Actually I think that can still be deceptive. I say one argument at one angle at a time. One argument may turn into several, each with their own needed research and thinking.
@@chrisray9653what he's saying is you need to understand the other side's argument well enough that you could articulate it in a way they would agree with. If you can't do that, then you have no basis from which to make a counter-argument. In otherwords, if both sides can't find a common starting place, a debate will be counter-productive. Focusing on winning over them instead of first understanding them will do nothing but harden positions and turn friends into enemies.
I think you should try to represent their arguments as made, and consider potential counterarguments one could make. A steel man can ironically be as much of a contortion of an argument as a straw man, a straw man in shining armor. You are still making an argument you wish they made, even if it’s to (ostensibly) make the debate harder. For example, one may wish to steelman anti-abortion arguments by removing all the fuzziness and declaring life begins at conception and life at that point is exactly equivalent to a newborn baby. This may appear to be the most consistent argument in many respects, but the truth is that most people who are anti-abortion don’t actually believe it. So even though it appears like the most logically consistent and durable argument, it’s not the real argument. Any attacks specially designed to get through the “steelman” may actually falter against less rigid positions. The same can go in reverse: claiming the steelman pro-abortion argument is that life begins exactly at birth and anything before is just part of the mother’s body. This may seem like the most logically consistent pro-abortion view, but it’s not a common one. So again, special-tailored arguments to attack this steelman may falter against more flexible common interpretations.
It's one thing I admire about Joshua. Far as I know, he's not a fan of Catholicism at all. But in his videos covering it, he represents it as well as I would
@@Goblin-Nixon I've heard he's a baptist so not too close theologically to Catholicism, but I have no reason to believe he dislikes Catholics or the denomination if you want to call it that.
@@Goblin-Nixon if you look under his videos, there is a sermon or two in which I get the impression. I could well be mistaken, it doesn't matter. He doesn't misrepresent it
@@wendyleeconnelly2939 No, he's saying that *even if they are actually scoundrels,* they still deserve to have their beliefs fairly represented. What he said doesn't *require* them to be considered scoundrels.
As a pagan, this is exactly why I love this channel. I come here because I want to understand what my Christian friends and neighbors actually believe, so that I can know them better for who they really are. Combatting anti-christian bias in my own religious community is very important to me, and a great deal of it comes directly from misrepresentation of Christian beliefs. I don't want a world where we all agree, I want a world where we disagree honestly and respectfully. Thank you for the good work that you do, you are among the very best educators on this platform.
I have a daughter who has told me that there is a difference between atheism and anti-theism. It sounds to me like you are very much in the former camp, rather than the latter.
You sir are doing a good work. I was struck by what you said, but I will extend this principle even further to include non-Christians as being harmed by Christians who misrepresent one another. This leads non-Christians to see through the hypocrisy, backbiting, and illogic of a bad Christian witness, concluding "Well, there they go again! See? That's Christianity for you!" Keep doing what you are doing. I think it leads to harmony within the Body of Christ, instead of the chaos and backbiting we often see between people who claim the name of Christ. You are doing a good work for the Kingdom.
I won't lie, Joshua had been in his bag with these vids. I've never seen anyone explain the different denominational and theological viewpoints so unbiased.
My stance is that if I cannot explain the beliefs of a group in such a way that adherents of that group would sign off on, I haven't understood them. Thanks so much for doing what you do.
That's not how an objective viewpoint works. That's you pandering to the lowest common denominator so as to not offend anyone. Sometimes, they should be offended.
@@GnohmPolaeon.B.OniShartz Offense doesn't help anyone re-evaluate their beliefs. It has a strong tendency toward encouraging people to double down instead. It's completely ineffecive.
Lying about a denominations beliefs is bearing false witness against them. If their theology is so terrible it would be easy to refute, with no extra lies necessary. If their theology is difficult to understand, it’s on you to recognize your limitations. I follow your channel becuase I was so impressed with the just treatment you gave denominations I’m familiar with, your strong ethic and commitment to honest representation.
To be fair, a lot of misrepresentation isn't a matter of lying, but of simply not taking the time to truly understand another view. A lot of people are misrepresenting denominations while believing what they're saying is actually true.
@@turnerjazz7872 Misrepresenting someone's belief IS lying, even if they don't understand a group's beliefs. They're not telling the truth, whether they mispresent someone's beliefs or telling outright falsehoods.
@@turnerjazz7872 if they won’t listen and adjust their misunderstanding, and continue to promote a false representation of another belief system, that is lying. And make no mistake, that’s what many many many people do. But I’ll concede that lying is a deliberate act of the will, whereas honest misunderstanding does not meet that moral threshold.
Well done. I like your encyclopedic approach to your teaching. I have recommended your content to many friends and I'm encouraged to watch your channel grow.
Excellent reminders and information. As a believer in Entire Sanctification, you represented it as well as I’ve heard some. Literally had a conversation yesterday with someone attending my church about some of the exact misrepresentations you mentioned!! Love your work!!
Of all the problems created by social media, the ushering in of "The Age of the Death of Nuance" seems to be the greatest one. The inability for people to have nuanced and complex views on any subject (religion, politics, music, food, etc) just causes mid-wits to rise to the top of all debates flinging invective and nothing useful comes of it. Without even taking a firm position on any of the specific arguments, this channel is one of those beacons of light pushing back against the black & white thinking of much of the world. Critical thinking is a gift from God that not even the Cessationists would reject, yet most poeple do.
Yes definitely. We should have even more nuance and complexity in the denominational divide. We are not nearly enough seperated into our own little camps. I say we need another great awakening where even more disillusioned men can go off and form their version of pure Christianity. We can't let Ready to Harvest run out of things to talk about.
Great ending statement. I use to teach: you need to be able to state an opponent's position/belief back to them and have them state, "Yes! You got it. Now you understand." Only at that point have you earned the right to say, "Thank you. And now that I know I understand your position correctly, I can telly you I think you're wrong, and here's why."
Joshua, I greatly appreciate the time you spend to research and fairly present any Christian school of thought. You are the kind of person I believe we will find in our heavenly home. Blessings to you!
This video is great :D As a progressive Christian myself, it definitely helped me think of the ways I view others. Plus, have definitely been on the receiving end of the 'I knew a person who once said xyz so everyone thinks that way' ("this person is lgbt affirming and doesn't believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus!"). I think its a great idea to ask individual people what they believe to get a clearer picture :)
What an informative and positive message! We all need to remember that God loves us all and that we need to reflect that in our words even as we argue for our faith position.
As a non-Christian in a largely areligious country who is somewhat unaware of what Christians say to one another, I found this pretty interesting. It reminds me a lot of my work in politics, where even if it gets in the way of victory, people still feel an uncontrollable urge to strawman the opposition. Without a solid base of empathy and understanding you're never gonna win someone over.
I appreciate your honesty, clarity, objectivity and fairness. I don't know if your own denominational affiliations are well-hidden secrets, but I have yet to have a confident guess about them. I enjoy being able to imagine that you agree with me on every detail! :)
Well presented video. Another distinction that I often try to remind myself is the difference between what people believe and what denominations teach. Far be it from me to judge what is in a person's hearts in regards to their beliefs. Denominations contain many individuals with a wide variety of beliefs. I can though, absolutely judge what is being taught and ask myself if I agree with those stated teachings.
As someone who holds a couple of these beliefs, glad to see someone say this. Its easy to misrepresent someone and argue against a straw man instead of an actual viewpoint, but its never right
Wonderful video, Joshua. As John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things." We should always strive to be fair and true in our representation of another person or group, yet how easy it is to categorize or jump to conclusions. Your channel is a gem!
The other reality is that many people holding a denominational label don't actually believe much of what may be contained in the denomination's statement of faith.
Excellent points! I have come to the conclusion that if we approach the person that we disagree with from a position of love, and humility, we can engage in real Christian discourse. We are all growing in our journey with Christ. Also, John Wesley makes an excellent argument for Christian Perfection, that, if considered sincerely, I dont think ANY Christian would honestly disagree. Now, as for what various "Holiness" denominations have done with his ideas, that is something entirely different. What Wesley preached is, in many ways, similar to the concept of "theosis" within oriental and eastern orthodoxy. It is that a Christian can walk with God and surrender to Him to the point that we can truly and sincerely be motivated by love in all that we do. He said that we will not be free from all human weaknesses and flaws, but we can be full of real Christian love
I've been listening to wesleyans of all stripes for weeks now, trying to figure out what they teach about entire sanctification. Your couple minute long clip on it brought more clarity than hours of listening to methodists and nazarenes. I could not find one debate on the subject between a Wesleyan and someone who rejects those ideas. Methodists need to step up their TH-cam game.
Thank you for adding the final point about presuming or guessing people's motivations. I am seeing a lot of this online in "echo chambers" that vilify others, and assign motives to justify it. This is the very "party spirit" against which St Paul warned us.
Fantastic video as always! I also find that arguments about personal belief are made doubly complicated by the fact that just because someone belongs to a particular denomination doesn’t necessarily mean that the individual person literally believes every single theological point that their denomination officially espouses. It’s one thing to ask what the Presbyterian Church USA believes, and it’s another thing entirely to ask what one individual member of PC USA believes. For better or worse, whether they are right or wrong for doing so, it can be difficult to group ALL members of a given denomination together. Schisms and splintering happen for a reason. If you want to make an argument about a denomination at large, consult their official documents/confessions/creeds/etc and argue honestly and in good faith. If you are trying to argue with an individual believer, ask them what they believe, and argue honestly and in good faith.
So good dude. It would have been good to see the scriptural basis that proponents of these beliefs cite to support their positions. That said, top notch reasoning and suggestions here! Keep up the great work.
Quite a while ago, I learned that if one wants to have a discussion with someone whose beliefs are different to one's own, there first thing to do is ask them questions. As many questions as you can. That helps to clear away any misconceptions (which turn into misrepresentations) that _I_ might have, and it assures the other person that I'm interested in what they have to say and not attacking them. After I took that approach, the conversations I had were a lot more productive.
I appreciate these videos and it is true that we need more unity in the Church today. The trouble with these discussions though is that, while these groups may not explicitly teach the things mentioned, the things mentioned are often implicitly taught or are logical deductions of what they DO teach. For example, a holiness teacher once told me that he had gone several weeks without sinning. This teacher would never have taucght that he was a perfect representation of Jesus yet, in my understanding of the nature of sin, his claim interfaces with the logic of scripture to this effect. In other words, sin is Biblically defined as anything that falls short of the Glory of God. If the teacher went without sinning for two weeks then it follows that , for those two weeks, he had attained to the express image of the Glory of God. Although they don’t teach it this way, one cannot hold to the biblical definition of sin and believe in Christian Perfection without diminishing the Holiness ofGod in practical application of the doctrine as it manifests in the real world. Regardless of whether you agree with my definition of Holiness, my point is more about the fact that ‘ the logical deductions of what I know to be true as interfaced with what you teach’ result in heretical deductions. Even if you yourself don’t agree with those deductions. This is why these discussions are challenging.
It would be interesting to understand his definition of sin and to know every aspect of his life. Just knowing our fallen nature, I'm pretty sure he deceived himself.
I would also add that many cessationists (like myself) also believe that God can and does impart miraculous spiritual gifts for specific circumstances to individuals when and where it pleases Him, though all evidence says these gifts are temporary and not some permanent bestowal. This includes gifts such as healing, tongues (actual foreign languages understood by a native speaker who is present), interpretation of tongues (miraculously understanding a native speaker), and prophecy. But they are exceptionally rare, and not normative.
I remember once in a college course we were instructed to prepare (and conduct) a debate on an ongoing legal case before the Supreme Court. Snyder v Phelps. My partner and I represented the a Certain Baptist Church. During the course of our research we found the phone number for their legal counsel. We called. Not only was their chief attorney a member of that particular church, but we had called during the middle of a biblestudy. She took the call well, and gave us excellent pointers.
Four MORE groups you might be misrepresenting: (1) Hobbits. They do NOT all have big hairy feet, at least not the lady hobbits, although it may be that they shave their feet. I'm not sure. (2) Haggis. They do NOT all look like wild hamsters. I've seen many of them roaming the Scottish Highlands, they are highly mischaracterized and taste great with tatties and neeps. (3) The Knights of Who say "Ni!" They have NOT all converted to being the Knights who say "Ekke Ekke Ekke Ekke Ptang Zoom Boing Ademshoushim". Many still prefer to be called the Knights of Who say "Ni!" (4) Trekkies. We're not all nerds. 🖖
To your third point, I read somewhere that the Knights who say "Ni!' had Byzantine origins, while the other group had Roman roots - and that the confusion by outsiders is their mutual use of shrubbery.
Haha I enjoy your videos. I used to be heavy into anti catholic sentiments. But listening to priests and Catholics with an open mind taught me they have more in common with my faith and beliefs than I realized.
I think that you do a good job of achieving your goals for this channel, and I think what you do does benefit the everyone trying to grow in their faith.
Excellent video! I particularly appreciate your closing point about guessing people's motives. One of the questions I most HATE receiving is, "Why do members of group X believe position Y?" with the desire for some kind of psychological explanation. I appreciate the desire to understand the psychology of others, but psychological explanations are notoriously subjective and fail to engage the EVIDENCE for and against positions. The best general answer to that type of question is almost always, "Because they believe that the evidence supports position Y."
One of the particularly frustrating things about the complementation position as it was expressed in the denomination I grew up in where the caveats. they would say "women can teach!" ...but only to other women or to groups of children including boys who aren't yet baptized. "women can study the bible!"...but there are no jobs for a women with a BA in ministry, whereas there are jobs for men with that degree. While it may be factually true that women are encouraged to study the bible and to teach, the strict limits that are put on those things are stifling. It allows the men to say one thing while practicing another. One of many reasons I am no longer a part of that denomination.
The biggest problem with discussion around denominational or broad beliefs about issues is that we try to lump people together and assume that because they hold a part of a belief that is defined as cessationist or egalitarian or holiness or any number of other systems that the person we are discussing with holds all the other beliefs of that group. If you asked a hundred people who claimed to adhere to a certain belief system to describe that system to you inevitably you would hear a few common themes but on the whole you would still get one hundred different belief systems described to you. Every individual will hold their own beliefs (right or wrong) for themselves and should be approached as such, not as a member of a group but as an individual.
I honestly want to thank you as always for being as objective as possible with your videos. As a charismatic Armanian evangelical, I’ve been quick to get offended and create a counter caricature of the many TH-cam discernment ministries that in my eyes, “tear into” charismatics and, again in my own offended opinion, call us all quasi-new age and frauds. Yet instead of thinking “these people are just being smug and want to force people to fit into their mold”, I should see their videos as being a manifestation of their own strongly held beliefs on what the Bible says and means, and that there are some valid criticisms to be found in some spheres that do use and define spiritual gifts in ways that aren’t exactly orthodox. Like you said in the video, if I’m getting that upset about what someone says about what i believe, is my own opinion really that iron clad and free of criticism? In the end, I should focus on the fact that they believe in the same God that I do, and that they are coming from a place they think is discipleship and correction and not merely “punching down”.
I appreciate this video very much. My two cents: in addition to avoiding misrepresenting the views of others, I believe we should avoid all other forms of contention (see Romans 2:8-9). I believe argumentativeness and debate for debate's sake drives away the Spirit of God, which leads to confusion, rather than enlightenment (see James 3:16). I believe effective communication, edification and mutual enlightenment occurs when we use persuasion, patience, gentleness, meekness, and love--free from the motivations of pride to be right all the time. I'm not saying we can't ask questions, compare and contrast views, or disagree kindly. This is not an accusation. To the contrary, I'm working on my own tendency to be contentious and to insist on being right and the smartest one in the room--and I hope you will all hold me accountable in my quest to overcome that tendency. And I realize this is possibly the most ridiculous thing one can post on a social media forum--the world's capital of contention. Still, I hope you will join me in holding up this light and not hiding it under a bushel.
Great video, normally I learn some new things and thats great, but specifically for the cessationists if youre right then i did greatly misunderstand cessationists
I've always loved the strategy of St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. Steelman the opponent's argument and then thoroughly explain why it's wrong in the most charitable way possible. This is certainly what we should be doing all the time, not only in theological debates but in any sorts of debates we participate in.
I went to a cessationist church and believed it. They even showed the verse for it. But later changed when I researched the verse. It says that some gifts will end BUT it does NOT say WHEN they will end. People can only speculate to when they end and some say it's at the close of the bible, BUT scripture does NOT say that. Some don't believe that God still heals. I prayed to God for healings and they happened. Even doctors were stumped from the healings. I'm not talking about Benny Hinn healings, I'm talking about prayers to God, asking Him to heal. I've never experienced speaking in tongues, yet I have a relative that started speaking in tongues one day when they were talking to me. It wasn't Kenneth Copeland babbling tongues. It sounded like an Asian language (I know some Japanese and Vietnamese and it wasn't those). People will say they either believe or don't believe. I just say, it's possible. I don't squabble over them, unless it's like the WOF or NAR extreme (waving of coats or baby talk -- those are NOT biblical in any manner).
I don't think it really says they end in the sense that cessationists say they end. It's more they cease because everyone will have them to the fullest extent so there is nothing special about them. It's all tied to perfection. So there will be no words of knowledge because God has already revealed everything to us, no gifts of tongues because we already all under stand each other, etc.
In every group (other than tight cults) there is a wide range of belief on the debated issues, such as those listed above. The "outliers" such as those labeled as such in this video, while minority positions within the group, are not so uncommon within the group as to be called "tiny". It is common for a large plurality of the ":rank and file" within a group to hold the "extreme" positions, while the more educate, those pastors who write books and/or debate publicly, to hold the more moderate positions. Thus, it is these who say on TH-cam "But we don't believe what you just said." As an example, in this tiny town, I spent several years in an SBC church composed almost entirely of "converted Catholics" and their children. The would speak loudly against RC beliefs such as the confessional. One day I was in a discussion with the new priest (the archbishop's personal "right hand man") about the liturgy of the confessional. He asked me "What do you Baptists believe and do?" When I described personal prayers of repentance to God, he said "That is the BEST way to confess and receive forgiveness! We call that..." Here he gave a Latin Name which translates "heart confession" He went on"...The entire purpose of the confessional liturgy is to get the penitent to that point of confession to God." The common people within the local RC churches held the un-Biblical concept; the Roman Catholic theologian held a profoundly Biblical understanding.
I'm sorry but the confessional is far from biblical. The more educated Catholics will know it is neither Apostolic or Biblical. Certainly there will also be not so educated people who can't explain properly why it is wrong but wrong it is. I understand how and why Rome has a class of priests, but it is a horrible error and being educated about the topic won't fix that.
As a revert to Protestantism from Catholicism myself, I don’t think any of their views are somehow “crypto-pagan” at all. The belief in Mary’s immaculate conception, sinless life and assumption all stem from the idea that if God the Son did indeed take human flesh and become fully man and fully God, the woman that bore him ought to be as pure a woman as possible, even to the point that she didn’t deserve the consequences of sin, that being death. If indeed God is the God of the living and not the dead, and that Christians should pray for each other, than it ought to be true that not even death can seperate us from from our departed Christian brothers and sisters. If ministers of the gospel really do have the “ministry of reconciliation” and that we ought to “confess our sins to one another”, there ought to be a time and place for it. If God cannot tolerate even the smallest sin, and yet there are sins that don’t lead to death (damnation), there ought to be a place in the afterlife where those more minor sins are purged from the soul and the soul of the Christian is made perfect. Lastly (though I could go on), if Jesus in John 6 really did mean that his flesh and blood are truly food and drink, then the Eucharist ought to be Jesus Christ himself in the form of food and drink, and going back to a similar line with the Mary point, you cannot eat it in a state of mortal sin. Protestants can and should debate the “oughts”, but they should know where the “oughts” come from. Call Catholicism a mininterpretation of the Bible and a stretch in theological logic, but don’t call it reskinned paganism.
@@adamandsethdylantoo Rome teaches things which are found in gnosticism and paganism before they are ever found in any Christian setting and which then came into the church. The Marian dogmas are not Apostolic, not biblical and insulting to God and Christ. They are not Christian. The justifications used for them are contrary to the early Fathers and the teaching of the Apostles. If I'm wrong then words don't mean what they mean.
Great points. The opposite can be true, too, namely that it is assumed that what a large but heterodox group believes or practices is what an everyone with that label believes, too. For example, when I mention that I am Lutheran, too many believe that I must be ELCA and/or hold to its beliefs.
I, for one, appreciate your non judgemental reviews of what different denominations believe. I've had a lifelong fascination with religious beliefs around the world. The vast denominations of Christianity have always been difficult to parse.
I think in all things, we should remain open to learning the truth, listening to other ideas, and not be quick to condemn, nor misrepresent. Often when it comes to arguing and "winning" you are existing in close minded more prideful acts, your goal at this point is to elevate yourself and not teach, learn, nor grow. I know this mostly because that is how I used to be, I am guilty of all this in the past. We should always look into ourselves before well look unto others, only when we get our own selves in order should we then start teaching, and spreading what we know and think. Far too often people, especially online, come in on a high horse knowing all the answers, and trying to put others down with their stiff necked pride.
Thank you. I am a cessationist and constantly talk with people about the minutia of what we believe has actually ceased. You'd think given that most of these people are protestants, they would understand the distinction in something existing vs. being continuously done in a person. I also believe in sanctification, but people seem to get what we mean by it once it is explained.
Thanks, very interesting and helpful. A quick question re. cessationists - How do those who believe the gift of tongues has ceased explain it when Christians do speak in tongues today. I'm thinking particularly of churches in countries such as China, Iran, Nepal... growing vibrantly under persecution... Would they say it is all false?
What I've seen of cessationists suggests that most of them think that it is all false. At the more extreme end, they would say that it is demonic and that these people are not really Christians. At the more moderate end they would say that it is basically humans speaking nonsense.
@@stephengray1344 Thanks. I would hope someone, especially if sitting in the comfort of a Western country, would not quickly dismiss believers being persecuted in other countries as deceived or false. I have found it humbling to meet believers from these countries, the vitality of their faith and relationship with God rather makes me question whether many believers in the West actually know God of if it's all cerebral, or at best shallow.
I wish the folks that make their channels about exposing error and finding fault would practice the things you speak of. Most of them don’t seem different than news media that heavily edit and spin their content to lead the viewers to distorted conclusions. But in my opinion, what we say and how we say it, reveal the perception we have of God. We become like the God we follow.
I am a member of a faith that when mainstream Christians find out the nearly unanimous response is, oh, you believe…. Actually, I don’t. It would be nice to be asked rather than told what I believe
Love it! Thank you 😊. During the month of September, the Bishop of the North GA and Atlanta did a series on his For People podcast called Exposing Christian Nationalism. It came across as very biased. It would be great if you could do an unbiased video, similar to this one, on Christian Nationalism. (Neither pro nor against, but just facts.) Thank you!
"Even a scoundrel deserves a fair trial" Reminds me of the scene in a 'Man For All Seasons" (based on the trial of Sir Thomas Moore, when a young firebrand would not give Satan the benefit of a trial. The father reproached his son-in-law logically supporting the need for no one being below the law. Did you see the movie?
This was a great "common sense" video. I think we all need to consider "what they preach" and "what they practice." I also appreciate your "grow it and mow it" practice of hair maintenance.
If you want to be a part of the solution you either have to be a part of the solute, or part of the solvent. Then again, if you are not part of the solution, you may very well wind up as part of the precipitate! 😀 OK, that's enough chemistry humor for now! In all seriousness, the topic is a vital one, and was very well presented. I will be keeping the wisely stated cautions and warnings in mind before I post anything on social media.
I think sometimes it's easy for folks to fear steelmanning a position because one might end up convincing oneself its true, particularly if one isn't solid in one's own beliefs.
When debating, fairness requires you to steel-man the opposing argument not strawman it.
Actually I think that can still be deceptive. I say one argument at one angle at a time. One argument may turn into several, each with their own needed research and thinking.
@@chrisray9653what he's saying is you need to understand the other side's argument well enough that you could articulate it in a way they would agree with. If you can't do that, then you have no basis from which to make a counter-argument. In otherwords, if both sides can't find a common starting place, a debate will be counter-productive. Focusing on winning over them instead of first understanding them will do nothing but harden positions and turn friends into enemies.
Not just fairness, but also, effectiveness
Glad I am not the only one who saw this
I think you should try to represent their arguments as made, and consider potential counterarguments one could make. A steel man can ironically be as much of a contortion of an argument as a straw man, a straw man in shining armor. You are still making an argument you wish they made, even if it’s to (ostensibly) make the debate harder.
For example, one may wish to steelman anti-abortion arguments by removing all the fuzziness and declaring life begins at conception and life at that point is exactly equivalent to a newborn baby. This may appear to be the most consistent argument in many respects, but the truth is that most people who are anti-abortion don’t actually believe it. So even though it appears like the most logically consistent and durable argument, it’s not the real argument. Any attacks specially designed to get through the “steelman” may actually falter against less rigid positions.
The same can go in reverse: claiming the steelman pro-abortion argument is that life begins exactly at birth and anything before is just part of the mother’s body. This may seem like the most logically consistent pro-abortion view, but it’s not a common one. So again, special-tailored arguments to attack this steelman may falter against more flexible common interpretations.
It's one thing I admire about Joshua. Far as I know, he's not a fan of Catholicism at all. But in his videos covering it, he represents it as well as I would
Wounderful
What makes you think he doesn't like Catholicism?
@@Goblin-Nixon I've heard he's a baptist so not too close theologically to Catholicism, but I have no reason to believe he dislikes Catholics or the denomination if you want to call it that.
@@Goblin-Nixon if you look under his videos, there is a sermon or two in which I get the impression. I could well be mistaken, it doesn't matter. He doesn't misrepresent it
@@Goblin-Nixonhe’s IFB
he has some old video sermons of him teaching at some Bible college
"Even a scoundrel deserves a FAIR TRIAL." LOVE IT!
Implying that those we disagree with are scoundrels. Gotta love it
@@wendyleeconnelly2939 No, he's saying that *even if they are actually scoundrels,* they still deserve to have their beliefs fairly represented. What he said doesn't *require* them to be considered scoundrels.
Thanks for this video.
Very wise and just
Thanks for this video .A good message for the people
Absolutely excellent and much needed! May this message travel far and wide.
Agreed 😎
As a pagan, this is exactly why I love this channel. I come here because I want to understand what my Christian friends and neighbors actually believe, so that I can know them better for who they really are. Combatting anti-christian bias in my own religious community is very important to me, and a great deal of it comes directly from misrepresentation of Christian beliefs. I don't want a world where we all agree, I want a world where we disagree honestly and respectfully. Thank you for the good work that you do, you are among the very best educators on this platform.
@@hallowmoss1511 mad respect.
It doesn't matter to me if you agree with me on everything, but I do pray that you see that amazing grace found in Jesus Christ.
Sorry 😐
I have a daughter who has told me that there is a difference between atheism and anti-theism. It sounds to me like you are very much in the former camp, rather than the latter.
@@MJSpangle Pagans are polytheists.
OP is a non-Christian but not an anti-Christian, but they certainly aren't an Atheist.
You sir are doing a good work. I was struck by what you said, but I will extend this principle even further to include non-Christians as being harmed by Christians who misrepresent one another. This leads non-Christians to see through the hypocrisy, backbiting, and illogic of a bad Christian witness, concluding "Well, there they go again! See? That's Christianity for you!"
Keep doing what you are doing. I think it leads to harmony within the Body of Christ, instead of the chaos and backbiting we often see between people who claim the name of Christ. You are doing a good work for the Kingdom.
I won't lie, Joshua had been in his bag with these vids. I've never seen anyone explain the different denominational and theological viewpoints so unbiased.
My stance is that if I cannot explain the beliefs of a group in such a way that adherents of that group would sign off on, I haven't understood them.
Thanks so much for doing what you do.
Glad to see your still active!
That assumes that said adherents properly understand their own faith. I've met tons of people who misunderstand what their own Church teaches.
That's not how an objective viewpoint works. That's you pandering to the lowest common denominator so as to not offend anyone. Sometimes, they should be offended.
@@GnohmPolaeon.B.OniShartz Offense doesn't help anyone re-evaluate their beliefs. It has a strong tendency toward encouraging people to double down instead. It's completely ineffecive.
Your objectivity and fairness is razor sharp... awesome.
Lying about a denominations beliefs is bearing false witness against them.
If their theology is so terrible it would be easy to refute, with no extra lies necessary. If their theology is difficult to understand, it’s on you to recognize your limitations.
I follow your channel becuase I was so impressed with the just treatment you gave denominations I’m familiar with, your strong ethic and commitment to honest representation.
To be fair, a lot of misrepresentation isn't a matter of lying, but of simply not taking the time to truly understand another view. A lot of people are misrepresenting denominations while believing what they're saying is actually true.
@@turnerjazz7872 Misrepresenting someone's belief IS lying, even if they don't understand a group's beliefs. They're not telling the truth, whether they mispresent someone's beliefs or telling outright falsehoods.
@@turnerjazz7872 if they won’t listen and adjust their misunderstanding, and continue to promote a false representation of another belief system, that is lying. And make no mistake, that’s what many many many people do.
But I’ll concede that lying is a deliberate act of the will, whereas honest misunderstanding does not meet that moral threshold.
Well done. I like your encyclopedic approach to your teaching. I have recommended your content to many friends and I'm encouraged to watch your channel grow.
Excellent reminders and information. As a believer in Entire Sanctification, you represented it as well as I’ve heard some. Literally had a conversation yesterday with someone attending my church about some of the exact misrepresentations you mentioned!! Love your work!!
Its a blessing to hear from someone so intelligent, thank you.
Of all the problems created by social media, the ushering in of "The Age of the Death of Nuance" seems to be the greatest one. The inability for people to have nuanced and complex views on any subject (religion, politics, music, food, etc) just causes mid-wits to rise to the top of all debates flinging invective and nothing useful comes of it. Without even taking a firm position on any of the specific arguments, this channel is one of those beacons of light pushing back against the black & white thinking of much of the world. Critical thinking is a gift from God that not even the Cessationists would reject, yet most poeple do.
“Midwits” lol
This phenomenon predates social media by a longshot. Social media just brings more awareness to said phenomenon.
No, its quite litterally exacerbating it. @eddymetal
"Not even cessationists"... not a nice way to say things. Even restorationists should know that
Yes definitely. We should have even more nuance and complexity in the denominational divide. We are not nearly enough seperated into our own little camps. I say we need another great awakening where even more disillusioned men can go off and form their version of pure Christianity. We can't let Ready to Harvest run out of things to talk about.
Great ending statement. I use to teach: you need to be able to state an opponent's position/belief back to them and have them state, "Yes! You got it. Now you understand." Only at that point have you earned the right to say, "Thank you. And now that I know I understand your position correctly, I can telly you I think you're wrong, and here's why."
Joshua,
I greatly appreciate the time you spend to research and fairly present any Christian school of thought. You are the kind of person I believe we will find in our heavenly home.
Blessings to you!
This video is great :D As a progressive Christian myself, it definitely helped me think of the ways I view others. Plus, have definitely been on the receiving end of the 'I knew a person who once said xyz so everyone thinks that way' ("this person is lgbt affirming and doesn't believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus!"). I think its a great idea to ask individual people what they believe to get a clearer picture :)
I must thank you again for your clarity and your honesty.
What an informative and positive message! We all need to remember that God loves us all and that we need to reflect that in our words even as we argue for our faith position.
I've been watching your videos for some time now and I've always found you to be very fair and honest in your presentations.
As a non-Christian in a largely areligious country who is somewhat unaware of what Christians say to one another, I found this pretty interesting.
It reminds me a lot of my work in politics, where even if it gets in the way of victory, people still feel an uncontrollable urge to strawman the opposition.
Without a solid base of empathy and understanding you're never gonna win someone over.
Really appreciate this!
Sober minded, fair, and charitable.
"Discussions should be conducted without fondness for dispute or desire for victory." - Benjamin Franklin
I very much appreciate the truth-forward, emphatic logic underpinning this video.
I appreciate your honesty, clarity, objectivity and fairness. I don't know if your own denominational affiliations are well-hidden secrets, but I have yet to have a confident guess about them. I enjoy being able to imagine that you agree with me on every detail! :)
Great video 😎 Thanks for sharing this and I hope many understand this.
Exactly 💯🙏 don't change the way you do this at all!
Great video, I like how you've managed to make a little lesson over both method and theological positions.
Have always felt fairly represented by your account, and I always rely on you for an unbiased take on other groups as well
Well presented video. Another distinction that I often try to remind myself is the difference between what people believe and what denominations teach. Far be it from me to judge what is in a person's hearts in regards to their beliefs. Denominations contain many individuals with a wide variety of beliefs. I can though, absolutely judge what is being taught and ask myself if I agree with those stated teachings.
Thank you for this excellent exposition!
You really are doing a service with videos like this. Thank you!
As someone who holds a couple of these beliefs, glad to see someone say this. Its easy to misrepresent someone and argue against a straw man instead of an actual viewpoint, but its never right
Wonderful video, Joshua. As John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things." We should always strive to be fair and true in our representation of another person or group, yet how easy it is to categorize or jump to conclusions. Your channel is a gem!
The other reality is that many people holding a denominational label don't actually believe much of what may be contained in the denomination's statement of faith.
Especially for Catholics
@@akaJackLugarIs that sarcasm?
@@fredwoodson6405 not at all. Former Catholic here. Most Catholics I know certainly do some picking and choosing of church doctrine to embrace
@@fredwoodson6405 My Lutheran seminary advisor put it this way: "You don't want to KNOW what the members of your church actually believe!"
@@RobertEWatersin the LCMS, the average congregant will be much more liberal than the pastor and opposite in the ELCA from what I’ve observed.
A great sign of a loving person is genuine curiosity in their views and experience. Thank you for modeling Grace and Truth.
Thank you. I am reevaluating some of my positions
Thank you for respecting the intelligence of your viewers. It is much appreciated.
I love the word "kerfuffie" though I dislike actual kerfuffles. :)
“Shenanigans” is another great word, as is “cattywampus”
Excellent points! I have come to the conclusion that if we approach the person that we disagree with from a position of love, and humility, we can engage in real Christian discourse. We are all growing in our journey with Christ.
Also, John Wesley makes an excellent argument for Christian Perfection, that, if considered sincerely, I dont think ANY Christian would honestly disagree. Now, as for what various "Holiness" denominations have done with his ideas, that is something entirely different. What Wesley preached is, in many ways, similar to the concept of "theosis" within oriental and eastern orthodoxy. It is that a Christian can walk with God and surrender to Him to the point that we can truly and sincerely be motivated by love in all that we do. He said that we will not be free from all human weaknesses and flaws, but we can be full of real Christian love
I've been listening to wesleyans of all stripes for weeks now, trying to figure out what they teach about entire sanctification. Your couple minute long clip on it brought more clarity than hours of listening to methodists and nazarenes. I could not find one debate on the subject between a Wesleyan and someone who rejects those ideas. Methodists need to step up their TH-cam game.
Thank you for such a thoughtful and much needed presentation! Psalm 133:1 also Proverbs 18:17!!
Thank you for adding the final point about presuming or guessing people's motivations. I am seeing a lot of this online in "echo chambers" that vilify others, and assign motives to justify it. This is the very "party spirit" against which St Paul warned us.
Fantastic video as always!
I also find that arguments about personal belief are made doubly complicated by the fact that just because someone belongs to a particular denomination doesn’t necessarily mean that the individual person literally believes every single theological point that their denomination officially espouses. It’s one thing to ask what the Presbyterian Church USA believes, and it’s another thing entirely to ask what one individual member of PC USA believes. For better or worse, whether they are right or wrong for doing so, it can be difficult to group ALL members of a given denomination together. Schisms and splintering happen for a reason.
If you want to make an argument about a denomination at large, consult their official documents/confessions/creeds/etc and argue honestly and in good faith. If you are trying to argue with an individual believer, ask them what they believe, and argue honestly and in good faith.
The last few minutes of this video are excellent, and I agree with them completely.
Love the balance here!
So good dude. It would have been good to see the scriptural basis that proponents of these beliefs cite to support their positions. That said, top notch reasoning and suggestions here! Keep up the great work.
Thank you for being sane and honest. Very refreshing.
WOW this is a great video!!! Bravo, sir, bravo!!!
Quite a while ago, I learned that if one wants to have a discussion with someone whose beliefs are different to one's own, there first thing to do is ask them questions. As many questions as you can. That helps to clear away any misconceptions (which turn into misrepresentations) that _I_ might have, and it assures the other person that I'm interested in what they have to say and not attacking them. After I took that approach, the conversations I had were a lot more productive.
I appreciate these videos and it is true that we need more unity in the Church today. The trouble with these discussions though is that, while these groups may not explicitly teach the things mentioned, the things mentioned are often implicitly taught or are logical deductions of what they DO teach. For example, a holiness teacher once told me that he had gone several weeks without sinning. This teacher would never have taucght that he was a perfect representation of Jesus yet, in my understanding of the nature of sin, his claim interfaces with the logic of scripture to this effect. In other words, sin is Biblically defined as anything that falls short of the Glory of God. If the teacher went without sinning for two weeks then it follows that , for those two weeks, he had attained to the express image of the Glory of God. Although they don’t teach it this way, one cannot hold to the biblical definition of sin and believe in Christian Perfection without diminishing the Holiness ofGod in practical application of the doctrine as it manifests in the real world. Regardless of whether you agree with my definition of Holiness, my point is more about the fact that ‘ the logical deductions of what I know to be true as interfaced with what you teach’ result in heretical deductions. Even if you yourself don’t agree with those deductions. This is why these discussions are challenging.
It would be interesting to understand his definition of sin and to know every aspect of his life. Just knowing our fallen nature, I'm pretty sure he deceived himself.
I would also add that many cessationists (like myself) also believe that God can and does impart miraculous spiritual gifts for specific circumstances to individuals when and where it pleases Him, though all evidence says these gifts are temporary and not some permanent bestowal. This includes gifts such as healing, tongues (actual foreign languages understood by a native speaker who is present), interpretation of tongues (miraculously understanding a native speaker), and prophecy. But they are exceptionally rare, and not normative.
Great video, also just excellent advice for anyone engaging on a variety of topics.
I love this channel I hope it will help us all become more respectful of each others church’s.
Thank you for your clarification.
I remember once in a college course we were instructed to prepare (and conduct) a debate on an ongoing legal case before the Supreme Court. Snyder v Phelps. My partner and I represented the a Certain Baptist Church. During the course of our research we found the phone number for their legal counsel. We called. Not only was their chief attorney a member of that particular church, but we had called during the middle of a biblestudy.
She took the call well, and gave us excellent pointers.
Four MORE groups you might be misrepresenting: (1) Hobbits. They do NOT all have big hairy feet, at least not the lady hobbits, although it may be that they shave their feet. I'm not sure. (2) Haggis. They do NOT all look like wild hamsters. I've seen many of them roaming the Scottish Highlands, they are highly mischaracterized and taste great with tatties and neeps. (3) The Knights of Who say "Ni!" They have NOT all converted to being the Knights who say "Ekke Ekke Ekke Ekke Ptang Zoom Boing Ademshoushim". Many still prefer to be called the Knights of Who say "Ni!" (4) Trekkies. We're not all nerds. 🖖
To your third point, I read somewhere that the Knights who say "Ni!' had Byzantine origins, while the other group had Roman roots - and that the confusion by outsiders is their mutual use of shrubbery.
I don’t know about the women. But it is stated that the different sub species of hobbits have different feet including ones that are not hairy
What about "Trekkers"?
Yeah, I'm old enough to know that "Trekkie" is a modern term made up by TNG and later fans ;)
Amen!! Rare teaching that shouldn't be rare!
Wow. I'm a cessationist and never really came across a way to explain my beliefs until your video. Another great video!
Haha I enjoy your videos. I used to be heavy into anti catholic sentiments. But listening to priests and Catholics with an open mind taught me they have more in common with my faith and beliefs than I realized.
Of course! As a former Catholic, it now seems to be a better option than many protestant denominations.
I think that you do a good job of achieving your goals for this channel, and I think what you do does benefit the everyone trying to grow in their faith.
Excellent video! I particularly appreciate your closing point about guessing people's motives. One of the questions I most HATE receiving is, "Why do members of group X believe position Y?" with the desire for some kind of psychological explanation. I appreciate the desire to understand the psychology of others, but psychological explanations are notoriously subjective and fail to engage the EVIDENCE for and against positions. The best general answer to that type of question is almost always, "Because they believe that the evidence supports position Y."
One of the particularly frustrating things about the complementation position as it was expressed in the denomination I grew up in where the caveats. they would say "women can teach!" ...but only to other women or to groups of children including boys who aren't yet baptized. "women can study the bible!"...but there are no jobs for a women with a BA in ministry, whereas there are jobs for men with that degree. While it may be factually true that women are encouraged to study the bible and to teach, the strict limits that are put on those things are stifling. It allows the men to say one thing while practicing another. One of many reasons I am no longer a part of that denomination.
Having a bachelor's degree does not alone qualify anyone, man or woman for ministry.
Excellent teaching and points!
The biggest problem with discussion around denominational or broad beliefs about issues is that we try to lump people together and assume that because they hold a part of a belief that is defined as cessationist or egalitarian or holiness or any number of other systems that the person we are discussing with holds all the other beliefs of that group. If you asked a hundred people who claimed to adhere to a certain belief system to describe that system to you inevitably you would hear a few common themes but on the whole you would still get one hundred different belief systems described to you. Every individual will hold their own beliefs (right or wrong) for themselves and should be approached as such, not as a member of a group but as an individual.
I honestly want to thank you as always for being as objective as possible with your videos. As a charismatic Armanian evangelical, I’ve been quick to get offended and create a counter caricature of the many TH-cam discernment ministries that in my eyes, “tear into” charismatics and, again in my own offended opinion, call us all quasi-new age and frauds. Yet instead of thinking “these people are just being smug and want to force people to fit into their mold”, I should see their videos as being a manifestation of their own strongly held beliefs on what the Bible says and means, and that there are some valid criticisms to be found in some spheres that do use and define spiritual gifts in ways that aren’t exactly orthodox. Like you said in the video, if I’m getting that upset about what someone says about what i believe, is my own opinion really that iron clad and free of criticism? In the end, I should focus on the fact that they believe in the same God that I do, and that they are coming from a place they think is discipleship and correction and not merely “punching down”.
"The Social media KERFUFFLE".... love it!
I appreciate this video very much. My two cents: in addition to avoiding misrepresenting the views of others, I believe we should avoid all other forms of contention (see Romans 2:8-9). I believe argumentativeness and debate for debate's sake drives away the Spirit of God, which leads to confusion, rather than enlightenment (see James 3:16). I believe effective communication, edification and mutual enlightenment occurs when we use persuasion, patience, gentleness, meekness, and love--free from the motivations of pride to be right all the time. I'm not saying we can't ask questions, compare and contrast views, or disagree kindly. This is not an accusation. To the contrary, I'm working on my own tendency to be contentious and to insist on being right and the smartest one in the room--and I hope you will all hold me accountable in my quest to overcome that tendency. And I realize this is possibly the most ridiculous thing one can post on a social media forum--the world's capital of contention. Still, I hope you will join me in holding up this light and not hiding it under a bushel.
Ya boy still out here droppin 🔥🔥🔥
Great video, normally I learn some new things and thats great, but specifically for the cessationists if youre right then i did greatly misunderstand cessationists
Josh, you're a voice for truth and God's peace on troubled waters
More video like this, love how clearly you explained the opposing sides and how each side typically straw-mans each other !
I've always loved the strategy of St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. Steelman the opponent's argument and then thoroughly explain why it's wrong in the most charitable way possible. This is certainly what we should be doing all the time, not only in theological debates but in any sorts of debates we participate in.
Well said my brother
Thank you for this reasoned explanation.
unfortunately, the extremist of a group are the loudest of that group. The enemy wants us divided.
13:37 I attend the AFC headquarters in Portland Oregon. Egalitarianism is the least traditionally conservative view we hold by tremendous margins.
I went to a cessationist church and believed it. They even showed the verse for it. But later changed when I researched the verse. It says that some gifts will end BUT it does NOT say WHEN they will end. People can only speculate to when they end and some say it's at the close of the bible, BUT scripture does NOT say that.
Some don't believe that God still heals. I prayed to God for healings and they happened. Even doctors were stumped from the healings. I'm not talking about Benny Hinn healings, I'm talking about prayers to God, asking Him to heal. I've never experienced speaking in tongues, yet I have a relative that started speaking in tongues one day when they were talking to me. It wasn't Kenneth Copeland babbling tongues. It sounded like an Asian language (I know some Japanese and Vietnamese and it wasn't those).
People will say they either believe or don't believe. I just say, it's possible. I don't squabble over them, unless it's like the WOF or NAR extreme (waving of coats or baby talk -- those are NOT biblical in any manner).
I don't think it really says they end in the sense that cessationists say they end. It's more they cease because everyone will have them to the fullest extent so there is nothing special about them. It's all tied to perfection. So there will be no words of knowledge because God has already revealed everything to us, no gifts of tongues because we already all under stand each other, etc.
God bless you so much
In every group (other than tight cults) there is a wide range of belief on the debated issues, such as those listed above. The "outliers" such as those labeled as such in this video, while minority positions within the group, are not so uncommon within the group as to be called "tiny".
It is common for a large plurality of the ":rank and file" within a group to hold the "extreme" positions, while the more educate, those pastors who write books and/or debate publicly, to hold the more moderate positions. Thus, it is these who say on TH-cam "But we don't believe what you just said."
As an example, in this tiny town, I spent several years in an SBC church composed almost entirely of "converted Catholics" and their children. The would speak loudly against RC beliefs such as the confessional. One day I was in a discussion with the new priest (the archbishop's personal "right hand man") about the liturgy of the confessional. He asked me "What do you Baptists believe and do?" When I described personal prayers of repentance to God, he said "That is the BEST way to confess and receive forgiveness! We call that..." Here he gave a Latin Name which translates "heart confession" He went on"...The entire purpose of the confessional liturgy is to get the penitent to that point of confession to God."
The common people within the local RC churches held the un-Biblical concept; the Roman Catholic theologian held a profoundly Biblical understanding.
I'm sorry but the confessional is far from biblical. The more educated Catholics will know it is neither Apostolic or Biblical. Certainly there will also be not so educated people who can't explain properly why it is wrong but wrong it is. I understand how and why Rome has a class of priests, but it is a horrible error and being educated about the topic won't fix that.
As a revert to Protestantism from Catholicism myself, I don’t think any of their views are somehow “crypto-pagan” at all. The belief in Mary’s immaculate conception, sinless life and assumption all stem from the idea that if God the Son did indeed take human flesh and become fully man and fully God, the woman that bore him ought to be as pure a woman as possible, even to the point that she didn’t deserve the consequences of sin, that being death. If indeed God is the God of the living and not the dead, and that Christians should pray for each other, than it ought to be true that not even death can seperate us from from our departed Christian brothers and sisters. If ministers of the gospel really do have the “ministry of reconciliation” and that we ought to “confess our sins to one another”, there ought to be a time and place for it. If God cannot tolerate even the smallest sin, and yet there are sins that don’t lead to death (damnation), there ought to be a place in the afterlife where those more minor sins are purged from the soul and the soul of the Christian is made perfect. Lastly (though I could go on), if Jesus in John 6 really did mean that his flesh and blood are truly food and drink, then the Eucharist ought to be Jesus Christ himself in the form of food and drink, and going back to a similar line with the Mary point, you cannot eat it in a state of mortal sin.
Protestants can and should debate the “oughts”, but they should know where the “oughts” come from. Call Catholicism a mininterpretation of the Bible and a stretch in theological logic, but don’t call it reskinned paganism.
@@adamandsethdylantoo Rome teaches things which are found in gnosticism and paganism before they are ever found in any Christian setting and which then came into the church. The Marian dogmas are not Apostolic, not biblical and insulting to God and Christ. They are not Christian.
The justifications used for them are contrary to the early Fathers and the teaching of the Apostles.
If I'm wrong then words don't mean what they mean.
Great points. The opposite can be true, too, namely that it is assumed that what a large but heterodox group believes or practices is what an everyone with that label believes, too. For example, when I mention that I am Lutheran, too many believe that I must be ELCA and/or hold to its beliefs.
I, for one, appreciate your non judgemental reviews of what different denominations believe. I've had a lifelong fascination with religious beliefs around the world. The vast denominations of Christianity have always been difficult to parse.
I think in all things, we should remain open to learning the truth, listening to other ideas, and not be quick to condemn, nor misrepresent. Often when it comes to arguing and "winning" you are existing in close minded more prideful acts, your goal at this point is to elevate yourself and not teach, learn, nor grow. I know this mostly because that is how I used to be, I am guilty of all this in the past. We should always look into ourselves before well look unto others, only when we get our own selves in order should we then start teaching, and spreading what we know and think. Far too often people, especially online, come in on a high horse knowing all the answers, and trying to put others down with their stiff necked pride.
great stuff, thanks
As always, a very helpful discussion.
Thank you. I am a cessationist and constantly talk with people about the minutia of what we believe has actually ceased. You'd think given that most of these people are protestants, they would understand the distinction in something existing vs. being continuously done in a person.
I also believe in sanctification, but people seem to get what we mean by it once it is explained.
Thanks, very interesting and helpful. A quick question re. cessationists - How do those who believe the gift of tongues has ceased explain it when Christians do speak in tongues today. I'm thinking particularly of churches in countries such as China, Iran, Nepal... growing vibrantly under persecution... Would they say it is all false?
What I've seen of cessationists suggests that most of them think that it is all false. At the more extreme end, they would say that it is demonic and that these people are not really Christians. At the more moderate end they would say that it is basically humans speaking nonsense.
@@stephengray1344 Thanks. I would hope someone, especially if sitting in the comfort of a Western country, would not quickly dismiss believers being persecuted in other countries as deceived or false. I have found it humbling to meet believers from these countries, the vitality of their faith and relationship with God rather makes me question whether many believers in the West actually know God of if it's all cerebral, or at best shallow.
All I can say is....I appreciate you
Good point about winning at all cost and the danger of that approach. 👍
I wish the folks that make their channels about exposing error and finding fault would practice the things you speak of. Most of them don’t seem different than news media that heavily edit and spin their content to lead the viewers to distorted conclusions. But in my opinion, what we say and how we say it, reveal the perception we have of God. We become like the God we follow.
Awesome Godspeed bro❤❤❤❤❤
I am a member of a faith that when mainstream Christians find out the nearly unanimous response is, oh, you believe…. Actually, I don’t. It would be nice to be asked rather than told what I believe
First! Love this guy and his informational tone.
Love it! Thank you 😊. During the month of September, the Bishop of the North GA and Atlanta did a series on his For People podcast called Exposing Christian Nationalism. It came across as very biased. It would be great if you could do an unbiased video, similar to this one, on Christian Nationalism. (Neither pro nor against, but just facts.) Thank you!
"Even a scoundrel deserves a fair trial" Reminds me of the scene in a 'Man For All Seasons" (based on the trial of Sir Thomas Moore, when a young firebrand would not give Satan the benefit of a trial. The father reproached his son-in-law logically supporting the need for no one being below the law. Did you see the movie?
over 1400 likes, and only 2 dislikes. that speaks to Joshua's gift for objectivity and God-given discernment
Thanks!
This was a great "common sense" video. I think we all need to consider "what they preach" and "what they practice." I also appreciate your "grow it and mow it" practice of hair maintenance.
If you want to be a part of the solution you either have to be a part of the solute, or part of the solvent. Then again, if you are not part of the solution, you may very well wind up as part of the precipitate! 😀 OK, that's enough chemistry humor for now!
In all seriousness, the topic is a vital one, and was very well presented. I will be keeping the wisely stated cautions and warnings in mind before I post anything on social media.
I think sometimes it's easy for folks to fear steelmanning a position because one might end up convincing oneself its true, particularly if one isn't solid in one's own beliefs.
1 Cor14.2 NKJV
For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no man understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.