church near you! 😊❤
As a catholic I have visited lutheran and Presbyterianer churches, lutheran ones in Germany and Denmark.
In a lutheran church I feel confortable, much more in a good Traditionalismus anglican church. Many years ago I prayed vespers with the schismatics in Birmingham, with the old Prayerbook and it was a beautiful experience. Lutherans Are good too: Hymns, Not very Long Sermons but pitily a mockery of Eucharist...
However, prebyterians do Not have the minimal required true worship.
Good anglicans, they are schismatics but I love them and I have prayed with them.
Good lutherans, they are heretics but I love them and I have prayed with them.
Presbiterians have a blasphemous theology, a Blasphemous Notion of God, their false worship comes from the Francs of Satan. I have visited their infernal Meetings BUT I have NEVER Prayed with them.
This is the best episode I've run into that I will pound in my mind when I share the Gospel!
Can't thank you enough!
My family and I became members of a local PCA church and my children were baptized, in part due to RZ's good content! Thanks RZ
The far left PCUSA church I grew up in didn’t teach most of these points. As far as the images of Christ, they had a massive stained glass portrait of Him at the front of the sanctuary. I didn’t really learn about Calvinism (or the Bible, for that matter) until I moved to a PCA church.
"Is means is, as long as the definition of 'is' is not is"
It would be better to say that we don't believe the Divine Nature of Christ can communicate its attributes to the Human nature of Christ, but both can communicate its attributes to the Person of Christ. While Lutherans and Catholics believe the divine Nature can communicate its attributes (like "being everywhere) to the human nature (Christ flesh and blood). For us, this believe mixes the natures and violates Calchedon.
Patrick? Bill Clinton? Hard to tell!
Body means body.... As long as the definition of body has all the qualities of a spirit and none of the qualities of a body.
Yeah it's tough. Like when He says He is the vine. If we takes "is" means "is" then He is a literal wooden door, a literal physical gate, and vine as well. I'm not even necessarily against the Lutheran interpretation but I find the "is" argument a little muddy in light of what else we are told He is.
Abandoun ze zacrements? Zacre blue! huw vould do zuch a sing?
> "the most successful and intellectual societies to ever exist"
> shows Scotland
What's the problem?
@@zuarbrincar769Its not known for being intellectual
Actually, the Scottish enlightenment had a profound impact on the development of the U.S's founding fathers e.g. Thomas Jefferson. Many of the instructors at the early universities during the colonial era were Scottish. After breaking off from the catholic church Presbyterians believed all Christians should be able to read their own bibles and thus Scotland's literacy rates ended up being significantly higher than Britain's. Which led to many teaching over seas in the English colonies.
P.S. not a Presbyterian lol (but like actually I'm not)
Please put these in a playlist God Bless 🔥🙏✝️❤️🔥
True these very informative and have very little bias if any
@@uncagedzebra6941 Are you deaf? “Calvinism is the most God centered form of Christianity” and “most successful and intellectual societies to ever exist were Calvinist"
@@DrGero15 Hes literally started like every video in the series by saying something nice like that about the denomination hes covering
@@Elemented That isn't "nice" that is deeply arrogant.
@@DrGero15 he also said "Baptists have had the biggest impact on the modern world" and "Orthodoxy has conserved their tradition the best of any Christian denomination"
This was so helpful! The idea of predestination is still hard for me to grasp and is something I will continue researching and praying about, but I can definitely see the beauty of reformed theology and deeply appreciate Calvinist churches and their contributions
The Bible is full of tension between God's sovereignty (predestination, elections, etc) and human responsibility (free will, need for obedience, etc). Don't try too hard to resolve it. If you remove the tension you will fall into all kinds of heresies.
I just saw one of your videos recommended on my computer and said.
"Oh hey Resumed Deemer"
And that was the funniest things Ive hear today. Thank you
As a Sydney anglican, I always feel left out of the party. We're evangelical and calvinist down here as well, you know! When you do a video on Anglicanism, can you mention GAFCON? It's like a group of biblical anglicans to protect the preaching of the word in anglican churches in opposition to the liberality of the CoE. (Global Anglican Futures CONference)
Gafcon is such a blessing in their faithfulness.
Sydney Anglicans are FIRE
Anglicans are woke and pro LGBTQ
Amen brother, amen
This was incredibly helpful. I'm Reformed, but grew up Baptist. I'm still wrapping my head around some things. This helped!❤
@J-ky8qg Thanks. I've always been reformed in my soteriology. It was studying the Covenants in ALL of scripture and seeing it as one book that made me fully Reformed.
You should check out the London Baptist Confession. A surprisingly large amount of he says here is within historic baptist teaching, along with a credobaptist view. "Only a symbol" doesn't represent the historic baptist view of the sacraments.
(Also, Gavin Ortlund's channel has helped me a whole lot!)
I’m really enjoying these denomination-introduction videos. Maybe there’s already one and I’m simply overlooking it, but I’d like to see one on Anglicanism as well.
I found the TULIP and PEACE slide very helpful in my understanding of those points. Thanks Zoomer!
This is my favourite youtube Chanel! Thank you for sharing this knowledge with us!
Pure gold. Thank you. Prebyterian Church of Brazil.
It may have indirectly led to it because of the challenging of Rome's authority, but the Reformed definitely did NOT believe in societal equality or democracy. Calvin's ideal form of government was an oligarchy similar to Plato's, and he believed a democracy more perilous than a monarchy. And they all emphasize the importance of a distinction in social positions, also in manner of comportment and dress; that is, a king should never act like a commoner and a commoner never act like a king.
Yeah, but if he said that Calvin was not for democracy then he would have to admit Baptists (who were born out of the Calvinists) get credit for Democracy.
@@TheNabOwnzz He is talking about Calvinism as a tradition and not about Calvin especifically.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 As a tradition the same applies. The Scottish and the Dutch were certainly not in favour of Democracy, in spite of their issues with English and Spanish kings, respectively. It's a post-Enlightenment nonsensicality based on pagan (mostly Greek) notions. Neither Scotland nor the Netherlands ever considered it a good idea to establish a government based on the majority of a benighted populace, and so a set group of people (regents, who came from wealthy merchants, and not from the people's vote, in the Netherlands for one) were invariably the ones who ruled, and they were not picked by a majority of the general populace.
It's kind of an annoying thing. I do personally find his previous claims(in other videos) that Calvinists were responsible for the Am. Revolution a bit overstated: they played a role but it was really Enlightenment ideals in general that influenced the Founders so if Presybterianism influenced them, it wasn't direct.
Also, maybe it's my own Baptist priors but I do find his not mentioning in his previous video the fact that Baptists were the main driving force between religious freedom and the separation of church and state here in America, a bit annoying. Roger Williams, the radical founder of disestablishmentarianism here, who got kicked out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony by the Calvinist Puritans for it, and founded Rhode Island as a haven for all kinds of religious dissidents, was the founder of the Baptist Church in America.
@@HistoryNerd808 The chain is Anglican Monarchy, to Puritan, to Baptist Democracy/Separation of Church and State. Both Presbyterians and Baptists are types of Puritan. Presbyterians held what could be seen as a king of halfway position on Church and State. The Anglicans held to the traditional view of Church & State, the Puritans/Presbyterians held to Church and State Separate but the State does what the Established Church tells it too and the Puritan Congregationalists/Baptists held to a separation of the two.
It was Presbyterian views on their right to overthrow and kill the King, which they did, that led ultimately to Baptist separation, but they themselves didn't hold to it as even a brief survey of history will show, and I am sure you are aware of, since Calvinists persecuted Baptists here more than the Anglicans did back in England.
Dude I just love your videos. I’ve been sitting on the fence of Lutheranism for 4 years and your Lutheran video has made me decide to go for it.
Thanks.
Love this man!! So glad you did us!!
You should make a video on some of the unsung heroes of the reformation like Oecolampadius, Bucer, and Vermigli. As always, great video Zoomer
I'm sure this will be a completely fair and unbiased video....
It's surprisingly unbiased to be very honest.
@@JustinCage56Redeemed Zoomer is usually quite charitable. Even with Catholicism, he did incredibly well not misrepresenting them.
I’m Catholic, I think this was incredibly fair!
6:35 a little more context on the lutheran view here: We do believe even unbelievers objectively recieve the body and blood of Christ, but is has no value to them, because they don't have any faith. It's the same for baptism. Luther says something along the lines of that we only recieve the "treasure" of what is in the sacraments through faith. An unbeliever can't claim to be saved based on his baptism or that he recieved the body and blood. Only believers can, and for those it is an assurance of salvation. So, again: Even though both objectively recieve the body and blood, it only has an effect for the believer.
The Anglican view is very much the same. The unbelieving reject the grace that is objectively offered to all in the Sacraments.
"only has an effect" in so far as a bestowal of grace. We do believe one receives communion at their own spiritual detriment if one is faithless, so we would say there is a negative effect.
@markstein2845 No one unbaptized or unbelieving can receive it in any tradition. Why would an unbeliever want to? And if you are in unrepentant sin you must confess and repent first, apostates are unbelievers.
Great video as always, blessings and greetings from Dutch Reformed
Any plans on doing Anglicanism, Methodism, the Armenian church, the Coptic Church?
Etc the rest
This comes out on my Bday!!
God Bless You Happy Bday ❤️🔥🙏✝️❤️
Omggg happy birthday
Happy birthday!!!
Happy birthday 🎊
Happy birthday! How old are you turning?
I can't wait to see the Presbyterian Videoo
You forgot the RCUS.💀 It is one of the oldest Reformed denominations in the States predating what became the PCUSA by 60 some years.
Love the videos!
Are you going to make one of these for Methodists or Anglicans?
Very informative and thought provoking to this former Roman catholic turned Baptist . God bless you Brother.
That was actually pretty good. Correction on the predestination. Luther, Calvin, Bullinger, and other early Reformers view predestination in terms of who initiates the salvific grace. Nowadays, we always talk in terms of who is saved and who is not (man focused). Early Reformers were about God's char (God focused).
That is really interesting. Do you have some materials I can read on this distinction?
@@martijnnvermeulen7515 Ryan Reeves who is a professor Gordon-Conwell Seminary has a TH-cam channel. Search for "Luther and Calvin on Predestination".
I like Zoomer and he is very knowledgeable. However, if you really want to learn theology, you should learn from pastors and professors (conservatives churches). That's why God gave "teachers/pastors" to the church as the Scripture teaches. While Zoomer is good, he is influenced by his New York Jewish upbringing. He focuses on non-essentials too much and too much of his opinions and misses the mark.
Zoomer is good for introductory teaching but if you are really interested, search for those who are pastors/teachers.
1) The strongest view of human sin.
2) The strongest vision of God's grace and mercy.
3) The balance between Sola Scriptura and Systematic Theology.
3) Christology and a view of the Sacraments more consistent with Chalcedon.
4) The affirmation of the biblical doctrine of Predestination without excuses.
5) The centrality of the majesty and glory of God in His doctrines.
6) The Christian tradition most targeted by straw men and false testimonies from other Christians for placing man in his rightful place of total vulnerability and dependence on God.
Yes, I am a Catholic reformed by the Word of God.
Limited atonement pushes pretty hard against having the strongest view of mercy, IMO. I lean Lutheran.
As a Catholic, I have notifications on for when this premieres! Also, what’s your opinion of Eucharistic Adoration/Procession? We literally worship the Eucharist.
@@WhiteBeardFun st paul would not agree with you bro
Same with me
@@TrueCatholic697Nice pfp. I see you have the Catholic seal Zoomer made!
@@fallenkingdom-zd8xh
Why must there be an agreement with St. Paul?
@@mattd398 Probably because he was inspired by the Holy Spirit, that's a big incentive right there.
The biggest gripe I have with Calvinism is the idea of the elect. I've always believed much more that anyone can be saved, but that person must choose to accept it. Some could call this a radical free will view. My view is we are all corrupted, but there is a part in all of us that can see that and, therefore, we can choose to pursue Christ. The path to justification and sanctification is open to all, but the individual must choose to walk down it.
Read Romans 9!
@@shaddjimenez4524Takeoff your Calvinist goggles and read Romans 9😂
You can only be saved through God’s grace.
It’s a matter of perspective. From our earthly and chronological point of view, anyone indeed can be saved because we can’t possibly comprehend who are the elect and why. Only from God’s eternally existent, outside-of-time, POV do the elect exist. So any half-decent Presbyterian would never give up on someone as simply not being one of the chosen. Because to us (not to God) the future hasn’t happened yet, thus, everyone could potentially be graced by God at any point in the future.
Not my best explanation, but hope it helps🫡
@@GoDawgs-nh1kp Exactly bro, thank you
As a Dutch Reformed guy myself, well done.
Hey zoomer, love your videos. Would you consider posting on the podcast platforms for people who want to listen while driving or working?
I like your videos and think this is a great outlet for me to dive deeper into God’s word. The only thing that frustrates me with this video is usually you are very informational and explain what different Christians believe, but understandably, I feel like this was very defensive of Calvinism, and a ton of(Calvinism is not) comments instead of (Calvinism is) comments. I think I speak for most of us when I say that you do not have to prove anything to anybody. Just keep doing what you’re doing!
Do Anglicanism next plz
2:38 was very helpful for helping me understand this, because I was starting to get confused because of the Lutheran videos saying that Irresistible Grace can't be true.
I’m pretty new to theology.. this video almost made my head explode
I think you need to speak to more Reformed Baptists. Everything you just explained would be heartily affirmed by my church. I mean, the LBC1689 is basically a carbon copy of the Westminster Confession.
Except the Baptist view of Baptism and Covenant Theology.
Came here to say this as well. The 1689 Baptist Confession affirms a huge amount of what he's saying in this video (especially about the sacraments). A gigantic number of Southern Baptists also affirm Covenant Theology.
They just adhere closer to the biblical example of credobaptism.
Also, Gavin Ortlund's channel has helped me a whole lot!
@@ikemeitz5287 1689 London Confession affirms a slightly different covenant theology than the Reformed. Infant Baptist has been seen as a fundamental issue for the Reformed Tradition. Whatsmore, the very few baptists church that affirm the 1689 London Confession also usually affirm the Philadelphia Confession, which affirms an explicitly memorial view of the Lord Supper. So,it is very rare, even among 1689 london Baptist, to find someone who affirms spiritual presence (Gavin Ortlund is an exception). And even among those, they never claimed to be part of the Reformed Tradition until 1980 during the New Calvinism movement.
That Anakin Skywalker reference hit me like a train.
Great videos, I learn a lot about the denominations from you. I am baptist but really I am more of a JEsus/CS Lewis christian.
i honestly expected a 30 minute video
Please do Methodism next!
Do Methodism next plz
9:18 "They're like geniuses, and I tutored them like geniuses! I LOVE THEM!!!"
-Redeemed Zoomer, probably
Would be cool if you could do a video contrasting each denomination’s views of something like evangelism?
(Campus Minister here, so I’m curious how others think about the great commission/other evangelistic verses!)
Can you please make a video on the Methodist Church like this
Isn't the lower middle picture in 9:43 the Reformed church of Szilágyi Dezső square, Budapest, Hungary? Greetings from a Reformed Hungarian. God bless you!
Edit: I looked up for it. It is.
Outstanding video, Calvinism is based
Nah bro your content is fire
God bless you 🙏
Ok, this is quality content.
Was that a Star Wars reference hidden in there?
what's skibidi is that there's a lodge right next door to a local presby church. some presby cemetaries even have obelisks as gravestones on the church ground. skibidi ties from freemasonry in scottish history and presbyterianism. wild, and im a 5 pointer and see dat predestination.
please do not ever use skibidi like that again
@@bobsbobbs why? It’s linguistic
im a baptist and i still need holy water to clean my eyes
Calvinism created societies so intellectual that they ultimately concluded that God doesn’t exists, or Christian morality is relative The overwhelming majority of Calvinists today support women’s ordination and gay marriage and are buried in humanistic rationalism (which makes sense considering Calvin himself was a humanist).
Not in defense of Calvin but humanism at that time was not secular like today. It was Renaissance humanism which was pretty much Christian-based classical studies.
Erasmus was a great humanist and moderate reformer, unlike Luther, Zwingli and Calvin.
@@cabriniryanvu How would “renaissance humanism” differ from secular humanism. While humanists of the past may have professed Christianity, the rationalism employed by humanists of all stripes is the same - that’s what defines them as humanists. And it’s that - their rationalism - that the Church has always found incompatible with the Christian faith.
A liberal calvinist is an oxymoron. They may claim the title Reformed, but their doctrine proves that the claim is just a facade.
Yes, let us all be anti-intellectual idiots. Or you can just realize those liberals aren't even real Christians.
Name a branch of Christianity that isn't dealing with mass apostasy and indifference.
Catholicism? Look at France and Ireland. Lutheranism? Look at Sweden. Baptists? The USA. Calvinists? Scotland. Anglicans? England. Orthodoxy? Greece (yeah, it's got single digit percentages of actual belief in God and is starting to trend liberal *fast*. Don't get me started on the actual faith of Russians).
I don't even like Calvinism but this is a silly objection.
8:53 Curious how the territories of Protestant societies correspond closely with the territories of Germanic societies. Is there something in Germanic culture that attracts them to these traditions?
Next one Pentecostal pls
Bravo, young padawan.
Presbiterian Jesus:
"Hei, James, write down that sick people must be annointed with oil but ONLY until the last apostle dies. The sacrament is abolished afterwards. Do not forget to write down these precise instructions".
Presbyterian Jesus after resurrection:
"Receive the Holy Gosh. Whoever has the sins pardoned, has them pardoned from eternity because I have decreed so. Actually, they are pardoned even BEFORE they sin. However, remember it to them."
Me, a Scotch-Irish, hearing "Calvinism produce the most successful and intellectual societies" than seeing a Scottish flag up there couldn't help push out a barking laugh. There is a lot of great stuff that has come out of Scotland(mostly soldiers, engineers, and John Locke), but I wouldn't be so bold to label Scotland in such words.
That being said, you did finally answer a question in history I've been puzzling over for long time. King Charles of England preferred Arminianism over Reformed Theology which led eventually to Puritans leading a civil war against him and eventually taking his head. I never saw anything in Arminianism that could explain his draw to that, but it was the rejection of holy saintly kings of reformed thought that convinced him that he should go the other way. Thanks for that.
I detect prejudice in your statement. You feel and express contempt ("push out a barking laugh") for the suggestion that Scotland produced one of "the most successful and intellectual societies." I say; (a) Treating anybody with contempt (feeling haughty, superior, looking down at, sneering) is vulgar, arrogant and unchristian. (b) You are obviously ill-educated concerning the global impact of 'the Scottish Enlightenment' - just look it up on the internet. Amongst other achievements not included in your brief caricature of a list, Scotland was renowned for innovating one of the finest education systems in the world. Scots benefitting from this included Adam Smith and Alexander Fleming. Summed up by you as "a lot of great stuff." Indeed, and most disturbing that your contempt invites contempt in return. Time for prayer and contemplation of Buddhist Conditioned Genesis; "This arising, that arises...". How very sad.
The Lamb at 7:23 is the closest we'll get to an Understanding Moravianism video
Very interesting thank you for the video
hey RZ, important question for you. How do I know if my theological beliefs are biased and not really mine? Im a little worried that everything I believe as a new Christian isnt what I really think. any advice?
Speak to your pastor and elders. RZ is not a proper spiritual authority to direct these types of questions to.
Lunar Panda is right. Also, Read the Bible.
Your theological views probably ARE biased if you're a new Christian! But you have the Holy Spirit in you and God's word through which he works. God promises that he will "sanctify us in truth," so trust him and learn about him, and let him guide you based on what the text says.
It's also worth talking to the leaders in your church about this. They're, ideally, going to be able to show you how their beliefs come from God's word. A study of hermeneutics (how to read the Bible and understand it) is also super helpful! Ask your pastor about some authors he trusts.
Orthodox and catholics will say : just talk to the priest man.
9:19 Star Wars! Luke was predestined to be the chosen one lol.
Please mention Euler! The greatest mathematician of all time and devout Swiss Reformed
Not Presbyterian tho.
I know I’m disappointed I forgot him
@@TheScholarlyBaptistHes reformed. This video is about reformed tradition. Presbyterians are reformed
@@PloFilms yeah I realized that after I commented lol. Also cool stop motions, I’m assuming you’re more of a prequels guy like me. God bless
Sorry if this has already been asked and answered, Zoomer, but would you recommend Robert Shaw's book The Reformed Faith?
this comment section is like the catholic catechesis-in-progression groups got early access to the video just to sperg about Calvinism. gotta give respect to the office of ecclesial soy, they really do use their resources lol
9:19 ha...i understood that reference
Presbyterian Jesus:
"Our debts are forgiven from all eternity, THEREFORE we fogive our debtors"
Now I understand why my professor called me a Calvinist today.
I dont understand calvinsism so hopefully this helps
He has a whole series of mastering reformed theology. You should watch them. Or read Calvin’s institutes.
Focus on the Bible and you’ll be fine.
@@TheScholarlyBaptist thanks for the help!
@@ChandlerTC thanks for the help!
Presbyterian Jesus:
"An the gates of Hell will prevail over my Church... until Calvin of course".
"Creating successful and intellectual societies"
Also Calvinism:
*gay*
Point to me where this exist in any Calvinism Confession of faith.
Gayness is the product of the fall, not Calvinist theology or any type of theology for that matter. LGBT Affirming individuals exist in every theological tradition including Roman Catholicism
@@drewzinn779 Really? I haven't seen appointed officials supporting sodomy and gay marriage - they get excommunicated
What a dumb response
@@HumbleRustic No.
I encouraged them. I encouraged them all to study theology and the bible. And not just the men, but the women and the children too.
Did you do Anglicanism for this one?
I'm a baptist who believes everything about calvinism (tulip) except your view of the sacraments. we still call ourselves reformed but aren't fully reformed
0:39 Bro just can’t admit Reformed baptists have more in common with him than Catholics 😂
Do you baptized babies? that's what I thought
They were literally born out of the Calvinist Puritans. They take Calvinism to it's logical endpoint. Have you heard of the "Halfway Covenant"?
@@DrGero15 yes sir!
@@thomasthellamas9886 "If we have to wait for God to convert them to let them participate fully in the church, then why not wait to baptize them until after that happens?" - a Calvinist Puritan capable of logic, 12 seconds before starting a Baptist Church.
@@DrGero15 I was raised baptist, but the more I learn about Reformed Tradition, I'm drawn to it for it's more rational, thoughtful foundation, and for it's lack of (IMO, downright evil) teachings like The Rapture and Dispensationalism which are common in Baptist/S.Baptist churches. Then they get to baptizing babies, and I'm just like... "WHY?"
What do Calvinists believe about damnation? Is it extreme torture for all eternity, like an actual lake of fire, or worse? That's horrible in and of itself, and even more so if you believe that God created people to be sent there, with no real chance of escaping it (determinism). That's why many critics have rightfully pointed out that Calvinism portrays God as worse than the devil.
How? Do you have the same criticism of the Passover in Exodus? If not, why? It's fundamentally the same exact thing.
@@lanesmith1465 You mean that God hardened Pharaoh's heart? Well, he didn't burn him for eternity.
Here’s Paul’s response:
“What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.”
Romans 9:14-24 NASB1995
@@Socrates-apologist That's not "Paul's response", that is something Paul said which you assume is a reference to the Calvinistic view.
@@hermanessences Fair enough. For the record, I was not trying to be rude. What I will say is, the helpful thing about Paul in this chapter of Romans is that he gives us the response that he expects to hear from the reader. This is helpful for us to interpret it correctly, because if your interpretation of Paul here does not match the objection that Paul raises, then the odds are that you’re not interpreting it correctly.
This confirms that I will never embrace Calvinism. The notion of double predestination means that God knowingly created most people without even the free choice to come to Him. It means He made most people to suffer eternally in hell. Meanwhile undee Catholic theology, indeed some are elected for salvation, but none are elected for damnation. You are free to choose or reject God.
You believe in the same thing as the Calvinist does unless you’re an open theist.
Hypothetical: Did God create blasphemous bob knowing he would go to hell? Yes he did. Why then would God create him knowing he would be dammed? Why did he just not create him? He was under no obligation to right ? You also believe in double predestination. I know you’ll say he loved us so much he gave us the choice. But if he’s so loving why did he not just not create the unbelievingly? Wouldn’t his love overridden their terrible choice?
But no, God owes no man salvation. If God was fair, we’d all go to eternal punishment. For some he showed mercy to the others they received his justice. Read Romans 9 and then Ephesians 1
@@HumbleRustic God is all knowing, so yes he knows what we will choose. That doesn't negate creating us with the ability to choose. It is not unjust to create someone who will willingly choose evil. It is unjust to create someone who has no choice but to be evil, and then punish them for it eternally.
@@Rivian_JediUnbelievers have free will, not just libertarian free will. Man is dead in sin, not just sick. Man hates God , there must be a supernatural act of grace in order for him to be saved(Ephesians 2:1-10). But at the same time man is responsible for his sin and actions and will be judged accordingly. Read acts 4:27-28. How this all works we cannot truly understand. But scripture makes clear that God ordains the salvation of both the elect and non elect. Your arguments are exactly what Paul anticipated in Romans 9:19. Paul makes clear from an Old Testament analogy of the potter and the clay , that it is irrational and arrogant for men to question God’s choice of election and reprobation as for a piece of clay to question the purposes of the potter.
@@HumbleRustic Saint Paul and Saint Peter make it clear that Christ came to save EVERYONE in 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9. However the saving Grace of God must be received and maintained by man. Matthew 19:16-30 and 25:31-46 make it quite clear that we need to cooperate with this salvation.
In the proper context, Romans 9 is referring to God's unfolding plan in history. Not predetermining the fate of souls for eternity. Were I to accept Calvin's warped version of God, I would be accepting an imperfect deity. One who is in fact not all-loving.
This view also immediately falls apart when we consider Adam and Eve. They were born free from Original Sin correct? So this would mean they had free will right? Does this mean that Adam and Eve were neither part of the elect or the unelected? Did they ever have the true choice to not take the fruit from the tree or was that predestined?
@@HumbleRustic The letters of Paul and Peter as well as the Gospels make it clear that Christ came to save everyone, but we must receive His salvation and maintain it. In proper context Romans 9 is about God's plan of history, not the predestination of souls. Were I to accept Calvin's god, I would be accepting a false god. One who is not perfect, because he is not all-loving. Apparently this god of Calvin gave precisely two people in history the freedom to choose, and then created most other people to punish eternally.
Do Methodist next please 😭
Why do I see so many dislikes on your videos? This is all high tier stuff and comments agree with me.
Are you getting raided or something?
The deslike extension is broken
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Makes sense
The Calvinist idea of the elect is messed up
Sounds very Islamic
Not at all
A lot of Protestantism ends up regressing into things that sound like Islam. If I had to take a *purely* uneducated but slightly observant guess, it's largely because Islam itself is just a rip-off of Christianity and Judaism and knock-offs are going to have similar signs.
How, exactly?
@@TheNabOwnzz Islam has exactly the same teaching of Predestination and Election, as did the ancient Gnostics.
Specifically, very Sunni. From what I understand, I think the Shia Muslims don't believe in double predestination.
"Rapture" depends on how you define the word. I Th 4:17 uses the phrase "caught up" (Greek harpazo, Latin rapturo). So, there is an event that occurs which could properly be called a "rapture"....however it is not the event that dispensationalists call the rapture, which allegedly occurs 7 years before Christ's return. I believe it is talking about the glorification and "catching up" of the living righteous at Christ's return to meet Him in the air.
Although 🇳🇱 The Netherlands is just a small country, there's a lot of 🌌 SPACE for ⚘️ TULIPs, because we're Calvinists.
Most Dutch are atheist *in practice*
7:40 in Scotland, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, where Presbyterians/Reformists took over from the Catholic Church during the Reformation, did they destroy the Catholic stain-glassed windows and also statues and relics?
Calvinism is like a house of cards. Its a very elaborate theology based on a few biblical principles but it’s foundations are based on extremely contradictory concepts. For instance, PSA turns the father against the son but they affirm the trinity. How can god be set against god even temporarily?
Christ wept for Jerusalem saying it was because they would not choose him. Imagine the potter weeping for vessels he made for the garbage and as he was throwing them away he was weeping and blaming the pot for not choosing to be a vessel worth keeping?
Lastly Calvin said god is in no way the author of sin and is responsible for no evil. He also said god decrees all evil and sin, for Calvin this is a central mystery. He could not reconcile this in any logical fashion but concluded this must be true because he would not accept a different theology. Did god cause adam to sin? Was adam the last man to have free will? The calvinist is free to espouse either position but cannot reconcile them. Either god caused the fall or allowed it to happen. If he caused/decreed the fall then humans cannot be truly responsible for their sins. If the unelect can do nothing to avoid hell, how can they be at fault? If the elect can do nothing to avoid heaven, whats the point of them choosing to do good works?
Calvinism falls apart on every doctrine when you really think about each one. The point is they like to feel like they have superior theology but really its a facade based on inconsistent interpretation of scripture.
One more, Calvins view of the eucharist is totally illogical and he himself couldnt really explain it’s nature. He believed in real presence but not in transubstantiation or con substantiation. He never really articulated how christ is present, just that he is. Calvin basically built a complicated theology on a handful of passages taken out of context. When the rest of scripture is brought to bear, it simply reinterprets clear passages or ignores them to maintain the theology.
Exactly, I would add that in their attempt to raise God and lower man they horseshoed back around and made God the only sinner and freed man of his responsibility for evil. Calvinism is pseudo-intellectual.
@@DrGero15 amen! You can’t take such contrary and extreme positions and then claim you have the truth. The thing is St Paul only talks about the elect as people who choose to remain in christ. God saves that person but it has to be their choice. With calvinism god is the only one making choices that pertain to salvation. They grasp at straws and prooftext scripture, they’ll say see! Our good deeds are as filthy rags but fail to see how that passage praises good deeds as well. Only through context can you understand why those people’s good deeds were as filthy rags and why other’s good deeds were praised. The calvinist just ignores the praise part, focuses on the negative part, applies it to everyone, and then uses it to bolster their theology. This is the worst part of calvinism if you ask me, it’s complete nonchalance when it comes to harmonizing scripture. The reason? Simple. It would cause them to abandon their broken theology.
@@timboslice980 Indeed. The most logical and consistent ones become Baptist. There is no way to split Baptism into two different things which are separated by time and have a good reason to say that it saves or that you should do it to children.
Have you heard of the Halfway Covenant?
@@DrGero15 No tell me more. Is that like pre augustinians?
@@timboslice980 No it is Puritan, you can read a brief overview here : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Way_Covenant
Oriental Orthodox next!
Yeah! All Presbyterians come together!
Do methadist next
Reformed baptists are reformed!!!!!!!!!
Not they are not and this term only started to exist 40 years ago.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 ever heard of the 1689 London Baptist confession of faith. Idc if the term only started 40 years ago it is simply a literary expression not of doctrinal significance
Agreed
@@TheScholarlyBaptist Baptist that believe in the 1689 Confession never claimed to be part of the Reformed Tradition and they called themselves "Particular Baptist". The term "Reformed Baptist" and the Baptist association with the Reformed Churches started 40 years ago during the " New Calvinism" movement. And the 1689 LCF don't have the same theology of the sacraments and the same covenant theology as the Reformed Churches.
No you are not. Reformed does not refer to an idea of predestination. They have always referred to themselves as baptists.
I think you should have censored the 2CV’s in your iconoclast section.
Why does God chooses to not save some people? Not even free will. It sounds like we are his puppets.
Read Romans 9.
God is all-knowing
Read acts 4:27-28.
To paraphrase Romans 9:18; "because he wanna"
The better question is "Why does God save anybody?" The gospel if offered to all, but because of our spiritual state only those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit can possibly believe. I dead man can't rise from the dead on his own, regardless of what medical care is avaliable. A proper doctrine of both God and man is needed in order to understand election.
most followed denomination in Indonesia ✝️🇮🇩