An AMAZING explanation of this. The Lord has really gifted you with presenting HIGHLY controversial subjects that generally start fights and divisions in about the most neutral tone possible😊
I agree. While I believe Harvest may be somewhat conservative himself, he doesn't become polemical or judgmental about theological liberalism in his videos, only factual. I really appreciate his work, answers so many questions about denominational differences that I always wondered about (some I already knew from reading and it took forever, but he answers in even more granular detail than anyone else I ever read or listened to)
@Wendy Lee Connelly He has stated before that he's a professor at an Independent Baptist college so that guarantees that he's pretty conservative in his own beliefs.
I teach Bible at a non-denom Christian high school and your videos have been amazingly helpful for both my preparation and in presenting them to students directly. We are covering Ecclesiology in 11th grade systematic theology and being able to share concise, objective information like this has been awesome. Know God is using you through these videos and I know He will continue to do so. Blessings!
@Paul Palmer There are several statements in the New Testament about the importance--even saving power--of correct belief. You at least need to have thr basics right.
Divvying up these different theologies really demonstrates why I feel so denominationally homeless. I lean on liberal with some areas, conservative with others. And I have such a hard time finding a home church as a result.
I can totally understand your dalima as one that was once were your at now. I thanks the Most High Yahuah(God) everyday day for bringing me out of all those man-made "religions".It all started with me when I prayed to the Father that all I wanted to do is please Him and Yahusha(Jesus) and know the truth about his Holy word. That's when the Father lead me to his commandments and said to read the fourth commandment of His ten commandments.That's when Yahuah let me know that what he was about to show me in His Word and through his Holy Spirit was going to go against most everything I had learned by man and his man made doctrines that had corrupted His and the Messiah words. Since then it has been a wonderful journey with Yahuah Elohim(God) and Yahusha HaMashiach(Jesus Christ)… First Yahuah taught me about his Sabbath and that it was made for man not for the Jews but all of us, and that he's word never changes.So the Messiah didn't change his Father's Sabbath.Then Father taught me he's real name and that of Messiah's that has been hidden from us on purpose in the new translations from Hebrew to Greek to English. Father Yahuah has shown me so many other things through his word, and I mean his whole word not just the "New Testament"but also his Torah(Old Testament). Which we've been taught that we don't need to read anymore because of what Messiah did on the Cross for us and that the law has been done away with. Believe me when I say this people the evil one our adversity Satan has creept into the church thousand's of years ago and slowly corrupted the Father's words and the true Gospel of Messiah with all these man made doctrines.It's time for Yahuah's people to come out of these man made "Religions" and start reading his word for themselves and in pray ask the Father to remove the scales from your eyes and reveal himself to you and show you the narrow path that it's talks about in Matthew. The time is now my friend that the Father is readying his "church" us his people for the return of his Son or Messiah Yahusha HaMashiach.I pray that will help you and if you have any questions please feel free to ask and I will try my best to answer them. May the Most High make his face to shine upon you and bless you always.
TBH most peoples wouldn't agreeggrgfff believe agree but I think the liberalization of church's what is causing the fragmentation of churches And leaving people feel like they are spiritually homeles
Atheist here! Love your videos it’s always good to learn about the difference of beliefs and secs in the Christian church. Thanks for what you are doing
😅It's weird how you're leaning about what you see as false 😅 i don't know why Christians appreciate athiests texts on Christian channels, for me it's sooo weird
@JemimaNta some people have a love of knowledge. When I learn about star wars lore (something I know isn't true), I enjoy the content. What's different here
@@jackdispennett744 yeah, I think we can have different lines over what is liberal/conservative. Within Catholicism, anything that resembles Protestantism is considered liberal.
@@mnbv804 I’m interested in which churches that includes... if there is not one universal Church... does it include Mormonism? Church of Jesus Christ, Scientists? Churches that allow women or homosexual clergy? Churches that bless homosexual unions? Unitarians?
@@alld47hidrohnilougue31 I would not include any of those groups as being part of the Church- they are unorthodox and unbiblical. Are the elect part of churches that have women in clergy? Likely, but as they are sanctified will they remain in such churches they rebel against God's complete revealed will for believers? Unequivocally, No. I would define the Church as God's elect who gather together for the purposes and confines as which God's Word commands. (Elder led, preaching, ordinances of baptism and communion, worship, building up of the Saints). That's my 5 minute reply to a very large topic :)
This is probably the most accurate video on Mainline Protestant churches I've seen yet. I'm in one, and liberalism is a problem, but since most Christian youtubers are Evangelical, most of them have no idea what goes on in Mainline churches.
@Jim Anderson Young Liberals are more likely to be non-religious, and young conservatives are more likely to be religious. The same thing happens with older liberals and conservatives, but the older crowd tends to be more religious overall.
@@CheesyHotDogPuff A new report shows that young Conservatives are rapidly dumping religion too, and that is very interesting for what the will mean in the future for both the church and politics, as Ryan Burge, a pastor and political scientist, just revealed in some new research published a few days ago.
One correction, inerrancy means the scriptures contain no error in their ORIGINAL texts, as intended by those moved to write them by the Holy Spirit. Various interpretations may contain errors in the translation by the necessity of language and culture differences.
OTOH a decent number of inerrantists follow some of the more radical version of KJVOnlyism which means that they bdlieve that the KJV, ie a translation, is inerrant
I’ve understood that infallible means that the message conveyed by the scriptures is perfect and inerrancy meant no grammatical errors or contradiction was to be found.
I'm from the (relatively tiny) Reformed Church in America, which you have listed as liberal. It's a little more complicated than that, and it seems to be related to geography. Those out east (New York, etc.) are much more liberal, whereas those in northwest Iowa are conservative. I think those geographically in the middle (Michigan) are also theologically in the middle. There may be a division soon. Those of us from northwest Iowa think the New Yorkers are much too liberal, and neither side is willing to give in.
Yes, It is true that none of these denominations can be said to perfectly fit on one side or another. In fact, a video coming out (very) soon will talk about conservative churches in the PC(USA), which is generally considered to be liberal. But it is true that the RCA is even more in the middle. Enough to the liberal side that I feel justified in where I put it overall, but it is certainly true that there are plenty of conservative churches there. And if it is stratified as you say, with geographical clusters of more conservative churches, it is very understandable why someone in those regions would consider the broad overall classification as questionable.
I think he is examining the published tracts by denominations. My church is normally a conservative PCA. However, the moment there is a conflict in the church, elders and the pastor all switch to broad theological liberalism to be "inclusive". 🤣
Don't stay with a church or denomination whose beliefs differ from yours. Many denominations and churches are drifting toward liberalism, and if you find this runs contrary to you beliefs, find another denomination that is in step with your chosen theology. If you don't, you will feel bitterness to your church, resent tithing to it, and walk out each Sunday morning with a heavy heart. It's hard to say good-bye to your church family, but having done it, I look back and know I did the right thing.
So what are the right beliefs then? If we are to go to a denomination tbat fits our world view what the point? Shouldnt there be only one right denomination?
@Jim Anderson If I do t agree with 2,000 years worth of saints, apostles, theologians and doctors of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, than I accept that I’m wrong.
Before you got 30 seconds into this you nailed the difference. @ 0:25 you said, "Theological liberalism denies the innerancy of the Bible." That is the main point of demarcation. Once one understand this specific difference, the rest falls into place. I can debate scripture with a theological conservative, but not with a theologically liberal because there is no common ground.
As a progressive Christian I'm fairly certain you deny the inherency of (some) of the Bible. And certainly you don't read all of it literally. Reading scripture as intended is pretty important. ✌🏻
@@stevenking6129 Amen. Rome claims the Bible is inerrant only in theology. Certainly it is not "inerrant" when it describes our Lord as inhabiting the waters of Heaven, beyond the firmament dome that spans the flat Earth.
My biggest problem is the new belief that the Bible is the Logos or Word of God. It's certainly not based on any teaching within the books of the Scriptures. What part of the Trinity is it? It is truly almost funny how the cult of the Bible being the Word of God has captured many Churches.
I must say, you are extremely good at this. My 2x great-uncle was a Methodist Episcopal minister. After being a Methodist church, it evolved into a much more conservative Pilgrim Holiness church and then Wesleyan. My parents moved north and were invited to hear a Freewill Baptist preacher and they, with him and others started a new FWB church. I grew up in that denomination until I turned 18. I no longer believed the Arminian viewpoint on the salvation experience. As a result, I visited a large Independent Baptist Fellowship church and stayed there until age 23 when I moved. Later, I went to a Brethren when my voice coach invited me. After moving again, I went to the Evangelical Free church. Okay, yes, I moved a lot.😁 My next church was a non-denominational group. When they moved farther out, I just didn't want to drive an hour. Closer to home, I was invited to a PCUSA church by a neighbor. That was about as much "evangelizing" that they did. They were great folks, but told me that they just didn't go 'door-to-door' to evangelize. Any growth was pretty much nil at that time and drying up. Hopefully, this most recent move is my last. I belong to another PCUSA church, but this one is much more liberal. One Sunday, a visiting minister showed up with Rob Bell's book and spouted that garbage just vaguely enough to make one wonder where he was with his beliefs. Covid has pretty much kept us closed down. The church could reopen, but are biding their time. In the meantime, I help an Episcopal church by singing once a month from their sanctuary to the congregation via Zoom. Watching videos like this, the late Charles Sproul and also John MacArthur, get me through the days. Keep up the great work, and I will stay in one spot!😁
Thanks for the comment, and for being a viewer. I have a video that is about a particular aspect of the PC(USA) coming up in the next few months and also a few other videos that intersect with some of your experiences. I always find it interesting to see what people's life experiences have been. Based on the end of your comment, I bet you'd enjoy this video from another channel on TH-cam if you haven't seen it already. I watched it yesterday: th-cam.com/video/1aLuCO0meFw/w-d-xo.html
It's sad to me that some churches are still scared and closed. This says to "me" that your church is liberal, i.e., they bow to the government and not to God.
14:45 I think this is great. I love this kind of thing. You seem to be knowledgable about something I'm passionate about and information I have strung together throughout my life by talking to people. But I think that chart seems really accurate and helpful to talk and show to people
This is really, really well done, coming from someone that most people here would consider theologically liberal (though I’m a conservative in the context of my church).
Great video! I really liked your full communion diagram. I grew up ELCA, but I would feel more comfortable at an Episcopal or Methodist church than and LCMS church even though we're both Lutheran
I just started sharing your 2 video presentations to our group chat, United Church Workers Organization of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines, Lanao District Conference. Hope all will find insights from your presentations here, God bless you!
You may have already gotten this critique, but the 1988 merger of the lutherans did not involve the United Lutheran church, it had merged into the Lutheran Church in America in 1962. it was the alc, LCA and aelc that formed the elca. thanks for your work. I really appreciate these
I can now understand why it may take days or even longer to prepare each of these videos It is a complex world in theology and all the different beliefs Although I do not go to church, this program is fascinating RS Canada
Where the words "conservative" and "liberal" get really messy is in the realm of social ethics. Some Evangelical "conservatives" take a dim view of people who are poor, often presuming they have moral flaws that put them there. Yet, some Christians deemed "liberal" focus on passages like Matthew 25 or the book of James as a biblical basis for helping the poor. In this situation, the "liberals" are trying to follow the Bible for social ethics, but the "conservatives" may be following extrabiblical Word Faith teachings or political directives. Strange days!
Excellent point. I think you have summed up much of American Christianity (what the world outside of the US calls the "Christian Right"). Political conservatism and right wing ideology are hard to reconcile with the teachings in the Bible on fellowship, charity and kindness. I mean, so-called Christians who want to hang onto guns, pay less taxes to support public services and transfer more and more wealth and resources from the poorer majority to an ever smaller, rich minority. Now, what was it that Jesus said about the rich entering the Kingdom?
In many cases, the words "stringent" and "loose" may be more applicable, as this is typically what it indicates, as opposed to an explicitly political position.
Bruce McCormack said that when he was younger, conservative meant you had a high view of the authority of scripture and a high christology and liberal meant you had a low view of the authority of scripture and a low christology.
I once knew a woman who insisted a liberal church was one where the pastor did not wear a robe and that Presbyterians were too familiar with each other because they addressed each other by first names. She decided it time to go when they started addressing the pastor by his first name .
@Jim Anderson to assume either way is superficial. The woman I refer to was very "old school" and very aristocratic. She also did not allow reading the newspaper on Sunday.
Ha, I grew up in church where any church leader wearing a robe was a catholic in disguise! Only a suit to preach as a plain man would do. So much comes from older generations not just theology.
Then you have the Church of the Nazarene. It's usually seen as a conservative denomination, but I've heard it described as "liberal in theology but conservative in practice." This actually fits it pretty well considering there are a lot of theological issues on which the church does not take a dogmatic stance, so you can find a wide range of beliefs regarding them. There are some Nazarene churches that are fundamentalist, while others are quite liberal and will criticize fundamentalism.
As one raised Methodist and became an elder in a Disciple of Christ Church, your time line explains clearly when liberal shifts away for sound Biblical doctrine in these full communion mergers cause our family to change congregations. It was painful to leave a church I loved to follow my convictions.
When it comes to liberal v. conservative, it seems that the focus is so often placed on the correct answer along with proving that this answer is correct and all other answers are wrong. I have come to believe that this focus on the correct answer misses the point. For me, and perhaps this is an aging thing, the point is the community of believers, the conversation, the ongoing discussion, the continued engagement in community. Just because we disagree does not mean we are no longer "family"
I'd say it depends on what the disagreements are about. If it's something as serious as whether Jesus resurrected physically or only spiritually, then that is a serious enough disagreement that the two can't remain in Christian fellowship with one another.
Unless you believe the word of God is not the Word OF GOD. 2 Timothy 3:16,17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. If you don't believe it, than NO. There is NO FAMILIA. And you can't live in sin willfully and be saved. You can't be of this world and be Christ-like. Matthew 7:16-23 New American Standard Bible 16 You will [a]know them by their fruits. [b]Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will [c]know them by their fruits. 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [d]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
I am a member of a Missionary Baptist Church and we are very few logically conservative. I was wondering if you had any videos on the missionary baptist?
Have you a video that explains what the terms relating to end times mean? I have enjoyed many of your videos but don’t know what the terms you use mean - millennial etc
One can't get a dictionary definition and jump into theological debates or conclusions. Theologians define those terms very well and despite minor differences it's not hard to get what they mean in that context. The perception of fluidity is usually originated from a low resolution underdanting of the issue. When you actually get to the core of the issue, there isn't actually much room left for different views. The Bible is either inerrant or it's not. What differs after that is the interpretation method, such as historical, poetic, symbolic and so on. For instance, one that adopts grammatical-historical hermeneutics usually get to a consistent interpretation of Scripture. On the other hand, one that does not follow a consistency interpretation standard will have to decide on a case by case basis on which kind of interpretation is to be used for each text or even each passage. That could result in some apparent fluidity, but it's not about inerrancy being fluid, it's just the Interpretation method that changes.
I like what you wrote as long as you meant that the Word of God is Jesus. But if you meant that the Bible is the Word of God you have been misled. And you are in idolatry, worshiping a book.
You should have also included Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox churches, and Oriental Orthodox churches in this discussion of theological Liberal and theological conservatives, in order to give a broader view on this discussion, and not narrow Christianity only to churches after the Reformation.
I think it was smart to exclude the Orthodox and Roman Catholic denominations. The boundaries of those denominations are typically formed by tradition, philosophy, and politics, not how they view the Bible.
Can you please make a video detailing which denominations teach Postmillennialism? I can't find any clear answers on that on Google, seems like every Church/Denom can simply choose their eschatology without violating their allegiance to their denom? Not sure...but I really want to know which denominations or churches are blatantly teaching Postmillennialism since I'm searching for that type of Church. Thanks.
The treatment of Inerrancy is not fully accurate, which I know is intended. Many people who are theologically conservatives view the Scripture as being functionally Inerrant, which means that I and others view the scripture as having no mistake in what it is intended to do, but that any and all perceived mistakes are the fault of the reader, even ourselves.
It depends as to which "stream" of MS's you have as a translation. The majority text (The Texus Receptus) or the Minority text (the Alexandrian text). If you compare the two steams, errors are apparent!!. Compare Acts 18:26 for instance. Beware which one you use. God word "is" inerrant" After all the bible says it is. "All scripture is God breathed..."
@@DW_Kiwi I was not talking about the flaws in the text manuscripts. That is infallibility. I believe that only the very first oral traditions/autographs were infallible. Inerrancy only has to do with the function of the text. Even recognizing the fallibility I do not see how the example you cited changes the function of the text/scripture as a whole.
This is very interesting, because in Europe, especially in my home country, Hungary, there is an opposite process. I mean that the conservative wings of the protestant churches have a high desire to get closer. They feel themselves much closer to each other than the liberal wing of the same denomination. Especially because of the view of human sexuality.
You ignored the fact that the Bible is historically a product of the early Catholic Church. A group of church leaders got together and debated on what was to be included in the canon and what wasn’t. They didn’t all agree and the canon changed over time. Inerrancy as understood by modern Protestants is indeed a relatively new idea.
I agree, they were really just trying to come up with books that should be read in the Churches and not on what books are God's Word. The Word or Logos was part of the debate but only as in pertained to an understanding of what we called the trinity today.
You really did a great job with this video, but I take exception on one point: You seem to say that modern theological liberalism is an innovation in the church (which it is) but imply that modern theological conservatism is just the same old faith that has been held from time immemorial. I would disagree and argue that it is just as much of an innovation. By failing to make that point clear (in fact suggesting the opposite), you essentially are calling liberalism a heresy and conservatism orthodox Christianity.
As an Independent Baptist that is no doubt how he thinks, and I agree with him. I'd be curious to know why you think the conservative position is of modern origin. I mean, in this dichotomy you only have two options. If you wipe them both out, where is traditional Christianity?
Conservatives can read Patristics - Clement and Ireanus orlike Athansius or Augustine and agree with the main thrust of their religion. We can use the Nicea Creed, the Apostles Creed, the Chalcedonian definition. We can use the 'Athanisuian Creed.' We can read the writers of the main theologians and confessions of the Reformation - Martin Luther, Martin Chemnitz, John Calvin, Thomas Cramner, Ausburg Confession, and agree with the main points of their religion. Remember that the common people learned the Ten commandments and the Creed and the Scriptures. The Socinians of Poland who broke away from the Reformed and attacked the Trinity were considered heretics - same with the Unitarians, Arians and universalists. When Deists and Unitarians attacked the existing Creeds and Confessions and practices [like worshipping Jesus] some churches became Socinian or Unitarian. You can look at the history of the liberal theologians and note their dates - they are clearly *newer* then Patristic theologians and Reformation theologians. Also, liberals were tried for hersey.
In fact, looking at the conservative Reformation, yes there were reforms, but they took the main Creeds, the Ten Commandments, the Our Father, while suppressing beliefs and practices that developed slowly over time in the 200s, 300s, and middle ages, esp those that contradicted what augustine considered the only authority that could not error - the Scriptures. Sure, there was later theological precision and terminology, but the difference between someone who can recite the Apostles Creed with *honest belief* and real trust in Christ and someone who cannot, is very stark. Plus the orthodox could appeal to thr scriptures held by the people of God over time who God used as an instrument to bring them to faith in Jesus, or for some baptism. Also the historical succession of teachers from the Apostles and the churches they founded - and comparing the teachers to the Apostles Doctrine found the writings of the Apostolic men and the Apostles, and using the old roman Creed [later the apostles Creed] which is a summary of Scripture, and therefore derived and subordinate to Scripture. Also you can look at the historians of Liberal Christianity, and see its modern origin, its influence from Kant, Hegel and others. Read the book 'Christianity and Liberalism' the difference between a supernatural Christianity and a theism or deism wrapped in Christian colors or a revival of Unitarianism or Socinianism is not historical at all. And the Reformers appealed, just ad the church fathers did against the Gnostics and the Arians, that the first is true and orthodox, the second is false and hetertical - thats why Protestants documented the development of the Papacy, Purgatory, transsubstantion, as a depature from the ancient church. Reformers saw these as innovations, while Roman Catholics thought it had always been that way, until some began to argue that Roman Catholicism developed gradually but that God wanted it that way, while Protestants allowed theological development of terminology, but a rejection of 'bad' development that contradicted Scripture. Liberalism rejected Scripture as the supreme authority, and also rejected the lesser authority of tradition and even the church. Ot course Im generalizing, as there is a large continuum between modernists [reject the Creed] and 'progressives' [heretical dissent in faith or practice in some area, for example, rejecting the scriptural, Patristic and Reformation teaching of one man and one woman marriage and that abortion is sinful]. You can easily find the histories of liberal christianity, and the founding fathers of their various flavors, while although there are certainly.plenty of ahistorical 'conservative' heretical sects [Mormonism, Jehovah witnesses] for historians of 'conservative christianity' you will find those who wanted to preserve the old faith, or who theologically developed terminology to define beliefs that had been held for thousands of years. For example, the word 'inerrancy' [does not error] which just as well can be applied to augustine view of Scripture that cannot error. So Scripture- Creeds - Reformation you can trace the conservative Protestants, but you cannot for the modernists.
And yes I do know that one can put to individual patristic writers like Origen that held to views that later liberals would hold. I'm not saying that the church in 300 AD looked identical to the church in 1700 AD, but that there was a identity in essentials - determined by Scripture.
When an ostensibly spiritual organization somehow aligns perfectly with every plank of a political ideology's platform (on the left or right), I say it's time to run.
My very strict Baptist grandfather was laying in a hospital bed, semi conscious. I took my new fiance with me to visit. No response until I said Grandpa I'm going to remarry to this man. Grandpa's eyes popped open and he told the poor man, " you shall be called an adulterer", and lay back down and said no more. Yikes. We never did marry.
In the beginning was the Word(Logos) and the Word was with God and the Word was God. His Word is everlasting because it is God. But the Bible is not the Word.
Hmm, makes you ponder what Jesus meant when He said, "If the light that be in you be darkness, how great is that darkness!" I imagine this can apply to all aspects of theological error, be it in the liberal or conservative realms.
As you explain, theological liberal/conservative may not line up with political liberalism/conservativism. Your discussion suggests alternative terminology: churches with broad orthodoxy versus churches with narrower orthodoxy (and holding strict biblical inerrancy). This language would be less confusing to the rest of the world, outside of US Christian denominations. I doubt the liberal/conservative language will disappear, but a more explanatory and less politically-tinged terminology may be the best approach when talking to broader audiences.
Very good job at sorting this all out. I used to be a conservative Christian in a Christian and Missionary Alliance church until the mid 2000s. Still conservative, but life has gotten so complicated. I am beginning again, to dip my toe into the Christain waters.
I've watched a couple of your videos and I liked them but please consider including catholic and orthodox traditions in your analysis. The picture is incomplete without them. Thanks 😊.
I grew up in the General Association of Regular Baptist, went to Pensacola Christian College but after reading Charles Finney found his teachings more in line with morality as I understood it. I knew he was a Congregationalist which I was always taught was a good thing. But what I was not taught was that the Congregational Churches still existed. This was ironic since I lived in Cleveland Ohio, and they had their world headquarters there. I went to one of their Churches I had a suspicion they were some false church because they had a peace and social justice committee. That was until I found out they were not doing something political but raising money for earthquake victims. My separation from Conservatives became solidified after reading early Christian writers like the Apostle John and Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria. John taught that the Word of God was not a book but a person. To say that the Word of God is swift and powerful like a two-edged sword as Paul taught is not to say that some book that did not exist at the time was powerful but that the logos of God was powerful. Justin Martyr upheld the faith in the word as parament to being a Christian that is why he said Plato and Socrates were Christians. Clement of Alexandria belief that the logos is the first principal, and it is rational to put our faith in him. He taught it was foundation of Christian faith just as much as the number 1 is the first principal of number theory. To say any book is the Word of God has never been a Christian belief. I think even C.S. Lewis was of this opinion. Liberalism in my view is the movement of Congregations to meet the demands of the spirit not lead by a book but by the Logos of God. The Scripture can lead the way but even they teach that there is a law written on our hearts Jeremiah 31:31 and "since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, his eternal power, and divine nature are clearly seen so men are without excuse."
Intriguing video. However, a query comes up. Are there churches in the middle of these two positions? The ones called “Via Media?” Historically, yes these are the churches are Wesleyan Doctrinal Heritage and Anglican Churches. Examples of such are The Church of The Nazarene, The Wesleyan Church, The Anglican Churches, The Salvation Army, and many different Methodist Churches. Speaking about Theology, Wesleyan Theology does not start with the nature of scripture, as our Reformed/Calvinist/Baptist siblings do. Our Theological thinking begins with The Nature of God. This is why all statements of faith in Wesleyan Churches begin there. The question, moves how are we informed of the nature of God? Through the maximum Revelation of God, which is Jesus, The incarnated Word of God. In Wesleyan Churches, Scriptures is declared as giving testimony of Jesus and tells us inherently how to be saved. Therefore, we would state: Jesus is the maximum Revelation of God to us humans, and The Bible gives testimony of him and informs us how to be saved. In terms of the nature of scripture, we believe it is inspired, but not in the sense, our Baptists/Reformed/Calvinist siblings believe. That all words are historical factual or that God dictated the words of the Bible. We believe in “plenary inspiration” and that The Bible has the “breath of life.” We can find life in the Bible i.e. points us to Jesus and how to be saved. Yet, I would not consider The Church of the Nazarene, The Wesleyan Church, and many of the Methodist Churches; expect for The UMC; would not consider them liberals. One historical affirmation is that Wesleyan Churches have ties to The Anglican Church. Therefore, I would put Episcopalians and Wesleyan within the same circle, not separate them as our brother here did. Many of the statements of faith in Wesleyan Churches mirror the 39 articles of Religion of Anglicanism.
@mineben256 thanks for your question. Within Wesleyanisn we would say through Jesus The Word made flesh. Jesus was never created He us God. Therefore, he reveals to us The Father. The Bible gives testimony of Jesus. Also, Jesus is eternal. The Bible is not eternal.
Great comment. I'm not a Christian but if I was, I'd be Methodist. Or perhaps others, but *anything* other than Calvinism / Reformed, as I find the "God has already elected who he will save and who is already lost" theology to be utterly perverse and at odds with everything that Jesus taught.
RTH: Do you believe that the Bible is errant or inerrant by these criteria? Catholic Church: Yes. HolyKhan: I propose a third class of church politics.
I'm confused how the theologically conservative churches see verses like "This is my body. This is my blood" and "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you have no life within you" as well as Paul's writings "Is the bread we bless not a participation in the body of Christ and the cup of blessing a participation in the blood of Christ. Look at Israel how those who eat and drink of the sacrifices participate in the covenant". (I'm writing these from memory so a few words might be off, but the basic message is in scripture.) And those conservative "literal" readings lead them to believe it's all metaphorical for believing in Christ... Couldn't you just say anything a a metaphor and make the bible say whatever you want by that logic?
I think teaching by metaphor may be a hirer form of understanding. It's part of the reason Clement of Alexandria said that the truth was hidden. I would encourage you to read his teachings on the ten commandments. But more recently I was playing with ChatGPT and tried to get it to understand a metaphor. The idea that number one is the first principal of all numbers. From it comes other numbers but there is no number that can explain number one without using number one. One half is one half of one, two is two ones and so on. Also, the number 1 leads us to the concept of the infinite. I asked ChatGPT to explain the Christian metaphor that as the number one is the first principal of number theory, so the Logos of God is the first principal of the universe. But ChatGPT couldn't understand the metaphor.
Oddly enough, we would be hard pressed today to find a pastor or church that affirms inerrancy that also teaches that divorced people can't get remarried. We just tend to ignore that scripture anyway.
Wish there were big tent traditional churches. As a Lutheran it’s astonishing I must choose between a social justice ELCA and an LCMS that teaches YEC.
Good, informative video! The one critique I have is that it seems that the global Christian perspective is not considered. I think that if we are to define theologically conservative and theologically liberal we can’t just look through the American experience but we must consider the global church.
@@zelenisok There is only one Church, the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which is represented by many bishops including the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople
It is amazing..... How liberal I am theologically, except where I am freaking conservative. The Lord MUST have a sense of humor. I seem to have the knack for sparking debate no matter where I attend Church. I love all my Bothers and Sisters of Christ....and I love discussing theology. Great video. Just subscribed.
@@Charles.Wright There are so many theological, Bible based debates that Followers have broken off into dozens of denominations and hundreds of branches within those denominations. My Methodist Youth Pastor was fond of saying that we are all wrong about something. Obviously, there are a few ideas that are infallible. The rest? Be open minded and small ego enough to listen. 1 Thessalonians18-21: Do not stifle the Holy Spirit,but trust the Prophesies. Test everything, keep only the good.
@@Charles.Wright Some would argue that the ironically unbiblical doctrine of inerrancy is the root cause of so much sectarian debate, division and disunity in the Body of Christ.
@@DW_Kiwi God does not change...but ideas about God continued to evolve and change for hundreds & hundreds of years throughout the biblical writing period. Yahweh was originally conceived as one of the many tribal gods and as Hebrew theology evolved into monotheism, Yahweh was eventually understood as the one and only God of all tribes. Ideas about afterlife, satan, heaven, hell and salvation all evolved and ended up being interpreted in ways that were considerably different from their seed origins.
“Nondenominationalists” are almost always inherently denominational. It just takes a quick look at their theological positions. Typically most so-called “nondenominational” churches are just offshoots of a historically (big-E) Evangelical church, such as those deriving from the Quaker, Wesleyan (i.e. Methodist/Holiness), Baptist, or Restorationist (i.e. Churches of Christ, etc.) traditions within Evangelicalism, though some are (small-e) evangelical offshoots of Lutheran, Reformed, or other (non-big-E-Evangelical) churches. Given modern liberal pluralism allowing for religious freedom, nondenominational groups can also be independent Catholic, Orthodox, Miaphysite (Oriental Orthodox), etc. groups, while a growing number are offshoots of Nontrinitarian churches. However, all in all, there really is no such thing as a truly “nondenominational” group and we can more or less deduce the denominational links of these nondenominationalist groups with relative ease. So doing some homework on any congregation’s theology and practices is still required regardless of what they call themselves.
I love your videos, and this one is no exception. As a R. Catholic, I wonder where my church sits on this spectrum. We generally don't have a problem with theistic evolution, yet we also believe in biblical inerrancy. What do you think?
I see no conflict between theistic evolution and biblical inerrancy. One deals with how the world was formed and the other deals with who did it and why.
@@blkequus Exactly. We just believe that we need the magisterium of the Church to help us interpret what the Bible means in places. But to say the Bible is incomplete? No. It was the Catholic Church who compiled the Bible, after all. And the catechism (which is the full compendium of Catholic teaching) cites the Bible in just about every paragraph. As for inerrant - we believe that the Bible is inerrant in terms of faith and morals. Does this mean that everything treated as history happened exactly the way described? No. Which is why theistic evolution is allowable (everything is created by God, who may use evolution as one of His ways of creating) and why the Catholic Church employs some of the greatest scientists in the world (remember, Gregor Mendel, father of genetics, was a Catholic monk; Georges Lemaitre, the original positor of the Big Bang theory, was a Catholic priest; et al). We have priests and bishops who may be theologically liberal; however, our base theology is rather conservative - that is, we believe it to be generally unchangeable (doctrines can develop over time, but many things that our culture pushes - such as no-fault divorce, female clergy, and same-sex marriage - our Church has decreed to be impossible).
So how would someone who believes the bible is inerrant but doesn't require headscarves for women in church explain that? It seems like most people say that's just culture but I don't understand how someone who believes in inerrancy can argue that.
@@sadashak4 lifelong ...how old are you? yeah, I just see it as you fascinating over what you'll proclaim as false to your Christian friend. Very weird. 😅 Anyway theology got me more wayyy conservative . I'm almost a 4 out of 5 on a conservative scale and that's moved me from being evangelical non-denominational to a Lutheran. I guess I just find it weird when I see non Christians on Christian sites because my social media apps revolve around Christianity only so I'm never on non-christian sites
@@JemimaNta I haven’t proclaimed anything as false and I don’t have any friends on this chat. Not believing something is different than proclaiming something is not true. Do you get the difference? Look up the phrase. “Russell’s teapot” I see insufficient evidence to believe there is a miniature teacup in orbit around Pluto. That is different than saying there is not a miniature teacup orbiting Pluto. Now substitute God/God‘s/supernatural anything for the word, Pluto. I’m old enough to be an AARP member.
@@sadashak4 check out frank Turek's case for God after all you like learning new stuff ( even if you don't think it's true- so weird but okay ) while I'll check the teapot phrase out. I still find it weird tbh. You just wouldn't see me on a site I don't believe in. 🤷 As an electrical engineer I find faith and science compatible.
Really interesting video thanks a lot. Only one critique I wouldn't say transgenderism. Better say rejection of trans people or the non recognition of trans identities. An overview of German Christianity would be really interesting
Let me be Frank. Like everything else in our country the divide is not theological it is political. Churches are dividing politically. Most congregations can be seen as democrat or republican. Liberal churches are usually democrat churches. Conservative churches are most likely republican. It's not really deeper than that. Most people are theologically ignorant. Churches are becoming places where folks find a common core. Ethnic, racial, culture, language. Worship style, politics, lifestyle, music. The church had become "balkanized". The church has completely failed to become one as Jesus prayed for. We need to repent and follow Christ. Amen.
Christians seemed to know Nationalism was a religion in itself. Political party has become the religion for some.I've left the SBC for exactly that reason. I'm not interested in a political country club. I've a great ministry at work teaching people of diverse denominations to appreciate and trust the bible. I also teach them to ask the hard questions because I believe it strengthens the faith.
Very interesting! I would wonder where Catholics would fall, but I guess Catholics would be Theologically Conservative because we hold the Bible to be the Inspired Word of God (i.e. inerrant). Well done video, as always!
Thanks for mentioning the theological conservatives that are politically libertarian. That description was a pretty close approximation of where I fall and I really think it's a position that is robustly supported by the Bible and more Christians should take it seriously.
Nonsense. Did Jesus ever espouse individualism and self promotion? Never. Jesus was about fellowship, brotherhood and community. The exact opposite of "me, at any cost" libertarianism. Libertarianism is the US is just about hanging on to guns and paying no taxes. Looking after oneself and the vulnerable and destitute can just starve. The absolute antithesis to The Bible, Christianity and Jesus.
@@carpetzest7278 you and I don't mean the same thing when we use the word "libertarianism". Using violence that is wielded by a kingdom of this world to force unbelievers to behave in a way that looks Christian is a far cry from allowing the Spirit to work love and joy and peace through our lives to create genuine Christians. It seems like your comment was written with hostility and anger but I pray that the Lord will bless you with kindness and gentleness and open your mind to the way of His upsidedown kingdom. Grace and peace to you.
Shalom Josh, I have come to enjoy and respect your videos. You look impossibly young but then our director of music and associate pastor is younger than my youngest child. I am a member of an LCMS church and agree with more of its theology than any other church I have experienced in 53 years since I was saved. What I am struggling with is the eschatology of the LCMS. I am probably premillennial. The Rapture not withstanding in any case. What I cannot believe in is the amillennial view that this is the millennium, the absolute length of time not being an issue. I cannot believe that Satan was bound at the resurrection. Ephesians 6 and Second Peter in scripture do not support this view. We battle against principalities and power in the heavenlies, and Satan is going about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. Not to mention that the history of the last 2,000 years does not speak to a devil who is bound. Anyway, what do you think? Your video on eschatology did not even address the binding of Satan and I believe it is a crucial issue.
It's an interesting topic. I'm a Catholic, and our perspective is very different from yours. I feel like, at least in most of American Protestantism, you're either low-church evangelical and conservative on issues like abortion, gay marriage or high-church mainline and liberal on issues like abortion and gay marriage. (There are plenty of exceptions, though, but I think that the majority falls into one of those two categories.) To Catholics, allowing for gay marriage and abortion is very, very liberal. But also having a low-church theology that denies the real presence, the saving nature of baptism, apostolic succession, etc. is very, very liberal. So to us, both Episcopalians and Southern Baptists are very, very liberal. The only Protestants we might consider conservatives would be conservative mainline churches like Missouri-Synod Lutherans or breakaway Anglican groups. But even then we see them as more liberal than us.
Let's talk about what your preachers or pastors focus on. If a pastor speaks on abomination, does he choose one, or all seven. How does your pastor speak on grace. Does your pastor or preacher tell you what the one unforgivable sin. Who was the most wise person in the buble, and what conclusion did he come too. In short do you read your bible.
An AMAZING explanation of this.
The Lord has really gifted you with presenting HIGHLY controversial subjects that generally start fights and divisions in about the most neutral tone possible😊
Thanks Andrew!
I agree. While I believe Harvest may be somewhat conservative himself, he doesn't become polemical or judgmental about theological liberalism in his videos, only factual. I really appreciate his work, answers so many questions about denominational differences that I always wondered about (some I already knew from reading and it took forever, but he answers in even more granular detail than anyone else I ever read or listened to)
@Wendy Lee Connelly He has stated before that he's a professor at an Independent Baptist college so that guarantees that he's pretty conservative in his own beliefs.
Agreed!
@@ReadyToHarvest The tide has turned though -- the supposed "inevitability" of the rainbow agenda is no more, as the CRC and other churches push back.
I teach Bible at a non-denom Christian high school and your videos have been amazingly helpful for both my preparation and in presenting them to students directly. We are covering Ecclesiology in 11th grade systematic theology and being able to share concise, objective information like this has been awesome.
Know God is using you through these videos and I know He will continue to do so.
Blessings!
Thanks Justin, I'm so glad to hear it!
Teaching theology to 11th graders. Hats off to you!
How important is theology really. If we show God's love isn't that what is important.
@@paulpalmer6364 How can you show God's love well if you don't know His love?
@Paul Palmer There are several statements in the New Testament about the importance--even saving power--of correct belief. You at least need to have thr basics right.
Divvying up these different theologies really demonstrates why I feel so denominationally homeless. I lean on liberal with some areas, conservative with others. And I have such a hard time finding a home church as a result.
I can totally understand your dalima as one that was once were your at now.
I thanks the Most High Yahuah(God) everyday day for bringing me out of all those man-made "religions".It all started with me when I prayed to the Father that all I wanted to do is please Him and Yahusha(Jesus) and know the truth about his Holy word. That's when the Father lead me to his commandments and said to read the fourth commandment of His ten commandments.That's when Yahuah let me know that what he was about to show me in His Word and through his Holy Spirit was going to go against most everything I had learned by man and his man made doctrines that had corrupted His and the Messiah words. Since then it has been a wonderful journey with Yahuah Elohim(God) and Yahusha HaMashiach(Jesus Christ)…
First Yahuah taught me about his Sabbath and that it was made for man not for the Jews but all of us, and that he's word never changes.So the Messiah didn't change his Father's Sabbath.Then Father taught me he's real name and that of Messiah's that has been hidden from us on purpose in the new translations from Hebrew to Greek to English. Father Yahuah has shown me so many other things through his word, and I mean his whole word not just the "New Testament"but also his Torah(Old Testament). Which we've been taught that we don't need to read anymore because of what Messiah did on the Cross for us and that the law has been done away with. Believe me when I say this people the evil one our adversity Satan has creept into the church thousand's of years ago and slowly corrupted the Father's words and the true Gospel of Messiah with all these man made doctrines.It's time for Yahuah's people to come out of these man made "Religions" and start reading his word for themselves and in pray ask the Father to remove the scales from your eyes and reveal himself to you and show you the narrow path that it's talks about in Matthew. The time is now my friend that the Father is readying his "church" us his people for the return of his Son or Messiah Yahusha HaMashiach.I pray that will help you and if you have any questions please feel free to ask and I will try my best to answer them.
May the Most High make his face to shine upon you and bless you always.
TBH most peoples wouldn't agreeggrgfff believe agree but I think the liberalization of church's what is causing the fragmentation of churches And leaving people feel like they are spiritually homeles
Dude your TH-cam content and presentations are on 🔥
Heartily agreed. Minefield. Not only do they deny our Lord, they confuse the path to him..
Atheist here! Love your videos it’s always good to learn about the difference of beliefs and secs in the Christian church. Thanks for what you are doing
*sects
😅It's weird how you're leaning about what you see as false 😅 i don't know why Christians appreciate athiests texts on Christian channels, for me it's sooo weird
@JemimaNta some people have a love of knowledge. When I learn about star wars lore (something I know isn't true), I enjoy the content. What's different here
I am pretty sure of most of my beliefs (Evangelical Friend/Quaker) but I still love learning about the different denominations, churches, sects, etc.
I'd enjoy seeing a video like this about factions within Catholicism and Orthodoxy as well.
Yes, particularly Sedevacantism and those pushing for a return to Latin mass
In Catholicism, things get complicated…
@@jackdispennett744 yeah, I think we can have different lines over what is liberal/conservative. Within Catholicism, anything that resembles Protestantism is considered liberal.
Your videos are an amazing gift to the Church. Thank you for your faithful work!
Thanks Garrett. Glad to have you as a viewer!
Which church?
@@alld47hidrohnilougue31 Big "C" - the whole Church.
@@mnbv804 I’m interested in which churches that includes... if there is not one universal Church... does it include Mormonism? Church of Jesus Christ, Scientists? Churches that allow women or homosexual clergy? Churches that bless homosexual unions? Unitarians?
@@alld47hidrohnilougue31 I would not include any of those groups as being part of the Church- they are unorthodox and unbiblical. Are the elect part of churches that have women in clergy? Likely, but as they are sanctified will they remain in such churches they rebel against God's complete revealed will for believers? Unequivocally, No. I would define the Church as God's elect who gather together for the purposes and confines as which God's Word commands. (Elder led, preaching, ordinances of baptism and communion, worship, building up of the Saints). That's my 5 minute reply to a very large topic :)
This is probably the most accurate video on Mainline Protestant churches I've seen yet. I'm in one, and liberalism is a problem, but since most Christian youtubers are Evangelical, most of them have no idea what goes on in Mainline churches.
@Jim Anderson that’s for two reasons. One, mainline churches don’t care about evangelism. Two, the average age in a mainline church is 70
Conservativism and evangelicalism are the problem
@Jim Anderson Young Liberals are more likely to be non-religious, and young conservatives are more likely to be religious. The same thing happens with older liberals and conservatives, but the older crowd tends to be more religious overall.
@@mysticheathen3455 How so?
@@CheesyHotDogPuff A new report shows that young Conservatives are rapidly dumping religion too, and that is very interesting for what the will mean in the future for both the church and politics, as Ryan Burge, a pastor and political scientist, just revealed in some new research published a few days ago.
One correction, inerrancy means the scriptures contain no error in their ORIGINAL texts, as intended by those moved to write them by the Holy Spirit. Various interpretations may contain errors in the translation by the necessity of language and culture differences.
OTOH a decent number of inerrantists follow some of the more radical version of KJVOnlyism which means that they bdlieve that the KJV, ie a translation, is inerrant
@@Alex-fv2qs 🤣
I’ve understood that infallible means that the message conveyed by the scriptures is perfect and inerrancy meant no grammatical errors or contradiction was to be found.
This would be a meaningless definition as we have no original text of any book in the Bible.
@@mikeainsworth9861 You’re right. I should have said perfectly preserved.
I'm from the (relatively tiny) Reformed Church in America, which you have listed as liberal. It's a little more complicated than that, and it seems to be related to geography. Those out east (New York, etc.) are much more liberal, whereas those in northwest Iowa are conservative. I think those geographically in the middle (Michigan) are also theologically in the middle. There may be a division soon. Those of us from northwest Iowa think the New Yorkers are much too liberal, and neither side is willing to give in.
Yes, It is true that none of these denominations can be said to perfectly fit on one side or another. In fact, a video coming out (very) soon will talk about conservative churches in the PC(USA), which is generally considered to be liberal. But it is true that the RCA is even more in the middle. Enough to the liberal side that I feel justified in where I put it overall, but it is certainly true that there are plenty of conservative churches there. And if it is stratified as you say, with geographical clusters of more conservative churches, it is very understandable why someone in those regions would consider the broad overall classification as questionable.
There's always room in the URCNA! :)
... or the OPC! (I'm partial to the latter as an OPC member)
I am reformed from Michigan and we as well are in the split between in the center a liberal
I lived in NW Iowa for a bit.
I think he is examining the published tracts by denominations. My church is normally a conservative PCA. However, the moment there is a conflict in the church, elders and the pastor all switch to broad theological liberalism to be "inclusive". 🤣
I love the work you're doing on these videos.
Don't stay with a church or denomination whose beliefs differ from yours. Many denominations and churches are drifting toward liberalism, and if you find this runs contrary to you beliefs, find another denomination that is in step with your chosen theology. If you don't, you will feel bitterness to your church, resent tithing to it, and walk out each Sunday morning with a heavy heart. It's hard to say good-bye to your church family, but having done it, I look back and know I did the right thing.
Good advice, R!
So what are the right beliefs then? If we are to go to a denomination tbat fits our world view what the point? Shouldnt there be only one right denomination?
I'm to busy leading a spiritual life to muddle my brain with theology.
Don’t look for the church that is right for you, look for the Church that is right!
@Jim Anderson If I do t agree with 2,000 years worth of saints, apostles, theologians and doctors of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, than I accept that I’m wrong.
I've recently become of big fan of this channel. Keep up the good work.
Before you got 30 seconds into this you nailed the difference. @ 0:25 you said, "Theological liberalism denies the innerancy of the Bible." That is the main point of demarcation. Once one understand this specific difference, the rest falls into place. I can debate scripture with a theological conservative, but not with a theologically liberal because there is no common ground.
Amen.
As a progressive Christian I'm fairly certain you deny the inherency of (some) of the Bible. And certainly you don't read all of it literally. Reading scripture as intended is pretty important. ✌🏻
@@stevenking6129 Amen. Rome claims the Bible is inerrant only in theology. Certainly it is not "inerrant" when it describes our Lord as inhabiting the waters of Heaven, beyond the firmament dome that spans the flat Earth.
My biggest problem is the new belief that the Bible is the Logos or Word of God. It's certainly not based on any teaching within the books of the Scriptures. What part of the Trinity is it? It is truly almost funny how the cult of the Bible being the Word of God has captured many Churches.
I must say, you are extremely good at this.
My 2x great-uncle was a Methodist Episcopal minister. After being a Methodist church, it evolved into a much more conservative Pilgrim Holiness church and then Wesleyan.
My parents moved north and were invited to hear a Freewill Baptist preacher and they, with him and others started a new FWB church. I grew up in that denomination until I turned 18. I no longer believed the Arminian viewpoint on the salvation experience. As a result, I visited a large Independent Baptist Fellowship church and stayed there until age 23 when I moved.
Later, I went to a Brethren when my voice coach invited me. After moving again, I went to the Evangelical Free church.
Okay, yes, I moved a lot.😁 My next church was a non-denominational group. When they moved farther out, I just didn't want to drive an hour.
Closer to home, I was invited to a PCUSA church by a neighbor. That was about as much "evangelizing" that they did. They were great folks, but told me that they just didn't go 'door-to-door' to evangelize. Any growth was pretty much nil at that time and drying up.
Hopefully, this most recent move is my last. I belong to another PCUSA church, but this one is much more liberal. One Sunday, a visiting minister showed up with Rob Bell's book and spouted that garbage just vaguely enough to make one wonder where he was with his beliefs.
Covid has pretty much kept us closed down. The church could reopen, but are biding their time. In the meantime, I help an Episcopal church by singing once a month from their sanctuary to the congregation via Zoom.
Watching videos like this, the late Charles Sproul and also John MacArthur, get me through the days.
Keep up the great work, and I will stay in one spot!😁
Thanks for the comment, and for being a viewer. I have a video that is about a particular aspect of the PC(USA) coming up in the next few months and also a few other videos that intersect with some of your experiences. I always find it interesting to see what people's life experiences have been. Based on the end of your comment, I bet you'd enjoy this video from another channel on TH-cam if you haven't seen it already. I watched it yesterday: th-cam.com/video/1aLuCO0meFw/w-d-xo.html
@@ReadyToHarvest Ah, yes! I enjoy those too.😁
@@ReadyToHarvest I look forward to seeing it!👍🏼
It's sad to me that some churches are still scared and closed. This says to "me" that your church is liberal, i.e., they bow to the government and not to God.
My dad once visited a WESLEYAN church and said I would have LOOOOOOOOOOOOVED its conservativeness.
14:45
I think this is great. I love this kind of thing. You seem to be knowledgable about something I'm passionate about and information I have strung together throughout my life by talking to people.
But I think that chart seems really accurate and helpful to talk and show to people
This is really, really well done, coming from someone that most people here would consider theologically liberal (though I’m a conservative in the context of my church).
Thank you for doing such a comprehensive research.
Great video! I really liked your full communion diagram. I grew up ELCA, but I would feel more comfortable at an Episcopal or Methodist church than and LCMS church even though we're both Lutheran
I just started sharing your 2 video presentations to our group chat, United Church Workers Organization of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines, Lanao District Conference. Hope all will find insights from your presentations here, God bless you!
You may have already gotten this critique, but the 1988 merger of the lutherans did not involve the United Lutheran church, it had merged into the Lutheran Church in America in 1962. it was the alc, LCA and aelc that formed the elca. thanks for your work. I really appreciate these
I can now understand why it may take days or even longer to prepare each of these videos
It is a complex world in theology and all the different beliefs
Although I do not go to church, this program is fascinating
RS
Canada
Where the words "conservative" and "liberal" get really messy is in the realm of social ethics. Some Evangelical "conservatives" take a dim view of people who are poor, often presuming they have moral flaws that put them there. Yet, some Christians deemed "liberal" focus on passages like Matthew 25 or the book of James as a biblical basis for helping the poor. In this situation, the "liberals" are trying to follow the Bible for social ethics, but the "conservatives" may be following extrabiblical Word Faith teachings or political directives. Strange days!
Excellent point. I think you have summed up much of American Christianity (what the world outside of the US calls the "Christian Right"). Political conservatism and right wing ideology are hard to reconcile with the teachings in the Bible on fellowship, charity and kindness. I mean, so-called Christians who want to hang onto guns, pay less taxes to support public services and transfer more and more wealth and resources from the poorer majority to an ever smaller, rich minority. Now, what was it that Jesus said about the rich entering the Kingdom?
In many cases, the words "stringent" and "loose" may be more applicable, as this is typically what it indicates, as opposed to an explicitly political position.
Your collective videos are great my brother-in-Christ. Pax Christi (it’s the Anglo-Catholic in me)
This is fascinating, thank you so much!
Thanks for the explanation.
Bruce McCormack said that when he was younger, conservative meant you had a high view of the authority of scripture and a high christology and liberal meant you had a low view of the authority of scripture and a low christology.
In that old sense, I'm very much a theological liberal. What did he say it means now?
@@charlottewolery558 he said it's all up in the air now.
Great video!
This is pretty dense with theology! I had to slow it down a little bit. Very informative though. Thanks for making this video!
This video is focused on protestant denominations, though I'm curious how the Catholic and Orthodox churches fit into this framework?
Thanks for this video that helped me consider what type of values I would like in a Christian Denomination.
Well done, subscribed.
Great video! Thank you
I once knew a woman who insisted a liberal church was one where the pastor did not wear a robe and that Presbyterians were too familiar with each other because they addressed each other by first names. She decided it time to go when they started addressing the pastor by his first name .
@Jim Anderson to assume either way is superficial. The woman I refer to was very "old school" and very aristocratic. She also did not allow reading the newspaper on Sunday.
Really!!. She needs to be born again.
Based tbh
Ha, I grew up in church where any church leader wearing a robe was a catholic in disguise! Only a suit to preach as a plain man would do. So much comes from older generations not just theology.
"This isn't a video on inerrancy" - so why not make one (eventually) on this (somewhat tangled) topic ?
Dude you’re spot on. I’m curious to know which camp you fall on.
As a writer and creator, it would be the worst possible decision for our host to throw himself into a position.
Excellent presentation and very helpful. Thanks!
Then you have the Church of the Nazarene. It's usually seen as a conservative denomination, but I've heard it described as "liberal in theology but conservative in practice." This actually fits it pretty well considering there are a lot of theological issues on which the church does not take a dogmatic stance, so you can find a wide range of beliefs regarding them. There are some Nazarene churches that are fundamentalist, while others are quite liberal and will criticize fundamentalism.
Dogmatic? What about Catmatic stance? Hahaha 🤣
As one raised Methodist and became an elder in a Disciple of Christ Church, your time line explains clearly when liberal shifts away for sound Biblical doctrine in these full communion mergers cause our family to change congregations. It was painful to leave a church I loved to follow my convictions.
You are so good at this
Nice job.
When it comes to liberal v. conservative, it seems that the focus is so often placed on the correct answer along with proving that this answer is correct and all other answers are wrong. I have come to believe that this focus on the correct answer misses the point. For me, and perhaps this is an aging thing, the point is the community of believers, the conversation, the ongoing discussion, the continued engagement in community. Just because we disagree does not mean we are no longer "family"
I'd say it depends on what the disagreements are about. If it's something as serious as whether Jesus resurrected physically or only spiritually, then that is a serious enough disagreement that the two can't remain in Christian fellowship with one another.
Unless you believe the word of God is not the Word OF GOD.
2 Timothy 3:16,17
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
If you don't believe it, than NO. There is NO FAMILIA. And you can't live in sin willfully and be saved. You can't be of this world and be Christ-like.
Matthew 7:16-23
New American Standard Bible
16 You will [a]know them by their fruits. [b]Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will [c]know them by their fruits.
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [d]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
I am a member of a Missionary Baptist Church and we are very few logically conservative. I was wondering if you had any videos on the missionary baptist?
Have you a video that explains what the terms relating to end times mean? I have enjoyed many of your videos but don’t know what the terms you use mean - millennial etc
A pretty good summary.
The word myth simply means it has supernatural elements. It doesn’t mean an account is sound or not. Inerrancy is also kinda a fluid concept.
One can't get a dictionary definition and jump into theological debates or conclusions. Theologians define those terms very well and despite minor differences it's not hard to get what they mean in that context.
The perception of fluidity is usually originated from a low resolution underdanting of the issue. When you actually get to the core of the issue, there isn't actually much room left for different views. The Bible is either inerrant or it's not. What differs after that is the interpretation method, such as historical, poetic, symbolic and so on.
For instance, one that adopts grammatical-historical hermeneutics usually get to a consistent interpretation of Scripture. On the other hand, one that does not follow a consistency interpretation standard will have to decide on a case by case basis on which kind of interpretation is to be used for each text or even each passage. That could result in some apparent fluidity, but it's not about inerrancy being fluid, it's just the Interpretation method that changes.
This is so complicated.
I'm so glad I'm just a Catholic.
From a Lutheran to a Catholic... keep the Faith. 🙂
I almost became Catholic and what I found was a deeply complicated faith with plenty of argument and disagreement in its ranks in its own right.
I'm curious about the parallel continuum between liberal and conservative within Catholicism.
I Thank God for allowing me to get to know HIM, and I also thank my God for placing me in a church where Doctrine is all based in the Word of God...
I like what you wrote as long as you meant that the Word of God is Jesus. But if you meant that the Bible is the Word of God you have been misled. And you are in idolatry, worshiping a book.
You should have also included Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox churches, and Oriental Orthodox churches in this discussion of theological Liberal and theological conservatives, in order to give a broader view on this discussion, and not narrow Christianity only to churches after the Reformation.
Agreed!!!
Id make the assumption that both Orthodox and Catholicism is automatically conservative just due to history and how they stick to tradition
@@godisgreat6854 There are also Liberal Roman Catholic Theologians.
@@pwct321 Correct but as a whole, the catechism is super conservative
I think it was smart to exclude the Orthodox and Roman Catholic denominations. The boundaries of those denominations are typically formed by tradition, philosophy, and politics, not how they view the Bible.
Can you please make a video detailing which denominations teach Postmillennialism? I can't find any clear answers on that on Google, seems like every Church/Denom can simply choose their eschatology without violating their allegiance to their denom? Not sure...but I really want to know which denominations or churches are blatantly teaching Postmillennialism since I'm searching for that type of Church. Thanks.
The treatment of Inerrancy is not fully accurate, which I know is intended. Many people who are theologically conservatives view the Scripture as being functionally Inerrant, which means that I and others view the scripture as having no mistake in what it is intended to do, but that any and all perceived mistakes are the fault of the reader, even ourselves.
It depends as to which "stream" of MS's you have as a translation. The majority text (The Texus Receptus) or the Minority text (the Alexandrian text). If you compare the two steams, errors are apparent!!. Compare Acts 18:26 for instance. Beware which one you use. God word "is" inerrant" After all the bible says it is. "All scripture is God breathed..."
@@DW_Kiwi I was not talking about the flaws in the text manuscripts. That is infallibility. I believe that only the very first oral traditions/autographs were infallible. Inerrancy only has to do with the function of the text.
Even recognizing the fallibility I do not see how the example you cited changes the function of the text/scripture as a whole.
This is very interesting, because in Europe, especially in my home country, Hungary, there is an opposite process. I mean that the conservative wings of the protestant churches have a high desire to get closer. They feel themselves much closer to each other than the liberal wing of the same denomination. Especially because of the view of human sexuality.
You ignored the fact that the Bible is historically a product of the early Catholic Church. A group of church leaders got together and debated on what was to be included in the canon and what wasn’t. They didn’t all agree and the canon changed over time. Inerrancy as understood by modern Protestants is indeed a relatively new idea.
I agree, they were really just trying to come up with books that should be read in the Churches and not on what books are God's Word. The Word or Logos was part of the debate but only as in pertained to an understanding of what we called the trinity today.
Is there a difference between inerrancy and infallibility?
You really did a great job with this video, but I take exception on one point: You seem to say that modern theological liberalism is an innovation in the church (which it is) but imply that modern theological conservatism is just the same old faith that has been held from time immemorial. I would disagree and argue that it is just as much of an innovation. By failing to make that point clear (in fact suggesting the opposite), you essentially are calling liberalism a heresy and conservatism orthodox Christianity.
As an Independent Baptist that is no doubt how he thinks, and I agree with him. I'd be curious to know why you think the conservative position is of modern origin. I mean, in this dichotomy you only have two options. If you wipe them both out, where is traditional Christianity?
@@sorenpx the deep inroads between political conservatism and religious conservatism, at least in the West, are new.
Conservatives can read Patristics - Clement and Ireanus orlike Athansius or Augustine and agree with the main thrust of their religion. We can use the Nicea Creed, the Apostles Creed, the Chalcedonian definition. We can use the 'Athanisuian Creed.' We can read the writers of the main theologians and confessions of the Reformation - Martin Luther, Martin Chemnitz, John Calvin, Thomas Cramner, Ausburg Confession, and agree with the main points of their religion. Remember that the common people learned the Ten commandments and the Creed and the Scriptures. The Socinians of Poland who broke away from the Reformed and attacked the Trinity were considered heretics - same with the Unitarians, Arians and universalists. When Deists and Unitarians attacked the existing Creeds and Confessions and practices [like worshipping Jesus] some churches became Socinian or Unitarian. You can look at the history of the liberal theologians and note their dates - they are clearly *newer* then Patristic theologians and Reformation theologians. Also, liberals were tried for hersey.
In fact, looking at the conservative Reformation, yes there were reforms, but they took the main Creeds, the Ten Commandments, the Our Father, while suppressing beliefs and practices that developed slowly over time in the 200s, 300s, and middle ages, esp those that contradicted what augustine considered the only authority that could not error - the Scriptures. Sure, there was later theological precision and terminology, but the difference between someone who can recite the Apostles Creed with *honest belief* and real trust in Christ and someone who cannot, is very stark. Plus the orthodox could appeal to thr scriptures held by the people of God over time who God used as an instrument to bring them to faith in Jesus, or for some baptism. Also the historical succession of teachers from the Apostles and the churches they founded - and comparing the teachers to the Apostles Doctrine found the writings of the Apostolic men and the Apostles, and using the old roman Creed [later the apostles Creed] which is a summary of Scripture, and therefore derived and subordinate to Scripture. Also you can look at the historians of Liberal Christianity, and see its modern origin, its influence from Kant, Hegel and others. Read the book 'Christianity and Liberalism' the difference between a supernatural Christianity and a theism or deism wrapped in Christian colors or a revival of Unitarianism or Socinianism is not historical at all. And the Reformers appealed, just ad the church fathers did against the Gnostics and the Arians, that the first is true and orthodox, the second is false and hetertical - thats why Protestants documented the development of the Papacy, Purgatory, transsubstantion, as a depature from the ancient church. Reformers saw these as innovations, while Roman Catholics thought it had always been that way, until some began to argue that Roman Catholicism developed gradually but that God wanted it that way, while Protestants allowed theological development of terminology, but a rejection of 'bad' development that contradicted Scripture. Liberalism rejected Scripture as the supreme authority, and also rejected the lesser authority of tradition and even the church. Ot course Im generalizing, as there is a large continuum between modernists [reject the Creed] and 'progressives' [heretical dissent in faith or practice in some area, for example, rejecting the scriptural, Patristic and Reformation teaching of one man and one woman marriage and that abortion is sinful].
You can easily find the histories of liberal christianity, and the founding fathers of their various flavors, while although there are certainly.plenty of ahistorical 'conservative' heretical sects [Mormonism, Jehovah witnesses] for historians of 'conservative christianity' you will find those who wanted to preserve the old faith, or who theologically developed terminology to define beliefs that had been held for thousands of years. For example, the word 'inerrancy' [does not error] which just as well can be applied to augustine view of Scripture that cannot error. So Scripture- Creeds - Reformation you can trace the conservative Protestants, but you cannot for the modernists.
And yes I do know that one can put to individual patristic writers like Origen that held to views that later liberals would hold. I'm not saying that the church in 300 AD looked identical to the church in 1700 AD, but that there was a identity in essentials - determined by Scripture.
Very helpful
When an ostensibly spiritual organization somehow aligns perfectly with every plank of a political ideology's platform (on the left or right), I say it's time to run.
My very strict Baptist grandfather was laying in a hospital bed, semi conscious. I took my new fiance with me to visit. No response until I said Grandpa I'm going to remarry to this man. Grandpa's eyes popped open and he told the poor man, " you shall be called an adulterer", and lay back down and said no more. Yikes. We never did marry.
What a godly man. RIP.
The World will come to passed, But his Word will remain forever...
In the beginning was the Word(Logos) and the Word was with God and the Word was God. His Word is everlasting because it is God. But the Bible is not the Word.
Hmm, makes you ponder what Jesus meant when He said, "If the light that be in you be darkness, how great is that darkness!" I imagine this can apply to all aspects of theological error, be it in the liberal or conservative realms.
Prof. Josh could you create a simular video about worshipstyle?
I just subscribed. Btw, I go to a Wesleyan church.
As you explain, theological liberal/conservative may not line up with political liberalism/conservativism. Your discussion suggests alternative terminology: churches with broad orthodoxy versus churches with narrower orthodoxy (and holding strict biblical inerrancy). This language would be less confusing to the rest of the world, outside of US Christian denominations. I doubt the liberal/conservative language will disappear, but a more explanatory and less politically-tinged terminology may be the best approach when talking to broader audiences.
You should do a ranking of the top Christian (including Catholic!) Colleges & Universities in the US
Very good job at sorting this all out. I used to be a conservative Christian in a Christian and Missionary Alliance church until the mid 2000s. Still conservative, but life has gotten so complicated. I am beginning again, to dip my toe into the Christain waters.
I've watched a couple of your videos and I liked them but please consider including catholic and orthodox traditions in your analysis. The picture is incomplete without them. Thanks 😊.
Catholic and Christian are completely separate religions.
@@Mr-pn2eh Wow. Really? I had no idea.
@@katgrrlie they are not. Indeed, Catholicism is the only true form of Christianity
@@Mr-pn2ehDid you mean protestant heresy or orthodox pride, didn’t you?
I grew up in the General Association of Regular Baptist, went to Pensacola Christian College but after reading Charles Finney found his teachings more in line with morality as I understood it. I knew he was a Congregationalist which I was always taught was a good thing. But what I was not taught was that the Congregational Churches still existed. This was ironic since I lived in Cleveland Ohio, and they had their world headquarters there. I went to one of their Churches I had a suspicion they were some false church because they had a peace and social justice committee. That was until I found out they were not doing something political but raising money for earthquake victims.
My separation from Conservatives became solidified after reading early Christian writers like the Apostle John and Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria. John taught that the Word of God was not a book but a person. To say that the Word of God is swift and powerful like a two-edged sword as Paul taught is not to say that some book that did not exist at the time was powerful but that the logos of God was powerful. Justin Martyr upheld the faith in the word as parament to being a Christian that is why he said Plato and Socrates were Christians. Clement of Alexandria belief that the logos is the first principal, and it is rational to put our faith in him. He taught it was foundation of Christian faith just as much as the number 1 is the first principal of number theory. To say any book is the Word of God has never been a Christian belief. I think even C.S. Lewis was of this opinion. Liberalism in my view is the movement of Congregations to meet the demands of the spirit not lead by a book but by the Logos of God. The Scripture can lead the way but even they teach that there is a law written on our hearts Jeremiah 31:31 and "since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, his eternal power, and divine nature are clearly seen so men are without excuse."
Intriguing video. However, a query comes up. Are there churches in the middle of these two positions? The ones called “Via Media?” Historically, yes these are the churches are Wesleyan Doctrinal Heritage and Anglican Churches. Examples of such are The Church of The Nazarene, The Wesleyan Church, The Anglican Churches, The Salvation Army, and many different Methodist Churches.
Speaking about Theology, Wesleyan Theology does not start with the nature of scripture, as our Reformed/Calvinist/Baptist siblings do. Our Theological thinking begins with The Nature of God. This is why all statements of faith in Wesleyan Churches begin there. The question, moves how are we informed of the nature of God? Through the maximum Revelation of God, which is Jesus, The incarnated Word of God. In Wesleyan Churches, Scriptures is declared as giving testimony of Jesus and tells us inherently how to be saved. Therefore, we would state: Jesus is the maximum Revelation of God to us humans, and The Bible gives testimony of him and informs us how to be saved.
In terms of the nature of scripture, we believe it is inspired, but not in the sense, our Baptists/Reformed/Calvinist siblings believe. That all words are historical factual or that God dictated the words of the Bible. We believe in “plenary inspiration” and that The Bible has the “breath of life.” We can find life in the Bible i.e. points us to Jesus and how to be saved. Yet, I would not consider The Church of the Nazarene, The Wesleyan Church, and many of the Methodist Churches; expect for The UMC; would not consider them liberals.
One historical affirmation is that Wesleyan Churches have ties to The Anglican Church. Therefore, I would put Episcopalians and Wesleyan within the same circle, not separate them as our brother here did. Many of the statements of faith in Wesleyan Churches mirror the 39 articles of Religion of Anglicanism.
@mineben256 thanks for your question. Within Wesleyanisn we would say through Jesus The Word made flesh. Jesus was never created He us God. Therefore, he reveals to us The Father. The Bible gives testimony of Jesus. Also, Jesus is eternal. The Bible is not eternal.
Great comment. I'm not a Christian but if I was, I'd be Methodist. Or perhaps others, but *anything* other than Calvinism / Reformed, as I find the "God has already elected who he will save and who is already lost" theology to be utterly perverse and at odds with everything that Jesus taught.
RTH: Do you believe that the Bible is errant or inerrant by these criteria?
Catholic Church: Yes.
HolyKhan: I propose a third class of church politics.
Oof
I'm confused how the theologically conservative churches see verses like "This is my body. This is my blood" and "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you have no life within you" as well as Paul's writings "Is the bread we bless not a participation in the body of Christ and the cup of blessing a participation in the blood of Christ. Look at Israel how those who eat and drink of the sacrifices participate in the covenant". (I'm writing these from memory so a few words might be off, but the basic message is in scripture.) And those conservative "literal" readings lead them to believe it's all metaphorical for believing in Christ... Couldn't you just say anything a a metaphor and make the bible say whatever you want by that logic?
I think teaching by metaphor may be a hirer form of understanding. It's part of the reason Clement of Alexandria said that the truth was hidden. I would encourage you to read his teachings on the ten commandments. But more recently I was playing with ChatGPT and tried to get it to understand a metaphor. The idea that number one is the first principal of all numbers. From it comes other numbers but there is no number that can explain number one without using number one. One half is one half of one, two is two ones and so on. Also, the number 1 leads us to the concept of the infinite. I asked ChatGPT to explain the Christian metaphor that as the number one is the first principal of number theory, so the Logos of God is the first principal of the universe. But ChatGPT couldn't understand the metaphor.
Oddly enough, we would be hard pressed today to find a pastor or church that affirms inerrancy that also teaches that divorced people can't get remarried. We just tend to ignore that scripture anyway.
Wish there were big tent traditional churches. As a Lutheran it’s astonishing I must choose between a social justice ELCA and an LCMS that teaches YEC.
Good, informative video! The one critique I have is that it seems that the global Christian perspective is not considered. I think that if we are to define theologically conservative and theologically liberal we can’t just look through the American experience but we must consider the global church.
He did specifically say this video would be from the perspective of American Christianity.
inerrancy seems very unhelpful word since the people who use it still interpret the text through their limited personal lens
I am a hellenist and these videos are wonderful to watch! It's great that there's such easy access to learning material about this subject
Watching this I'd understand why some American protestants would give up and convert to Catholicism/Orthodoxy
It happens. There are many converts in my Orthodox Church, although it does retain an ethnic character.
They have their inner currents of theological liberalism and conservatism, so that wouldnt be much help haha
@@zelenisok They're God's one holy ordained Church on Earth, the Bride of Christ, so that helps
theyre not one church lol..
@@zelenisok There is only one Church, the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which is represented by many bishops including the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople
It is amazing..... How liberal I am theologically, except where I am freaking conservative. The Lord MUST have a sense of humor. I seem to have the knack for sparking debate no matter where I attend Church.
I love all my Bothers and Sisters of Christ....and I love discussing theology. Great video. Just subscribed.
Not sure what kind of debates could take place without a foundation (that is, inerrancy of scripture).
@@Charles.Wright There are so many theological, Bible based debates that Followers have broken off into dozens of denominations and hundreds of branches within those denominations. My Methodist Youth Pastor was fond of saying that we are all wrong about something. Obviously, there are a few ideas that are infallible. The rest? Be open minded and small ego enough to listen.
1 Thessalonians18-21: Do not stifle the Holy Spirit,but trust the Prophesies. Test everything, keep only the good.
@@Charles.Wright Some would argue that the ironically unbiblical doctrine of inerrancy is the root cause of so much sectarian debate, division and disunity in the Body of Christ.
God does not change. Maybe you have. Be careful that you don't "fall away". God bless
@@DW_Kiwi God does not change...but ideas about God continued to evolve and change for hundreds & hundreds of years throughout the biblical writing period. Yahweh was originally conceived as one of the many tribal gods and as Hebrew theology evolved into monotheism, Yahweh was eventually understood as the one and only God of all tribes. Ideas about afterlife, satan, heaven, hell and salvation all evolved and ended up being interpreted in ways that were considerably different from their seed origins.
I guess i just learned that im theological liberal.
I don't know. SBC is starting to move left...
I posit that it’s more accurate to use the monikers “Historic” and “Progressive” rather than conservative and liberal.
That would put the United Church of Christ as Historic and the New Evangelicals as Progressive....interesting.
I’m trying to find a denomination that’s moderate/in the middle or one that’s slightly conservative.
I’d say Non-denominational
“Nondenominationalists” are almost always inherently denominational. It just takes a quick look at their theological positions. Typically most so-called “nondenominational” churches are just offshoots of a historically (big-E) Evangelical church, such as those deriving from the Quaker, Wesleyan (i.e. Methodist/Holiness), Baptist, or Restorationist (i.e. Churches of Christ, etc.) traditions within Evangelicalism, though some are (small-e) evangelical offshoots of Lutheran, Reformed, or other (non-big-E-Evangelical) churches. Given modern liberal pluralism allowing for religious freedom, nondenominational groups can also be independent Catholic, Orthodox, Miaphysite (Oriental Orthodox), etc. groups, while a growing number are offshoots of Nontrinitarian churches. However, all in all, there really is no such thing as a truly “nondenominational” group and we can more or less deduce the denominational links of these nondenominationalist groups with relative ease. So doing some homework on any congregation’s theology and practices is still required regardless of what they call themselves.
Be Catholic
It depends on what issues you want to be "moderate" about
@@3000YearOldGrasshopper They're fairly liberal in general
I love your videos, and this one is no exception. As a R. Catholic, I wonder where my church sits on this spectrum. We generally don't have a problem with theistic evolution, yet we also believe in biblical inerrancy. What do you think?
I was thinking the same thing!! Because we definitely believe that there is a lot of allegory in the Bible
I see no conflict between theistic evolution and biblical inerrancy. One deals with how the world was formed and the other deals with who did it and why.
The problem is less Biblical inerrancy, and more in its treatment as incomplete or inferior. You elevate tradition, papal infallibility, etc.
@@Charles.Wright Catholics don't treat the Bible as 'incomplete' or 'inferior'. Not sure where you get that from.
@@blkequus Exactly. We just believe that we need the magisterium of the Church to help us interpret what the Bible means in places. But to say the Bible is incomplete? No. It was the Catholic Church who compiled the Bible, after all. And the catechism (which is the full compendium of Catholic teaching) cites the Bible in just about every paragraph. As for inerrant - we believe that the Bible is inerrant in terms of faith and morals. Does this mean that everything treated as history happened exactly the way described? No. Which is why theistic evolution is allowable (everything is created by God, who may use evolution as one of His ways of creating) and why the Catholic Church employs some of the greatest scientists in the world (remember, Gregor Mendel, father of genetics, was a Catholic monk; Georges Lemaitre, the original positor of the Big Bang theory, was a Catholic priest; et al).
We have priests and bishops who may be theologically liberal; however, our base theology is rather conservative - that is, we believe it to be generally unchangeable (doctrines can develop over time, but many things that our culture pushes - such as no-fault divorce, female clergy, and same-sex marriage - our Church has decreed to be impossible).
So how would someone who believes the bible is inerrant but doesn't require headscarves for women in church explain that? It seems like most people say that's just culture but I don't understand how someone who believes in inerrancy can argue that.
Спасибо
As a lifelong atheist I found this video fascinating. Was great to see the different perspectives laid out so nicely.
So weird . 😅Why did you watch the video?
@@JemimaNta I watched the video cause I’m curious about all kinds of things in life. Seeking knowledge, not so much wrong with that.
@@sadashak4 lifelong ...how old are you?
yeah, I just see it as you fascinating over what you'll proclaim as false to your Christian friend. Very weird. 😅
Anyway theology got me more wayyy conservative . I'm almost a 4 out of 5 on a conservative scale and that's moved me from being evangelical non-denominational to a Lutheran.
I guess I just find it weird when I see non Christians on Christian sites because my social media apps revolve around Christianity only so I'm never on non-christian sites
@@JemimaNta I haven’t proclaimed anything as false and I don’t have any friends on this chat. Not believing something is different than proclaiming something is not true. Do you get the difference? Look up the phrase. “Russell’s teapot” I see insufficient evidence to believe there is a miniature teacup in orbit around Pluto. That is different than saying there is not a miniature teacup orbiting Pluto.
Now substitute God/God‘s/supernatural anything for the word, Pluto. I’m old enough to be an AARP member.
@@sadashak4 check out frank Turek's case for God after all you like learning new stuff ( even if you don't think it's true- so weird but okay ) while I'll check the teapot phrase out.
I still find it weird tbh.
You just wouldn't see me on a site I don't believe in. 🤷
As an electrical engineer I find faith and science compatible.
Really interesting video thanks a lot.
Only one critique I wouldn't say transgenderism. Better say rejection of trans people or the non recognition of trans identities.
An overview of German Christianity would be really interesting
Let me be Frank. Like everything else in our country the divide is not theological it is political. Churches are dividing politically. Most congregations can be seen as democrat or republican. Liberal churches are usually democrat churches. Conservative churches are most likely republican. It's not really deeper than that. Most people are theologically ignorant. Churches are becoming places where folks find a common core. Ethnic, racial, culture, language. Worship style, politics, lifestyle, music. The church had become "balkanized". The church has completely failed to become one as Jesus prayed for. We need to repent and follow Christ. Amen.
Christians seemed to know Nationalism was a religion in itself. Political party has become the religion for some.I've left the SBC for exactly that reason. I'm not interested in a political country club. I've a great ministry at work teaching people of diverse denominations to appreciate and trust the bible. I also teach them to ask the hard questions because I believe it strengthens the faith.
✝️Credo in unum deum✝️
The AG until Vietnam war was a peace church
It seems the conservatives are the narrow gate and the liberals are the broad gate.
It has become an automatic response to when people ask my Denomination/Religion to say Presbyterian PCA
machen in Christianity and liberalism, points to german higher criticism as the start of liberal theology. which spread to places like union seminary
Very interesting! I would wonder where Catholics would fall, but I guess Catholics would be Theologically Conservative because we hold the Bible to be the Inspired Word of God (i.e. inerrant). Well done video, as always!
Time for an update?
Thanks for mentioning the theological conservatives that are politically libertarian. That description was a pretty close approximation of where I fall and I really think it's a position that is robustly supported by the Bible and more Christians should take it seriously.
Nonsense. Did Jesus ever espouse individualism and self promotion? Never. Jesus was about fellowship, brotherhood and community. The exact opposite of "me, at any cost" libertarianism. Libertarianism is the US is just about hanging on to guns and paying no taxes. Looking after oneself and the vulnerable and destitute can just starve. The absolute antithesis to The Bible, Christianity and Jesus.
@@carpetzest7278 you and I don't mean the same thing when we use the word "libertarianism". Using violence that is wielded by a kingdom of this world to force unbelievers to behave in a way that looks Christian is a far cry from allowing the Spirit to work love and joy and peace through our lives to create genuine Christians. It seems like your comment was written with hostility and anger but I pray that the Lord will bless you with kindness and gentleness and open your mind to the way of His upsidedown kingdom. Grace and peace to you.
Shalom Josh, I have come to enjoy and respect your videos. You look impossibly young but then our director of music and associate pastor is younger than my youngest child. I am a member of an LCMS church and agree with more of its theology than any other church I have experienced in 53 years since I was saved. What I am struggling with is the eschatology of the LCMS. I am probably premillennial. The Rapture not withstanding in any case. What I cannot believe in is the amillennial view that this is the millennium, the absolute length of time not being an issue. I cannot believe that Satan was bound at the resurrection. Ephesians 6 and Second Peter in scripture do not support this view. We battle against principalities and power in the heavenlies, and Satan is going about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. Not to mention that the history of the last 2,000 years does not speak to a devil who is bound. Anyway, what do you think? Your video on eschatology did not even address the binding of Satan and I believe it is a crucial issue.
It's an interesting topic. I'm a Catholic, and our perspective is very different from yours. I feel like, at least in most of American Protestantism, you're either low-church evangelical and conservative on issues like abortion, gay marriage or high-church mainline and liberal on issues like abortion and gay marriage. (There are plenty of exceptions, though, but I think that the majority falls into one of those two categories.)
To Catholics, allowing for gay marriage and abortion is very, very liberal. But also having a low-church theology that denies the real presence, the saving nature of baptism, apostolic succession, etc. is very, very liberal. So to us, both Episcopalians and Southern Baptists are very, very liberal. The only Protestants we might consider conservatives would be conservative mainline churches like Missouri-Synod Lutherans or breakaway Anglican groups. But even then we see them as more liberal than us.
Are you the brother of Collin? You sound so similar, I've decided you must be.
Let's talk about what your preachers or pastors focus on. If a pastor speaks on abomination, does he choose one, or all seven. How does your pastor speak on grace. Does your pastor or preacher tell you what the one unforgivable sin. Who was the most wise person in the buble, and what conclusion did he come too. In short do you read your bible.