The DARK SIDE of Christian Fundamentalism That NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- The DARK SIDE of Christian Fundamentalism That NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT
🎁: Get a Free 7-Day Trial on Patreon! / kingsdream
🙏: Check Out the Bless God Shop: blessgod.shop
🆓: Free PDF of the Bless God Prayer Journal: blessgodpdf.shop
📰: Bless God Newsletter: www.mastermyha...
🔓: FREE Freedom Habits (Course w/My Therapist): www.mastermyha...
📲: SMS Text from Ruslan (Don't Send Links Please) 714-710-1017
This video contains links to products and platforms that we've created because we truly believe they can help you in your journey. By choosing to purchase through these links, you're not only investing in something beneficial for yourself, but you're also partnering with us in our mission to create content that blesses and inspires others. Your support directly helps us continue to provide valuable content. Thank you!
Fair Use Disclaimer:
This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
Bio: Ruslan KD is a Christian RUclipsr of Armenian descent who was a refugee from Baku, Azerbaijan, before moving to the United States as a child. He started his RUclips channel in the mid-2010s, which has since grown into a popular platform for discussing faith, lifestyle, and music. Known for his insightful commentary on Christian living, culture, and personal development, Ruslan has built a community of followers who value his thoughtful approach to contemporary issues. In addition to his RUclips presence, Ruslan is a speaker, author, and advocate for godly ambition, often addressing topics related to leadership, mental health, and the integration of faith in everyday life.
Our mission is to encourage, empower, and inspire people to live a life that Blesses God, in accordance with His word. As the Psalmist proclaims, "Bless God in the great congregation, the Lord, O you who are of Israel's fountain" (Psalm 68:26 ESV), and "Every day will I bless Thee; and I will praise Thy name forever and ever" (Psalm 145:2 KJV). Just as Simeon, after encountering Jesus, "took him up in his arms and blessed God" (Luke 2:28 ESV), we seek to lead others in a life of stewardship, relevant engagement, and practical living that honors and blesses the Lord.
🎁: Get a Free 7-Day Trial on Patreon! www.patreon.com/kingsdream
Follow Gavin Here: www.youtube.com/@TruthUnites
Thanks for putting this out. OEC for life ;)
Young earth creationist here. I do get uncomfortable when I come across other young earth creationists that absolutely blast other christians that don’t hold to our view. I get it that in our perspective, it’s a foundational issue, but it’s not necessarily a salvation issue(of which is far more important). I would never question someone’s salvation unless they are blatantly producing bad fruit. Even then, I do not know their heart nor their walk with Christ, they could just be misguided and/or immature in their faith if I’m being generous. Also, I could be wrong, and that’s okay. My relationship with Christ has much greater and everlasting implications than me believing the earth is roughly six thousand years old.
You aren’t alone. I personally don’t see a way around YEC for many reasons, but I believe God is working in the hearts of those who disagree with me and saving people with wildly different ideas … and I’ve been blessed with just enough introspection to know I could be wrong about YEC. Blessings, friend!
@@GUTOGI do, because I think Genesis 1-11 is clearly another ancient genre
(Another YEC here) the problem is, while we say it isn’t a salvation issue, most YEC’s internally DO believe it is without being aware of it.
For example, Ken Ham frequently has this exchange:
Ken: “YEC is critical.”
Someone: “Why?”
Ken: “Because it complicates the gospel!”
Someone: “How?”
Ken: “Because now we don’t know where sin comes from!”
You DO NOT have to believe in WHY you are a sinner in order to be saved, you just have to understand that you ARE a sinner. Does evolution complicated those things, yeah in my opinion it does, but that’s very different from CHANGING the gospel. Evolution DOES NOT change the gospel.
Agreed. I’m neither young earth no old. I see a lot of evidence for the earth being older than only 6-10 thousand years old.
But unfortunately, I also see a lot of problems when we start to get into the millions and billions of years, because the carbon dating for things that have been traced back to “billions” of years is biased and unproven.
So I guess I’m somewhere in the middle. I’ve got no proof either so I could be totally wrong.
I think earth is young, but i am already happy when someone is a christian.
And why should i know everything?
Believing in Christ is the most important.
As a Roman Catholic You and Gavin Ortlund are the Prots I watch the most I love y'all
Another Roman Catholic here - I also like Mike Winger but he occasionally goes off on an anti-catholic rant.
@@PatrickBurdine I also watch him and he's pretty respectful and direct on what is anti Biblical
Being an old earth creationist is weird. Some Christians call me a heretical idiot and some aithiests call me a bible thumping idiot. Such a weird middle ground
lol same
Same with us in the Theistic Evolutionist camp😂, Lord have mercy!
@@joselitofilipino9618 I think that puts us in the same camp
@@BornAgain223 You never will. Death is the enemy.
What they sound like they are describing are calvinists or new believers. Historic premillennialism is the earliest view of eschatology for the first 300 years of the church.
I was raised in a very legalistic cult. They taught that if you didn't have everything exactly right then you were damned. It took me a long time to realize that we can disagree on a lot, but still be brothers and sisters in Christ. I love my church now. We have specific hills we will die on. The trinity, Jesus is God, He died for our sins, rose again after 3 days, is coming back, abortoin is wrong. Those sorts of things. Everything else is minor.
@@Sarahopal it is not the healthy that need a doctor but the sick Jesus came to call sinners not the righteous to repentance/metanoia
My main issue is fundamentalists act like their beliefs have been around forever. That the early church had the same beliefs and carried out the same theology. When in fact modern fundamentalist beliefs have no historical records past the last 100 years, and most of it occurred in the past 75
And fundamentalism was always a response to the early 20th century social gospel movement (Salvation Army, YMCA). From many accounts it seems to have always been combative rather than protective or conservative.
I feel like the idea of fundamentalist being modern is a misnomer. Do you take the Bible as literal truth or do you not? Yes there are overarching stories and themes, metaphors, and stories, but there is also historical and spiritual truth as it is written. You can't tell me people didn't believe the word of God as truth from the beginning
💯%
“In essentials, unity
In non-essentials, liberty;
In all things, charity “
St Augustine of Hippo
Amen
My opinion is that we should thank GOD for creating the earth rather than speculate on something we don’t understand.
The only "fundamentalism" is to obey Christs commandments, anything else is false prophets.
Look into the early church
Actually, it´s Bible, everything else is "denomination".
@@LawrenceCaldwellAuthor Christ calls us to call out false teachers through his apostle
@@roman_kofyno The Bible isn't in The Bible tho.
@@roman_kofyno Which one? The Protestant one that's missing books or the original Catholic one? And how can a book be the foundation of all faith if it's so easy to discard as many as six OT books and then still call the result sacred? And at what point does all of this focus on a book get in the way with a real relationship with Christ?
Gavin is the GOAT. His channel has been so helpful in my spiritual growth.
@@lukeverble5999 I would like to just point out this phrase "goat" might not be the best word to use as a Christian. JESUS will seperate the sheep from the GOATS.
God bless ❤️
There are even Christian channels that call pastors evil and put devil horns on them in the thumbnails. It's heartbreaking.
I disagree with Gavin on Calvinism, Global Warming and I am not a Baptist like he is. And yet - I think it is a very sad day when Gavin Ortlund is accused of pushing a political agenda.
But not all Baptists are Calvinists. The Baptist church our Cherokee family goes too is Baptist but call themselves independent and reject John Calvin but also rejecting Arminian doctrine as well when it comes to salvation. I don't even know what kind of Baptists we would be called I never paid attention to labels until Calvin or Arminian doctrine is involved
@@marinusswanepoel1825 there is a way of covering “global warming” that is not “pushing a political agenda”, but Gavin clearly did. He tried to make it a religious concern, but his arguments were all political. What would someone need to do to be considered “pushing a political agenda” if that doesn’t measure up?
@@tarascoterry I repeat - it is a very sad day when people, such as yourself, accuse Gavin Ortlund of pushing a political agenda. You have every right to your opinion but it is a sad day.
@@Ivy-u6h Yes I was careful to separate Gavin's Calvinism from the fact that he is also Baptist. I of course, am neither.
@@marinusswanepoel1825 I can tell your opinions are well-considered. The “you have your opinion and I have my opinion” shows impressive reasoning skills. They say “iron sharpens iron”, but maybe that’s a bad translation and it’s “the best iron is the one that’s never tested”? The main benefit is that you can never be wrong. Or at least you’ll never know.
A remember being absolutely distraught when I found out what some of my heros of the faith believed on secondary issues 😭… It took away my itchy trigger finger to use the word “heretic” on brothers who I positively knew loved God with all their being.
Heretics are any non Catholic or Orthodox. Every protestant holds a heretical belief. Definitionally there's no arguing it, protestants don't hold Orthodox beliefs, hence heretics ⚔️⚔️ check me out in the zealots den!
Gavin Ortland is my favorite Calvinist next to Tim Keller(may he be in the presence of the Lord).
Same, they are truly humble gentle brothers.
He’s a Calvinist?!? He so soft spoken and nice, no offense to other Calvinist.
@@henrykevincueto9307lol, none taken. Some of us can be kinda cranky.
@@henrykevincueto9307Him and Keith Foskey (YourCalvinist) are the two nicest Calvinist on RUclips that I currently know of.
@@VarynDEE33t oh cool, I'll have to look up some of his stuff
Glad you're covering this. I greatly appreciate Gavin even while disagreeing with him on several things.
Ruslan! Love your stuff. Thanks for introducing Gavin to a wider circle. He's great.
Have you/will u do a video on this pop Christianity trend? Like more people are becoming 'conservative' and 'Christian' without truly being Christian.
the love of truth without the love of people 🔥 this was incredible & so well said
Fundamentalism itself isn't the issue. There are "fundamental" things to the faith that can't be changed without fundamentally changing the faith. The issue is what things go in that list of fundamentals.
Also, Protestantism isn't new; it draws it's origin to the teachings of Christ and the apostles. Really, the RCC split off from the protestant church :)
Well said
As a "Calvinist," I want to say I appreciate you and what you are doing. Ortlund is fantastic and speaks some truth here. Thank you for sharing and commenting. I agree with Ortlund and love what you are saying as well. Also, I am with Sproul; I do not know the age of the earth.
The church I attend is an independent Baptist church, for various reasons, which is basically fundamentalist. Not all of the issues he's mentioned have been apparent so far, such as the negative focus, but I do see the issue of making every doctrine an essential, such as which translation to read, what music is acceptable, the question of alcohol, etc.
I guess my point is that we need to recognize that this list is a list of possible problems, and not every group will exhibit every one of them.
God bless you guys! 🙏
Been following for a while, and I just keep enjoying your content!
The young earth creationist movement didn't need to exist prior to the church adopting Charles Darwins ideas of human evolution and an old age for the earth and the universe. Just because this movement is 'modern' doesn't mean it should be dismissed as something to be skeptical about. This movement exists (generally) to uphold Biblical authority in relation to the doctrine of Creation and to point out the profound theological issues that arise when death before the fall and human evolution are embraced.
Scripture has long warned that..."in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires....But they deliberately overlook the fact that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world of that time perished in the flood."
Thanks to the Freemasonic Darwin Family's codification of pagan naturalist occult philosophy - and its acceptance by many Christians as somehow compatible with scripture and the biblical worldview - that time has arrived and with it an assault on the entire antediluvian account. Thankfully, as you have stated, Christians have arisen to deal with this last days heresy.
Following the Bible is very important. I firmly believe in Biblical inerrancy, and I think that is incredibly important. But even Saint Augustine did not hold to the 7 literal day interpretation. He did not know Charles Darwins theory, but he did not hold to seven literal day view either.
@@nathanpettijohn3236 Thanks for your comment. Can I ask what you believe about Biblical authority? Does the Bible overrule any competing or contradicting ideas/beliefs? As far as Augustine is concerned my understanding is that his view on Genesis didn't involve an attempt to accommodate secular ideas. Augustine believed that God created instantaneously and didn't need 7 days as opposed to the pagans of his time who regarded creation to be eternal. However, what we have today is that the church has embraced secular views of the origin of the universe and life within it. This is quite different from Augustine. FYI I am not opposed to science or the study of the physical world, but we need to be aware of the limitations of science, that is, it isn't able to make definitive claims about past events (ie, the origin of the universe and life within it) as these things are not able to be tested by the scientific method.
@davidsmeaton2977 Hi David. Thank you for your reply. It was very fair and thought through. :)
To your first question, Yes! The Bible is inerrant and God breathed. I hold nothing else as being inerrant. I would hold to a Sola Scriptura view of the Bible.
However, I do believe there can be errors in respect to my and other people's interpretation of Scripture. For that reason, I do not want to hold most debated theologies with the same authority that I hold Scripture. In the end, I think that can undermine Scripture.
I believe what you said about Augustine was correct, and I think that is a good reply. However, he also had strong feelings for Christians who would take their interpretation of Scripture and overtly insist on it as if it held Biblical authority. I think the reason his feelings were so strong in this area was because that is one thing that led him to join a cult when he was young. When he became a Christian again and began writing, he forcefully opposed that more than once. My point is that when it comes to our Biblical interpretations of things like creation (which was an important topic for Augustine), we should heed what he had to say in this area. I enjoyed reading your reply by the way! I do think your pushback was very valid, especially because so many people today seem to be throwing the Bible out to be more in line with culture. I myself am a conservative Pentecostal/Evangelical Christian. So your point to me is very important!
Gav Gavino Dr. Gavin ORTLUND and his family are the perfect example of how to live out the culture of the gospel - in toto !
So needed for all of us. ✝️
Ayyye y’all said “nobody talks about this” mannnnn I talk about this to my husband often 😅😂 good work 👍🏼
Nice Ruslan and your sidekick 😅 love Zack....what a sweetheart. Great video thanks 👌🏼👊🏼💥
Okay....but I don't like the label "fundamentalists" as something negative. Yes there are some that go too far but fundamentalism is a reaction to the increasing apostasy and corruption of the Church. Frankly we NEED fundamentalists right now because the church is going completely crazy.
Fr. I definitely think there are certain issues that we need to be “black and white” on. But at the same time though there are a lot of areas with gray areas and nuances. It’s tough.
The problem is, fundamentalists expand the list of fundamentals beyond what the Scriptures dictate.
Pharisees were the fundamentalists of Jesus time. We all know how well that went. That being said we should know the letter of the law and follow it in spirit. At least that's how I view it and maybe I'm way off base.
@@germandan5 not a good comparison. Dont fall for the “judge not” Christians. We are to judge righteously. We IFB believe in The Bible as our authority. Jesus is God and the only way to The Father. Faith alone in the Biblical Jesus Christ. We arnt relying on our works to save as the pharisees did
@@Dylan-ow7ut that is an excellent comparison fundamentalists and legalists are worried about the outward acts instead of the heart.
I have found in my readings of the Fathers that historic Premillennialism was actually a widely held view in the first centuries of church history.
From Wikipedia-
"Premillennialism was supported by in the early church by Papias,[6] Irenaeus, Justin Martyr,[5] Tertullian,[7] Pseudo-Barnabas,[8] Methodius, Lactantius,[9] Commodianus,[10] Theophilus,[11] Melito,[12] Hippolytus of Rome, Victorinus of Pettau,[13][14] Nepos, Julius Africanus, Commodianus, Tatian[15] and Montanus.[16] However, the premillennial views of Montanus probably affected the later rejection of premillennialism in the Church, as Montanism was seen as a heresy.[15]"
This is crazy. Jesus even was around people who were deemed as awful people. God wants us to be friends with others who do awful things in hope to be a light in their lives.
Brother I needed this. I have been getting way too wrapped up in things that are secondary. I need to check my own heart. I think my views are solid and biblically based, but I need to chill out when fellow members of the body teach or preach things I disagree with.
Love the new setup bro. You're killing it!
Yes yes, spread the word! The Holy Spirit is moving to church unity! CHRIST PRAYED THAT WE WOULD BE UNITED. Let us aid the Spirit by focusing our inward effort on unity with fellow believers and our outward effort on how to properly make, welcome, and teach new believers. Praise to the Lord Jesus Christ!
i am very glad to see you cover this recent controversy which uses Gavin's own words to explain his position. i accept him as a brother in Christ and excellent teacher. i don't agree with him in everything, but he is a very kind and humble Christian. if we cannot show grace to one another on secondary issues we are showing a poor witness to the lost. Gavin is not liberal or a wolf.
Dr Brown is a teddy bear who just wants to hug everyone. I admire that about him. It's refreshing.
I dont know how old the Earth is but when i meet Jesus ill make sure to ask him when that time comes along with all the other questions i have for him.
A good litmus test for the type of folks Gavin is talking about is to see if these churches are actually out evangelizing. People who concern themselves with reaching the lost typically aren’t stuck in this kinda rut.
Re getting more attention for going negative, I've noticed that when I feel compelled to give a negative product review on Amazon, those reviews get more "likes" than positive reviews.
I vaguely remember a study being done on it too. It led credence to the old saying "Bad press is still good press" or the Streiss-hand effect. It's also why sensationalism on the news gets more views than news with just facts. The 2nd Anchorman movie actually plays on this pretty tongue in cheek. It's almost like our flesh is hardwired for it to some extent.
So true, and LONG overdue! ❤
Fundamentalists just believe in the fundamentals of Scripture which is good.
My favorite Christian content is stuff teaching what the Bible is saying breaking down the Hebrew and Greek words and putting together a reason for a particular interpretation. I've seen comments on videos saying stuff like false teacher, but never pointing out any place they're actually wrong. I've considered asking them what the issue is, but I don't really expect an edifying conversation from someone using that kind of attack.
This helped me a lot thank you!
I haven’t found a Christian yet that I agree with in all topics. Each should be convinced in his own heart.
Yes, you should have dropped the beat for him too😂 …”Church…it’s a time to build!”
Pray we all grow together.
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
So interesting, years back I went to a Calvinist reformed church for a short while and what I observed was that every single demographic, every single pastor and church was scrutinized and mocked and said with a very self righteous and superior manner. The gospel was rarely mentioned, and love and grace was not extended. To me it felt cult like, with a very controlling nature. This was just my observation and I realize not all Calvinists or reformed individuals are like this however there seems to be a large overlap with fundamentalism. During Covid, this particular church was in the news and the pastor was arrested due to not following Covid protocols. He called it persecution, which was a slap in the face and undermines those who are actually experience persecution for authentic faith in Christ. It appears the love for personal rights was a priority over protecting the vulnerable and being a light and testimony of Christ’s love. It was such a disappointment and stain on Christians as a whole. Fundamentalism only serves to undermine Christ and biblical scripture, painting a different and perverted version of Christ when His whole message is about hope, redemption, reconciliation to God and forgiveness. I realize that was a rant… but an observation.
I used to be dogmatic about young earth but heard many teachers I respect talk of old earth and even divinly guided evolution. The thing that makes me scratch my head is why would God have evolution? He watches single-cell organisms evolve into big plants and dinosaurs and then, eventually, man when He puts His spirit into. Why, though?
“If you don’t speak in tongues you aren’t baptized with the Holy Spirit”
I strive, to care only about salvation issues, only.
We can debate, and talk. But no one is my enemy over these issues
Here me out Bible truth is objective and absolute in all its fulness not subjective. So that means even “secondary” issues can be lies we believe. So both parties should be open/humble to the correction of the Holy Spirit and interpreting scripture with scripture.
And scripture should be the only authority.
Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible being the Word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by the literal interpretation, it understands a naively literal interpretation, it tends to treat the Bible text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit, it fails to recognise that the Word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods.
15m; Vatican Council started in 1962 and ended 1964. All that it changed was the end of the Latin Mass, and certain aspects of the mass... the second alter which makes the priest face the congregation, receive communion with hands instead of tongue...
Only major development socially speaking was Catholics could now marry protestants in the Church
Somebody thumbnail gonna say “RUSLEN LOVES CALVINISTS”😂😂
I don't know what i am, but do lean to young earth.
If only the Prots had a magisterium who could judge which hill to die on. A sweeet thought, but alas, it will never happen. Therefore…it is bound to go like this
I encourage you to look at Vatican II, a lot of wonderful items were addressed at that council! The core of Catholic Christianity was not remixed at that council. Additionally, love this podcast & Gavin! ❤🎉 Keep up that Kingdom Energy 🎉
Growing up in the so-called "conservative' Churches of Christ (the "non-institutional" kind), this explanation is actually very helpful and exhortation is welcome. It's really nailing down the fundamentalist perspective. it wasn't until the past few years i had more courage to explore less super-rigid groups. I'm still in COC but what i would call more moderate/mainstream.
I left that grave a while ago
@@theoneandonlyelijah3219 where are you at now? There are definitely alot of good things about the coc. And no place is perfect
Or you could simply not read Scripture through the lens of modern materialistic science. The authors from the early Church certainly didn't.
I will be honest, I would bet most who call gavin a liberal wolf likely influenced by Megan's book, I don't see Gavin being her 1st chapter seems to not be great.
On a side note, I looked up the meaning of, to "bless" God.
The OT Hebrew points to "kneeling". Adoration.
NT "bless" means the more "to cause to prosper"
The idea of a movement being shaped by what it opposes isn't unique to fundamentalism. Protestantism itself began as a protest against the Catholic Church, defining its identity through its opposition.
I don't understand why we can't just agree to disagree on certain secondary doctrine, it's not worth causing division or losing friendships over. Especially as believers, the Word teaches us to live peaceably with all as much as we can (Romans 12:18). I have lot's of friends that disagree on certain things that I believe and vice versa, doesn't mean we treat each other any differently. This is a time for Christians to be unified, not driving wedges between each other and causing division. Let's do better brothers and sisters.
As someone who’s tried to have friendly debates with young earth creationists, at least many of them view it as a complete undermining of Gods word if everything they read isn’t literally the case.
To them if the Bible’s claim as the word of God means everything in it HAS to be true and factual to the letter, because if it’s not, then it can’t possibly be the word of God.
No artistic licensing, no exaggeration, no fictional stories, none of it.
Which I think isn’t a totally unreasonable take to have on the surface. However I personally think it’s just an indefensible position to have the deeper you care to look into it.
But aside from friendly debate I wouldn’t bother to try and talk someone out of young earth creationism cause… well it doesent actually matter that much to me.
@@wowitsfrostygames155 Well as long as it remains a friendly debate, there's no harm. Maybe try to point them to certain scripture that it's obviously speaking metaphorically or in hyperbole, but otherwise you're probably wise to just refrain from the debates, like you said. And again, like you said, it ultimately doesn't matter. It isn't a hill to die on.
@@pastorpaulcochrane I stopped having the debates because they often didn’t stay friendly even if that was my goal. Both my fault and theirs. It’s hard to remain cordial when being pressed in what might be deemed an unfriendly manner. So I just… don’t do it. It ain’t for me.
@@wowitsfrostygames155 Good call
While there is a lot wrong with new things in the church today, it's also dangerous to think that the things that have come before were better than what we have today. One should be critical but only to the point of finding truth.
Do not say, “Why is it that the former days were better than these?” For it is not from wisdom that you ask about this. Ecc. 7:12
Left calvary chapel to a IFB church, Bible believing is the best understanding of The Bible.
Which ifb? Ruckmanite level?
From the outside it looks like our identity is only what we’re against but once you know us from the inside we are for a lot more than what we are against.
@@theydontknowmeson007 no lol they are far out there, plus you cant generalize IFB because of the Independent part.
You guys KJV only?
@@VarynDEE33t yes but not the extreme who think you can only be saved through a kjv. The defense of the kjv is so clear, God promised he would preserve His word. We believe God can write a book and preserve it.
"My name is SIIIIIDDD!! ROOOOTHHH!!🎸🎶
As far as I know, being a young Earth creationist is actually not new. What did Jews believe for thousands of years before Jesus? What did the early church fathers believe before Darwin came along? I'm pretty sure they had no reason to believe in millions of years. So in reality, old Earth creationism is new, but young Earth creationism is old but making a come-back. For anyone who wishes to argue about this, please explain to me how and why anyone would have believed in millions and billions of years before Darwin, before this whole evolution and big bang thing came along. There would have been no reason to believe in it. Sure, maybe the Jews and early church fathers didn't have such a precise approximation of the Earth being 6,000 years old, but they certainly would have no reason to think millions or billions of years. Old Earth creationism is new, young Earth creationism is old but is new again because it's coming back. Plain and simple.
Yep. 6000 years IS old. Naturalistic wizards are casting ancient occult spells.
How is it a debate on young earth creation if you believe the Bible?
what do you mean by "believe the Bible"? All these differing ideas are because people "believe the Bible". why are there two creation stories in Gen? Looking at Hebrew literary devices, something called a Chiasm is used. It's also referred to as "book ending". (You'll realize the Apostle Paul uses this way frequently in the NT). What we end up with is the treasure at the center of these two stories and that is the Sabbath. so the "point of Gen. 1&2 isn't a 6 day creation, but about resting in God. this of course doesn't mean that God didn't create the world in 6 days but it also isn't the point of those scriptures. Rev. talks about a day being 1000 years in God's kingdom, so this idea is also from "believing the Bible". It is one point of many that scholars have used. Also, the LDS Church has been the primary org. that has pushed this ideology this century of 6 day creation.
The problem with the debate is that there's a lot more heat than light. On top of that, there's a lot of presuppositions that are brought a priori to the discussion which make dialogue very tricky.
First of all, it's important to realize Divine accommodation to human cultural understanding in the biblical narratives. It's true that the original biblical hearers were most likely understanding the days of Genesis to be 24-hour periods, but then again, they also recognized in the creation account a fairly standard Ancient Near Eastern, flat earth, geo-static cosmology (firmament, pillars, etc.). So... a bare assertion of inerrancy to what the words on the page mean in their original context, needs to be teased out more carefully. The descriptions are 'phenomenologically' inerrant (accurate to the world as experienced), not necessarily ontologically (the world as objectively measured by our modern standards).
Secondly, it is not at all clear in the history of biblical interpretation from figures as great as Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, that a wholesale introduction of death was the result of the Fall of Adam and Eve. It is very common in the history of Christian theology to acknowledge that 'animal and plant' death preceded the Fall, because appetitive and vegitative life are created finite rather than immortal - which is only a property of God himself, though he shares it with Adam and Eve through the Tree of Life; and why when they 'enter death,' it is the fact of cut off communion with God that is the most tragic piece, not an ontological shift in how things operate (even outside the garden). Again, this is a relational and phenomenological understanding of immortality rather than an ontological one as we often presuppose. Creation being good/very good does not mean that everything is statically perfect in an ontological sense (having reached its final cause); because the incarnation hadn't happened yet - which is when the whole creation will be swepped up in the Divine life of immortality, perfection, etc.
Vatican II in a nutshell: The Second Vatican Council, commonly known as Vatican II, was an ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church, convened by Pope John XXIII in 1962 and continued under Pope Paul VI until its conclusion in 1965. It was the 21st ecumenical council in the Church's history and is considered one of the most significant religious events of the 20th century.
Background and Purpose
Pope John XXIII called for the council with the intention of renewing the Church and updating its practices to better engage with the modern world. He used the Italian word "aggiornamento," which means "bringing up to date," to describe his vision for the council. The council aimed to address issues related to the Church's role in the rapidly changing social, political, and cultural landscape of the post-World War II era.
Key Themes and Changes
Liturgy: One of the most visible changes from Vatican II was the reform of the liturgy. The council emphasized active participation of the laity in the Mass. This led to the introduction of the vernacular (local languages) in the liturgy, replacing the traditional Latin, making the services more accessible to ordinary Catholics.
Ecumenism: Vatican II marked a significant shift in the Church's approach to other Christian denominations and other religions. The council promoted dialogue and unity among Christians, recognizing the validity of other Christian traditions and encouraging cooperation. It also addressed the Church's relationship with Judaism, rejecting the idea that Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus.
Church in the Modern World: The council addressed the Church's role in contemporary society, emphasizing the importance of social justice, human rights, and the dignity of every person. It encouraged the Church to engage more actively with the issues of the world, such as poverty, war, and economic inequality.
Collegiality: Vatican II promoted the idea of collegiality, which emphasizes the collective responsibility and authority of bishops in governing the Church, in communion with the Pope. This was a move towards a more decentralized Church structure, allowing for greater involvement of local bishops in decision-making.
Religious Freedom: The council affirmed the right of individuals to religious freedom, stating that no one should be forced to act in a manner contrary to their beliefs, nor should anyone be prevented from acting in accordance with their conscience in religious matters.
Reform of Church Governance and Roles: Vatican II redefined the roles of clergy and laity, emphasizing the universal call to holiness for all members of the Church, not just the clergy. It also promoted the importance of the laity's role in the mission of the Church and encouraged greater lay participation in church activities and governance.
Documents of Vatican II
The council produced 16 key documents, including four constitutions, nine decrees, and three declarations. Some of the most important documents include:
"Sacrosanctum Concilium" (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy): Addressed liturgical reform.
"Lumen Gentium" (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church): Defined the nature and mission of the Church.
"Dei Verbum" (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation): Addressed the role of Scripture and Tradition.
"Gaudium et Spes" (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World): Addressed the Church's relationship with the contemporary world.
Impact
The Second Vatican Council had a profound and lasting impact on the Catholic Church. It opened the Church to the modern world in ways that had not been seen before and reshaped the practice of Catholicism globally. While the changes brought by the council were welcomed by many, they also sparked controversy and debate, leading to a range of responses from different groups within the Church.
Overall, Vatican II is remembered as a momentous effort to renew the Church, making its teachings and practices more relevant to the contemporary world while maintaining the core tenets of the Catholic faith.
I am a literal six day creationist. I've never known a church in person to require others to be six-day or young earth creationists as a condition for fellowship. Sure, you can google up a couple ministries and churches that make it a condition for employment or membership. But I've never heard one assert, "You're not a real Christian if you don't believe young earth creationism."
Be skeptical about things that are modern but also antiquity without the freedom to think through persecution and capital punishment outside the established norm.
I largely agree with Gavin and you Ruslan. However premillennialism is the historical position of the body. Dispensationalism is newer but premillennialism is absolutely not. The claim that it has no historical backing is utterly false.
@@thejohn17project15 I think Gavin touched on that on the video
@@jopesh5083 He did, he is mostly talking about dispensationalism and the ways that it led to intense division in the 20th century amongst fundamentalists as a litmus test between them with highly specific aspects of dispensationalism in particular, which did not have historical backing, being points of division between different groups. He briefly touches on historic primillennialism and seemed completely fine with that viewpoint... he even seemed fine with dispensationalism as view but was warning about dividing over something that had such recent, historically, aspects to it. This is all off memory, so I may be getting a bit wrong.
I think he recognizes this, he gives a through and nuanced view in the vid, it’s pretty long for a reason
The majority of the church was Amill and post mill. I’d argue why there was so much advancement in education, medicine and the arts during those periods. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are still amill and they make the majority of Christians world wide.
@@BlessGodStudios before Augustine no one was either amil or post mil. Post mil didn't arrive till the reformation. Amil and post mil are both incorrect biblically. The context is from a Jewish apocalyptic perspective. That is the framework the scriptures are coming from.
Calvinism and the predestination they teach can be dangerous.
How do they teach?
You should learn to spell it before you criticize it.
Predestination is literally a Roman Catholic belief. That was never an issue in the reformation. Thomism and Scotism are almost identical to Calvinistic predestination.
@@bruhmingo its not, calvins believe no matter what, if a person wants to seek eternal life the calvinists believe that your fate is predetermined. What about free will?
@@ragnarlothbrok2808 thank you for the correction, and happy to see you still understood
Since the First Council of Nicaea, the Catholic Church had 21 Ecumenical Councils and Vatican II is the most recent. The Orthodox Church stopped having Councils after the First Seven Ecumenical Councils that were before the Great Schism. So, Vatican II is another Church Council that was conveyed to make the Church more suitable for modern times.
I came across a video talking about how we shouldn’t listen to certain worship groups 🤦🏽♂️
2 Jn my man. Read that regarding the zeal for truth without love. Perfect reproof.
it would be cool to have Trent Horn back on to give us an explanation of Vatican II.
Zach is extra funny today 😂🤣
@Ruslan I’ve been looking for your review of Shepherds for sale but can’t find it. Which channel is it on?
Pre-Millenialism is found in some of the ECF. It was the dominant view in the early church. Then other views came in and had dominance. Most of church history has been A-Millenial. I do not believe that Gavin is saying that Historic Pre-Millenialism is a new doctrine. It is actually very old. That is why it is called "Historic Pre-Millenialism." Dispensationalism is radically different than Historic Pre-Millenialism which does not go back even as close to as far back which is based on a vision a woman had which lead to a man having to come up with the Pre-Trip rapture to match her vision. In Historical Pre-Millenialism, there is no Pre-Tribulation Rapture.
Meh! Liberalism is even more dangerous. I'm more concerned about that.
2 things can be a problem
Premillennial not being historical is nonsense. Is he mistaking it for Pre-Trib?
Pre-millenialism is NOT new. That is an outright falsehood. Dispensationalism/pre-trib rapture is new. Pre-millenialism is in fact the oldest position that we have record of in the church, and it seems to have been held almost universally for a few generations.
✝️ ROME..
I want y'all to react to the Pints Mormon debate clips!!!
This kind of thinking happens when you think you have another generation to get it together
I am a biblical literallist, so i do believe in young earth... BUT i also understand that LITERALLY NO ONE EXCEPT GOD N JESUS N THE HOLY SPIRIT can claim to know for sure on that, n unfortunately, jesus never covered that one in the gospels, so im definitely not pretending to know whether someone is or isnt a christian based on their beliefs on that... in fact, fundamentalists should know that none of us can or should have the audacity to claim they know anyones salvation status, period! N ive heard some do it, even recently,about trump, claiming to know for certain that he is NOT a christian... ahem, ahem.... lmfao
Edit* im a biblical literallist unless its clearly symbolism being used in whatever scripture im reading, ie, a lot of revelation, n also in places where profits are interpreting symbolic dreams or prophecies, etc, or where its a artistic description of something, like poetry n some of the psalms etc... but i still leave room for chances of just misunderstanding, etc, because i am NOT God, n did not write any part of the bible whatsoever lolol...
I used to watch Sid Roth all the time, crazy!
EXACTLYYYYYYYYO
You should have put on that ether music 🎵🔥🔥🎵
I like Sid Roth. Very interesting stuff there.
I’m just sticking to True Orthodox Christianity ☦️
The issue is the Churches who joined or are joining the WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES.
1830’s… John Nelson Darby and the Scofield Bible are the reason we have Pre-millennium, dispensationalism theology in the church.
I didn’t now creationism was a big deal anymore wow
Do you know that this is the thing. Ruslan seems to think he is in the group of born again believers that get to decide what is essential and what is not. Now let them just post the Scriptures concerning which sins or works of the flesh leads to not inheriting the kingdom of God.
That would leave no room for at least seeing the kinds of sins that are mentioned. Now how to define those sins would be the helpful conversation moving forward.
What tends to happen is, people like Ruslan and others in the kingdom lean on ad populum fallacies.
As far as the age of the earth, I find it very difficult to think the earth from the day it was made is billions of years old.
Now it becomes incredibly hard for me to believe this, knowing this lie came from unbelievers who recklessly uselessly speculate and make up fables about dinosaurs and evolution.
There's no need for someone to interpret the bible if the bible is more literal than what christians give it credit for.
The bible being a history book is the only thing that makes sense and paints a clear picture.
If the story is literal then there's only one interpretation.
You can be saved but you can't be a witness if you are blinded by Satan's lies and evolution is the biggest one. It's what's convince most atheist to think there is no God.
It's what keeps skeptics like Jordan peterson and Joe rogan from accepting the "less logical" interpretation of the bible.
How was there death and suffering for billions of years before Adam ate the fruit of knowledge of good and evil?
The only way that even makes sense is if the bible is mostly an antology or metaphor.
I think this issue will be one of the defining ones in the time of great confusion that's to come.
If deceivers can keep an error going long enough, when people finally find their way back to the truth, the deceiver can act like it's a new idea.
Since when did the thumbs down counter come back? Or were you reviewing an old video or something? 🤔
Actually no, Premillennialism is not a modern view. It's actually came from the Early Church. People try to say that John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) invented Dispensationalism (more like Dispensational Thought) for example, when all he did is look at Church History through the Epistles, Church History and Systematized it. Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), Isaac Watts (1674-1748), Augustine of Hippo (354-430 ad), Justin Martyr (110-165 ad), Irenaeus (130-200 ad), Clement of Alexandria (150-220) all had Dispensational Thought. Dispensational Thought also existed in these timeframes: Patristic 100-250 ad, Nicene 250-430, Medieval 430-1450, Reformation 1450-1600) as well.
I would recommend reading Dispensationalism by Charles Ryrie and Discovering Dispensationalism by Cory M. Marsh and James I. Fazio.
Concering premillinialism, After listening to justin martyr's, " First apology," "Second apology ." And his book "Dialogue with Trypho." It seems very dishonest or uninformed at best, To say that the None of the early church fathers believed in premillennialism.
Justin Marter is at least one of them that do believe in premillennialism. He says this to Trypho the Jew.
For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth] and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians…But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.[2
He obviously believed that the millennial reign of christ in a Literal jerusalem was factual.
If people disagree that's just fine, But to say that it didn't exist is a different story. Whether it's said out of mis information Or deception. Though I don't think anyone on this podcast is purposely trying to deceive anybody, I personally think they do a good job at representing people, And i'm not saying that Gavin is being deceptive either. But the facts are just wrong.
Blessings.
Premillenialism is absolutely not a new doctrine. Pretrib rapture is and unfortunately today the two are frequently conflated. Iraneaus who was a disciple of Polycarp who was John's disciple was premillenial. He is definitely not the only early church father to believe this. There is a lot of difference within premillenial thought. I would recommend people check out Bible prophecy daily podcast which teaches prewrath premillenialism. I think it's the best argued position. Alan Kurshner and Chris White are great voices on the subject