I have been a pastor for 25 years and can say that I can finally breathe. I can finally live and believe. I can finally minister in a way that seems whole and coherent and honest and vulnerable. Thanks to people like Pete and Rachel and Richard and Rob. They have saved my faith in the best way possible.
You say they "saved your faith." Do you believe that your faith today resembles anything like that of the 1st century Christians? Would the apostles recognize it as being consistent with their teaching?
@@Mybackupphone-q6nChristianity changes, same as everything else. It was normal to burn people at the stake for their theological views just a few hundred years ago, after all.
At about 14m 24s, Alias said the statements of faith we call the creeds were agreed upon. My understanding is that there was much disagreement. At Constantinople in the 390s, bishops who disagreed with Nicaea were not admitted to the council, and the Macedonian bishops left as a bloc because they refused to accept the Holy Spirit was equal to the Father and the Son.
@@martinospitaletta8198 You could be right, but after discovering various versions of Christian faith, Pete Enns and others provide maybe the best version of Christianity. What are the consequences if they do not have the 'right' understanding of the Bible in the end?
@@zissou8900 There is a video of Pete Enns on youtube. It is dealing with his view of satan. In this video he says quite frankly that things do not have to be true just because Jesus said or believed them, e.g. a personal satan. If you define a religion centered around an erring Christ you do not believe in Christ but in yourself. So Enns becomes an Enntist and every progressive Christian becomes his/her/its own god. If there is a true God who is demanding worship and obedience because he is a jealous God, there won't be a happy ennsing for Enns and others of the same kind. 😉
Thank you. I really appreciate your honesty. Only few people admit that a right understanding of god is ultimately about avoiding eternal conscious torment in hell. But is a 'jealous' god that throws people into hell because of their 'false' beliefs worth worshipping in the first place? Such a divine entity doesn't sound very trustworthy to be honest.
I'm a progressive and I fully affirm the creeds. I just strenuously disagree with the idea taken as prima facie by evangelicals that 'for our sins' necessarily means the same thing as modern penal substitutionary atonement. Evangelicals say you can't be a Christian and not believe that, yet that idea in its modern incarnation is not stated in the creeds.
@@greglogan7706 Thank you for your reply. I know there are evangelicals who would say I'm going to hell for being too progressive though, because I am gay affirming and don't believe in PSA. That's why I have currently adopted the label progressive as I want to differentiate myself from the type of harmful rhetoric that often comes from these sorts of churches.
I listened this this today when I noticed my pastor wearing a shirt he got off Enn’s website (people asked where he got it). Our church has become quite progressive and people are leaving. He believes it’s because he’s teaching the “truth” and we don’t want to hear the truth.
To be clear, when Alisa mentions the "letters of Paul which were not disputed" she isn't telling you that there were some early Church Fathers who DID dispute Paul's authorship of Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy and 2 Thessalonians.
Well, if you define something „being disputed“ as soon as someone believed otherwise, then everything was disputed sooner or later. Anyhow, which church fathers disputed the authorship of Paul?
Would love to see Enns and Childers on the Unbelievable podcast with Justin Brierley. Seems there's a decent amount of, "He thought I said this when I actually was saying..." which seems like it could be cleared up quickly in a conversation. I'd love to hear more thoughts from both sides in that sort of format.
Grad level Christian theology student here... its where Childers says "if you dont think Jesus died for our sins" that you cant be Christians... that is a stop point for me. A whole clarifying conversation could be had at this point because she seems to be coming from a Penal Substitutionary Atonement POV here, and there are many other atonement theories that Christianity maintains and has historically maintained. Our modern insistence on a very narrow view (PSA) of what Jesus accomplished is problematic. ONce you realize that there are other, and older, atonement theories, the phrase "died for our sins" takes on a Whole New Meaning. I'd love to hear her talk about this. Because a "fundamentalist" orthodox and a "fundamentalist" Calvinist have very different faith substance because their atonement theories are so different.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 To free us from death. It's not the What that's in question with various atonement theories. Its how that atonement "works" that varies from theory to theory. In Christus Victor, atonement theory, for instance, God dies on the cross as Jesus, in the Spirit. Not separated, three in one. Humanity commits the ultimate sin, we kill God, (Jesus) and he willingly submits to that, forgiving us in the process, he dies, goes into Hades, Hades can no hold him, and he breaks open the gates, resurrects, and then ascends to Heaven, in full unity with God, and there is now humanity in the Godhead. CHrist is now the victor over death and we are united with God, now co-heirs with Christ, adopted as sons and daughters. The sacrifice of God on the cross was a willing one, not made to satisfy God's wrath, but to submit to our wrath, and in doing so, forgive our greatest sin so that No Sin could keep us from unity with God. Christus Victor. Christ the Victor. He died to free us.
@@tealeaves92 _not made to satisfy God's wrath_ "Yet it pleased the Lord to crush him. He has put him to grief. When you make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed. (Isaiah 53:10) "And He is the propitiation for our sins and not ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2)
31:14 I don’t understand how anyone could possibly believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible? There are clearly mistakes. Any intellectually honest person can see that and that is exactly why Pete Enns work is so important. He’s saving people’s faith when they are confronted with textual criticism.
Generally when someone says that, they mean inerrant in the original autographs, and so our modern translations are inerrant insofar as they accurately reflect the originals (and evangelicals believe that they are a very good reflections). I actually suspect, however, that God did deliver us a perfect translation, which is the 1769 update of the KJV.
I love that "Historically Christian" is defined as Christianity post 1500 AD and not the truly "Historic" Christianity that started with Jesus. The Historic Christianity we SHOULD be aware of taught Universal Reconciliation and Christus Victor in those 1,500 years prior to Luther and Calvin.
Of you read your Bible and do some real research into this you will find that not only was victor taught but so was PSA it's not an either or, it's definitely both. Recently however this has been a very trendy thing to believe that only because of Calvin and Luther do we believe these things. I would point you to Mike Winger's teaching on it as he has a 4 or 5 part series going in depth on the topic. But sometimes for some reason we decide to dig in our heels instead of listening to an argument from the other side that may be the actual truth. Again, Mike Winger has great teaching on it on how PSA is 100% biblical and was taught in the old and new testament and taught shortly after Christ's death.
I definitely noted this too. Supposing that PSA is the only or the historically consistent atonement theory is such an enormous oversight. We have used so many theories and metaphors for what Christ accomplished in the history of Christianity. I think these should be theories, not stubborn lenses which color our entire view of Christ.
@Alisa, I read both your & Enns article. This is a very well made response to his article too.. I don't think Enns would disagree with you that there are certain things are fundamental to the Christian faith. From what I can see he's addressing the type of conservative Christians who insist that the Bible is inerrant or we need to believe in the Substitutionary atonement theory, or a literal Adam, or non-affirming LGBTQ to be a Christian. I would agree with Enns that these are non-essential/ non-fundamental to the Christian faith. I think that's the meat of the disagreement :)
@@Wenugo1, I would say it's fundamental to affirm the Apostle's Creed because it has been affirmed by every Christian church around the world throughout the church's history :)
I first heard of Watchman Nee in the 80s. I read his book Sit Walk Stand after I attended a Bible study on Ephesians. This man had no problem with reading understanding and believing what was written. Many know the outcome of his faith. Arrested, falsely accused, beaten tortured and kept in prison until his death. I believe I read about a Man in the scriptures that suffered ……Watchman Nee followed and trusted this risen Lord and Savior until the end. He believed in what was written in the scriptures and it cost him. You don’t die for lies.
Good comment. I learned about Watchman Nee recently and am now a few pages into Sit, Walk, Stand. I also bought The Spiritual Man and The Normal Christian Life.
Beautiful! Thank you for these podcasts! I used to go to what I now realize was a form of Progressive Christian church led by Erwin McManus, called Mosiac church in LA> It left me somehow empty but I didn;t have the discernment at that time why. Your insights give so much perspective as many friends proclaim they are Christian but they don't even believe in the Cross!
31:10 That not believing in inerrancy may lead someone where they don't want to go, if taken to its logical conclusion. Ok. I can accept that. But just as many problems are created by taking inerrancy to its logical conclusion. It must be admitted that this argument works both ways.
The historical church believed that the Earth was flat and that the universe revolved around the Earth. Alyssa Childers believes that the Earth is round and that the Earth is revolving within the universe. Alyssa Childers has departed from the historic view of the church and now she holds the same view as atheists. Surely she is on a slippery slope to becoming an atheist.... I love how fundies "reason"....😖😖
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
@@greglogan7706 What makes true Christianity different from every other religion (of works) including "progressive christianity" _(those words can't really be used together, they don't mix)_ is simply a living relationship with the living God ... not head knowledge nor Bible knowledge nor of good works. "Progressive christianity" is yet another religion of the blind leading the blind -- both will end of up in hell. Matthew 10:28 - Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell; Luke 12:5 - But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! John 1:12 - But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God; John 17:3 - And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
I enjoy Alisa’s podcast and my theology leans more in her direction than Pete Enns. But I really enjoy Pete’s podcast. Pete talks to very sincere, Jesus-seeking “progressive” Christians who have great perspectives. Pete disagrees with conservatives like Alisa but he’s very respectful and kind. The two sides of the aisle should dialogue more. Sean McDowell does a great job reaching across the aisle in his podcast.
You miss quote Bart Ehrman. If one would look up ~ Bart Ehrman Blog 1 Cor 15:1 ~ 3 he clearly disagrees with 3 to 6 year earliest creed . That creeds weren’t developed until centuries later when Christianity became a unified world wide movement. Look it up. We need to be right when we quote someone.
39:00 But Alisa, just think of all the Bibles in publication that have verse-finders for whatever issue a person may be facing, e.g., when you're sad, lonely, angry, doubting, etc. I'm not saying I'm in full agreement with Enns, but he does have a point.
So...after Alisa just agreed with an Atheist on the definition of "Christianity", she then turns and [unironically] warns us to beware those who...[wait for it]....agree with Atheists. Wow.
She agreed with Hitchens because what he said was true! He knows what Christianity believes, even though he rejects it. Gotta give credit where credit is Due.
Christ died "because of" our sins is the correct Greek translation of that verse. Jesus did not die to erase/forgive our sins. He died because we, in our sins, killed Him [the innocent Son of God].
@@jotink1 Jesus forgave without anyone asking for forgiveness. Jesus never forgave anyone AFTER the cross. "For God was in Christ not counting our sins against us but reconciling the World to Himself." [2 Cor. 5:19] God did not require a virgin child sacrifice in order to forgive us. That's Molech.
@@KeithGileskgilesify Jesus forgave sin in many different circumstances. The man who's friends let him down through a roof had his sins forgiven because Jesus saw their faith. The key message was he could forgive sin. Only God could forgive sin showing Jesus was God in the flesh. Regarding your scripture quote you need to go back to to v16 for the context as v19 is in mid-sentence. God required the shedding of blood and a sacrifice was the means to do that. Jesus was not a virgin child but the God man so I don't see the relevance of the Molech thing.
As I listen to this podcast, I am reminded of the revelation of the lead singer of Hawk Nelson and other so called Christian singers claiming to be atheists. I wonder if they were progressive Christians
Thanks for the video. Perhaps we should allow our view of scripture help interpret our experiences, instead of allowing our experiences to determine our view of scripture.
12:20 The Christian faith is actually diverse - not anything goes, but many things go. Well, I think he's right. Alisa goes on to address the development of the Christian Faith in the early Church culminating in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. She mentions that Christ's death was understood as substitutionary. But she fails to say that the NT records a variety of ways the Atonement was perceived. Substitution is merely one of many. She also fails to say that the Eastern Church does not emphasize the substitution theory, but the Christus Victor theory, and has for 2,000 years. I'm only half-way through this video, but this is what I see so far: Alisa has a truncated view of Christianity, steeped in conservative, American Evangelicalism. I'm not saying she's wrong necessarily, although I find myself in disagreement with her on some key points. But she is viewing Enns through colored lenses. She has placed God in a box, to borrow from JB Phillips' old book. And she seems to be operating from a mindset of fear - that if someone moves away from her theological comfort zone, they could be a Progressive which, of course, is very dangerous. Nor am I saying she doesn't have reason for some of her concerns. Christianity needs clear boundaries if it's adherents are going to be faithful followers of Jesus. But I think there's a good bit more wiggle room in the Faith than she's willing to accept.
You are not necessarily correct on the point that Jesus had died for our sins...May I ask in WHICH sense??? What does it change? How exactly does it works??? See, if God is not ancient Greek god, who needs sucrifices, then He does not need such sacrifices, etc.!!! Read Nicolas Berdyaev "On the destiny of Man"
Read Stenley Grenz, James Dunn, Arthur Peacocke, Ian Barbour, etc. Unfortunately, there are those people that are quite smart in some areas, but they are somehow blind in some other fields or in some sections of their knowledg /understanding.... Do you really believe there was real "snake in the Garten"???? Then, how can we really discuss anything else..., unless we really want to learn and dig deeper, instead of being stubborn!
Did you know one early idea that was NOT heretical to those early Christians? Universal Reconciliation! Most of them embraced this view for the first 400 years of Church History.
@@Convexhull210 It is actually true. Many of the church fathers taught a form of universalism that could be more aptly termed "ultimate redemption." They proposed that everyone will be "salted with fire" as Jesus says, and that if we "die now" to our false selves, then that judgment, or cleansing, begins now and at the final judgment, the presence of God would be welcome "warmth and light" to us. If we don't commit to that process in Christ, (if we do not love love, but hate love) then the judgment would be like Gehenna to us. The heat would sear. But many held the belief that God's judgment was a purification fire, a furnace of refinement. The main argument between the church fathers was whether for some, there was so little good left in them that the fire of Gods presence would burn up every bit of them until they were entirely non existent (annihilationism). Or whether the furnace of Gods judgment would be able to refine every human. (apokatastasis). The third option, that the fire of judgment was a place of everlasting torment, didn't come into vogue as a main belief until later in history, and that had much to do with the Book of Enoch, the Nephilim of Genesis, Dante's Inferno, and Some of the theology introduced by Augustine and refined by Luther and Calvin. Check it out. Its a humbling thing to realize the wide lane of thought that Christianity has held on the topic.
@@ElvisI97 Isaac of Syria as well. But it's not just that. Those who didn't espouse Universalism still largely espoused annihilationism. Eternal Conscious Torment just wasnt a widely held possibility. It's also notable that they held their ideas as Possibilities, not certainties. They had leanings, not dogmas, concerning the afterlife.
I listen to Rob Bell. What I hear from what he says is that the scripture is the history of Humans discovering who God is, and God interacting and participating, accommodating, revealing himself over time, keeping his promises and covenant with a people that constantly disappoint Him. It is a divine and human library. God is progressively revealing himself to mankind as we are increasingly better able to imagine him. It seems to me that he chose just the right time to reveal himself and become incarnate. I am in total agreement with you that Jesus is our ultimate authority, and that we are in danger of loosing our essential center - God revealed in Jesus Christ.
Wow I’m amazed that you guys got to mention the name of Rob Bell here without someone jumping on you! I don’t think any of us can truly fully know God, but it bids us well to try 🙂
Hi Rhonda. I think robs views are enticing but he is a progressive. The notion of the OT as being humans discovering god is not correct. The OT is the word of god pointing to Jesus. That view of the OT is typically progressive and is used to get rid of parts of the OT that some don’t like.
She gives a lot of early church church history but doesn’t do a good job saying why she disagrees with Ennes other than this is the way things have always been done. We always want a one shoe fit all Christianity. This is not how the faith should be. No one knows the whole mystery of God!
*We always want a one shoe fit all Christianity. This is not how the faith should be.* Aren‘t you doing the exact same thing by claiming how the faith should or should not be? Aren‘t you proposing a literal one shoe fit all Christianity, if you claim that Christianity can be whatever someone says it is? *No one knows the whole mystery of God!* I find it interesting how many people use this fact to say that any belief goes. Unfortunately, that‘s a non-sequitur. Only because we can‘t know the whole mystery of God, doesn‘t mean we can‘t know anything about God. We can certainly know the things he has revealed about himself. And those are unambiguous, unless you want to call God a liar.
Enns is a tough one to try and combat. He’s a well studied scholar with a whole lot of good thinking to be carefully considered. There is a growing scandal of the collective evangelical mind with such shallow thinking on the depths of how the Bible came to be … and how to read and understand Scripture. To paraphrase Dr. Jennifer Knust - “Stop pretending that God is dictating to you, and admit that you are merely reading Scripture.” Take all the time you need to THINK about that.
Taking the idea of inspiration as an example: it seems that your view would lead to the conclusion that God commanded genocide in the Old Testament in various passages... that is, as you insist, that an inspired author cannot be influenced by the morality of his culture.
Marcus Anthony When God calls for the killing of humans in whatever form, that is an act of judgement. God is not guilty of murder or genocide or any other sin. Therefore, since God cannot sin due to the fact that He cannot act against His own nature, ‘the inspired author’ is not calling for murder or genocide by faithfully relaying the will of God.
@@nicholasprice6902 So God commands things not because they are good , but things are good because God commands them? So Jesus commanded the killings and rape and enslavement if people in the Old Testament. And those are morally praiseworthy acts?
@@marcusanthony488 I never said anything was good or bad. What I’m saying is that if God commanded the killing of a person or persons, that is not murder. That is an act of judgement upon His own creation. Whether I’m 2 or 82 God can move me from this life to the next for whatever reason He sees fit. If not, why not?
@@nicholasprice6902 Read this passage in Numbers 31. Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. If I understand you, you are saying that God's command to kill little boys and women was "okay" because he commanded it? Oh yes, then save the virgins for yourselves ? So if Jesus commands this, it is okay because he commanded it, right?
@@marcusanthony488 Again, whether you believe it to be good or bad or ‘okay’ is not pertinent. My point is that God’s judgement was upon these people and this is not murder or genocide. I don’t know what reasons God had for killing the women and boys and choosing to have mercy on the girls, but His judgement in these things surely is more grounded in wisdom of the situation than yours or mine.
This is why once saved always saved is suspect.. If a person is REALLY saved their faith will hold fast, if a person walks away they were NEVER saved to begin with.
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou True Salvation will ALWAYS persevere, because God Himself is the source of it, fake salvation WILL show itself fake, its a flimsy mask that falls off under test or trials of this life.
Why would Paul need to ‘discipline himself’ (1 Cor 9:27) if it is true that a saved person will always hold fast? Was Paul claiming that if he did walk away that he was never really saved in his current state?
"You share an opinion with an atheist" or "you sound liberal" are all small minded Sunday School teacher's pets phrases for, "I can't think for myself." EVERYTHING Christianity is, is about "my way or the high way." Literally everything. "Hey, I don't think John is a historical Gospel because the Crucifixion happens on a different day." Ever make that statement in Sunday School? It doesn't get met with an answer with thought. It gets met with getting kicked out. BTW, that creed from Paul is the ONLY thing required to believe to be a Christian. You said it's the beginning of Substitution atonement. False. Nowhere is the Molechian Demonic child sacrifice atonement theory ever recorded in that creed.
@J DV I don't know what moral statement I made, and I'm not anywhere near being a progressive. If you're a protestant you are the progressive that has lead to the utter downfall of Western thought. I'm judging nothing. I'm stating facts about the protestant mindset and their idol book worship. I realize it might look anecdotal, but I've only ever heard these anecdotes so it seems like the law of large numbers. Good job on attempting to be intelligent than you are with your statement. I gave actual examples, you generalities. Have a pleasant evening.
Alisa Excellent job on addressing his weak reasoning. His PhD does not allow him to continue with weak arguments.I've read and listened to him a lot lately and I find him very light in substance in many of his accusations.
@@greglogan7706 I don't need substance because I'm not accusing him. I stating my experience from reading his work. I found many of his proposition lacking .
There is an arrogance to your silliness that comes through in Alyssa's horrible please see my comments above dead simply decimates her own arrogance and self righteousness and condescension
@@greglogan7706 Luke 12:5 (Jesus)... I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed the body, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!
I totally agreea with your comment that Progressive Christianity has the same rhetoric that atheists use. I have heard progressives and atheists and sometime if is virtually the same arguments.
@@stephenargent4010 I don't doubt Jesus didn't directly condemn homosexuality. Jesus didn't mention many things so it is an argument from silence. Morality should be something that differentiates those who follow Christ and those who don't not as this vicar said that it dosn't matter. God in the OT made a clear distinction between Israel and the nations around them. In the NT a clear distinction is made between light and darkness. This vicar was speaking to an unbeliever but all that came across to him was you are ok. She could have been speaking as an unbeliever to an unbeliever there was no distinction in anything she said about her faith and his beliefs regarding morality.
@@jotink1 I think you will find that the OT purity laws which are regarded as proof texts condemning homosexuality are commenting on anal sex not an act exclusive to homosexuals in fact you won’t find the word homosexual mentioned in any Bible translation dated earlier than 1947
@@MrSASA51 I don't really want to argue over words. What I do see in scripture is a clear distinction between light and darkness. How we are to be that light in the world is to be distinct from it and in so doing change it. I suggest you look at Milo Yiannopoulos his channel is Milo, he recently came back to his Catholic roots from a homosexual lifestyle. This conversation began with why progressive Christianity to me isn't distinctive enough. If you are progressive, then it is by the Holy Spirit acting on your own conscience how far that distinctiveness needs to be.
The Enemy is desperate to get people calling Christians fundamentalists. Describing Christians as fundamentalists because you have to hold certain beliefs to be a Christian - well that's the same with all religions, what he's defining is religion, not Christianity. Plus, as you say, this is not how people use the word, they usually mean extremists, people who are prepared to kill those who don't follow their religion, or who criticise it, or try to leave it. I think he probably has other motives for wanting to use the word in relation to Christians. I've seen this elsewhere, Christians portrayed as extremists. The Handmaids Tale, based on Margaret Atwood's novel, about a future society where women are oppressed by totalitarian state, which is patriarchal and Christian, has been turned into a tv series which has been running since 2016. What is maddening about these feminist writers is they ignore the fact that actually, women have been given the same rights as men in the west, in nations whose societies and morals are founded upon Christian values, and ignore the fact that the oppression of women by theocratic patriarchies is actually going on, today, right under our noses, in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan. Surely Atwood, if she cares about her fellow woman, should be writing about these women, who have to live under Islamic extremism, not fantasising about Christianity turning into something similar, which is as unlikely as you can get. In fact, with progressive Christianity, and the New Age seeping in, things have been going in the opposite direction, with churches opening their doors to an array of beliefs and practices that go against their own scripture. The Enemy wants to create an oppressive totalitarian state, to do it he needs to get rid of those institutions which would oppose this, which stand for freedom, liberty, peace, forgiveness, loving others. Hence the attacks on Christianity. And liars being liars, they do it by accusing Christians are being what they themselves are - oppressive, power crazy, dictators. Everything is manufactured in this world, our culture has been and is being, manipulated and controlled, nothing is accidental, nothing evolves of its own accord. We live in a very artificial world.
Your comment shows how when conservative Christianity and politics mix how Christianity becomes a thing of everyone is out to get us and full of conspiracy theories. The truth is that people are afraid of opinions or ideas different from what they have always been taught.
Great response Alisa. The first attack of any false belief is on the word. The serpent questioned did God really say that. God bless you and your family.
I think there is only a very limited usefulness in dealing with this pagan theistic philosophers like Enns as Christian in any meaningful sense. After establishing a crippled view of inspiration, they go on to fill the void by creating their own god. They are idolaters in the true sense, therefore bound to appreciate the " rainbow" sin and to face damnation (Romans 1).
You think that the Gospels can be harmonized, then you are in a big error! If you mean "in all historical facts and factuality" the Bible is "inerrant", then you are errant! That is just wishful thinking! Unfortunately, you do not what to pay attention and research the issue!!! You want to be "sure", instead of believing where it is not that clear and absolute....
Don't sweat this all too much Alisa; you seem to have all a so handle on this, and are taking good swings. Atheists and liberals are puffed up they never have any strong argument here.
I have been a pastor for 25 years and can say that I can finally breathe. I can finally live and believe. I can finally minister in a way that seems whole and coherent and honest and vulnerable. Thanks to people like Pete and Rachel and Richard and Rob. They have saved my faith in the best way possible.
You say they "saved your faith." Do you believe that your faith today resembles anything like that of the 1st century Christians? Would the apostles recognize it as being consistent with their teaching?
So you are now a False Teacher?
@@Mybackupphone-q6nChristianity changes, same as everything else. It was normal to burn people at the stake for their theological views just a few hundred years ago, after all.
Or maybe, they gave you freedom to live freely in your unbelief.
At about 14m 24s, Alias said the statements of faith we call the creeds were agreed upon. My understanding is that there was much disagreement. At Constantinople in the 390s, bishops who disagreed with Nicaea were not admitted to the council, and the Macedonian bishops left as a bloc because they refused to accept the Holy Spirit was equal to the Father and the Son.
The work of Pete Enns, Richard Rohr and other "problematic progressive" people literally saved my faith.
Mine too!
He just saved what you perceive as your version of faith.
@@martinospitaletta8198 You could be right, but after discovering various versions of Christian faith, Pete Enns and others provide maybe the best version of Christianity. What are the consequences if they do not have the 'right' understanding of the Bible in the end?
@@zissou8900 There is a video of Pete Enns on youtube. It is dealing with his view of satan. In this video he says quite frankly that things do not have to be true just because Jesus said or believed them, e.g. a personal satan. If you define a religion centered around an erring Christ you do not believe in Christ but in yourself. So Enns becomes an Enntist and every progressive Christian becomes his/her/its own god. If there is a true God who is demanding worship and obedience because he is a jealous God, there won't be a happy ennsing for Enns and others of the same kind. 😉
Thank you. I really appreciate your honesty. Only few people admit that a right understanding of god is ultimately about avoiding eternal conscious torment in hell. But is a 'jealous' god that throws people into hell because of their 'false' beliefs worth worshipping in the first place? Such a divine entity doesn't sound very trustworthy to be honest.
I'm a progressive and I fully affirm the creeds. I just strenuously disagree with the idea taken as prima facie by evangelicals that 'for our sins' necessarily means the same thing as modern penal substitutionary atonement. Evangelicals say you can't be a Christian and not believe that, yet that idea in its modern incarnation is not stated in the creeds.
Thank you - though I would not use the label progressive, I would simply suggest your a Christian
@@greglogan7706 Thank you for your reply. I know there are evangelicals who would say I'm going to hell for being too progressive though, because I am gay affirming and don't believe in PSA. That's why I have currently adopted the label progressive as I want to differentiate myself from the type of harmful rhetoric that often comes from these sorts of churches.
I listened this this today when I noticed my pastor wearing a shirt he got off Enn’s website (people asked where he got it). Our church has become quite progressive and people are leaving. He believes it’s because he’s teaching the “truth” and we don’t want to hear the truth.
No you don’t know the truth and can’t handle it
To be clear, when Alisa mentions the "letters of Paul which were not disputed" she isn't telling you that there were some early Church Fathers who DID dispute Paul's authorship of Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy and 2 Thessalonians.
Well, if you define something „being disputed“ as soon as someone believed otherwise, then everything was disputed sooner or later.
Anyhow, which church fathers disputed the authorship of Paul?
Would love to see Enns and Childers on the Unbelievable podcast with Justin Brierley. Seems there's a decent amount of, "He thought I said this when I actually was saying..." which seems like it could be cleared up quickly in a conversation. I'd love to hear more thoughts from both sides in that sort of format.
I really hope this happens!!
Enns would destroy her in a debate.
@@thecontagiouscajun4795 Perhaps Dr. Enns needs to find a Biblical scholar to match him.
@@thecontagiouscajun4795 true
@@computationaltheist7267 he knows plenty. Are you a scholar
Grad level Christian theology student here... its where Childers says "if you dont think Jesus died for our sins" that you cant be Christians... that is a stop point for me. A whole clarifying conversation could be had at this point because she seems to be coming from a Penal Substitutionary Atonement POV here, and there are many other atonement theories that Christianity maintains and has historically maintained. Our modern insistence on a very narrow view (PSA) of what Jesus accomplished is problematic. ONce you realize that there are other, and older, atonement theories, the phrase "died for our sins" takes on a Whole New Meaning. I'd love to hear her talk about this. Because a "fundamentalist" orthodox and a "fundamentalist" Calvinist have very different faith substance because their atonement theories are so different.
Well then what did Jesus die for?
@@choicemeatrandy6572 To free us from death. It's not the What that's in question with various atonement theories. Its how that atonement "works" that varies from theory to theory. In Christus Victor, atonement theory, for instance, God dies on the cross as Jesus, in the Spirit. Not separated, three in one. Humanity commits the ultimate sin, we kill God, (Jesus) and he willingly submits to that, forgiving us in the process, he dies, goes into Hades, Hades can no hold him, and he breaks open the gates, resurrects, and then ascends to Heaven, in full unity with God, and there is now humanity in the Godhead. CHrist is now the victor over death and we are united with God, now co-heirs with Christ, adopted as sons and daughters. The sacrifice of God on the cross was a willing one, not made to satisfy God's wrath, but to submit to our wrath, and in doing so, forgive our greatest sin so that No Sin could keep us from unity with God. Christus Victor. Christ the Victor. He died to free us.
@@tealeaves92 _not made to satisfy God's wrath_
"Yet it pleased the Lord to crush him. He has put him to grief. When you make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed. (Isaiah 53:10)
"And He is the propitiation for our sins and not ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2)
31:14 I don’t understand how anyone could possibly believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible? There are clearly mistakes. Any intellectually honest person can see that and that is exactly why Pete Enns work is so important. He’s saving people’s faith when they are confronted with textual criticism.
Generally when someone says that, they mean inerrant in the original autographs, and so our modern translations are inerrant insofar as they accurately reflect the originals (and evangelicals believe that they are a very good reflections). I actually suspect, however, that God did deliver us a perfect translation, which is the 1769 update of the KJV.
Pete Enns is a very likeable scholar. "Likable" is not the first word that comes to mind when most people think of evangelicals.
I love that "Historically Christian" is defined as Christianity post 1500 AD and not the truly "Historic" Christianity that started with Jesus. The Historic Christianity we SHOULD be aware of taught Universal Reconciliation and Christus Victor in those 1,500 years prior to Luther and Calvin.
Of you read your Bible and do some real research into this you will find that not only was victor taught but so was PSA it's not an either or, it's definitely both. Recently however this has been a very trendy thing to believe that only because of Calvin and Luther do we believe these things. I would point you to Mike Winger's teaching on it as he has a 4 or 5 part series going in depth on the topic. But sometimes for some reason we decide to dig in our heels instead of listening to an argument from the other side that may be the actual truth.
Again, Mike Winger has great teaching on it on how PSA is 100% biblical and was taught in the old and new testament and taught shortly after Christ's death.
Amen.
I definitely noted this too. Supposing that PSA is the only or the historically consistent atonement theory is such an enormous oversight. We have used so many theories and metaphors for what Christ accomplished in the history of Christianity. I think these should be theories, not stubborn lenses which color our entire view of Christ.
I love these podcasts and how you're not afraid to speak the truth on sensitive issues in today's culture!
@Alisa, I read both your & Enns article. This is a very well made response to his article too.. I don't think Enns would disagree with you that there are certain things are fundamental to the Christian faith.
From what I can see he's addressing the type of conservative Christians who insist that the Bible is inerrant or we need to believe in the Substitutionary atonement theory, or a literal Adam, or non-affirming LGBTQ to be a Christian. I would agree with Enns that these are non-essential/ non-fundamental to the Christian faith. I think that's the meat of the disagreement :)
What would you say is fundamental, and why?
@@Wenugo1, I would say it's fundamental to affirm the Apostle's Creed because it has been affirmed by every Christian church around the world throughout the church's history :)
@@fraserdaniel3999
Date for the apostle's creed?
Specifically the extant manuscripts....
@J DV
Not if you are an American evangelical.... then anything goes...😖. As we have learned in the last 4 years with their Orange messiah
@@greglogan7706 🤣
Pete Enns helped save my faith.
I first heard of Watchman Nee in the 80s. I read his book Sit Walk Stand after I attended a Bible study on Ephesians. This man had no problem with reading understanding and believing what was written. Many know the outcome of his faith. Arrested, falsely accused, beaten tortured and kept in prison until his death. I believe I read about a Man in the scriptures that suffered ……Watchman Nee followed and trusted this risen Lord and Savior until the end. He believed in what was written in the scriptures and it cost him. You don’t die for lies.
Good comment. I learned about Watchman Nee recently and am now a few pages into Sit, Walk, Stand. I also bought The Spiritual Man and The Normal Christian Life.
Beautiful! Thank you for these podcasts! I used to go to what I now realize was a form of Progressive Christian church led by Erwin McManus, called Mosiac church in LA> It left me somehow empty but I didn;t have the discernment at that time why. Your insights give so much perspective as many friends proclaim they are Christian but they don't even believe in the Cross!
31:10 That not believing in inerrancy may lead someone where they don't want to go, if taken to its logical conclusion.
Ok. I can accept that.
But just as many problems are created by taking inerrancy to its logical conclusion.
It must be admitted that this argument works both ways.
The historical church believed that the Earth was flat and that the universe revolved around the Earth.
Alyssa Childers believes that the Earth is round and that the Earth is revolving within the universe.
Alyssa Childers has departed from the historic view of the church and now she holds the same view as atheists. Surely she is on a slippery slope to becoming an atheist....
I love how fundies "reason"....😖😖
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
@J DV
What a completely ignorant, slanderous, malicious, Anti-Christ and deceittful response - no wonder you're an evangelical......😢
@@gheffz
Which Jesus does Alisa believe - obviously not the one who is speaking in John 5...😢
@@gheffz
Many will say...
I guess we can go on spouting vss all day... How is that going to make anybody's life better?
@@greglogan7706 What makes true Christianity different from every other religion (of works) including "progressive christianity" _(those words can't really be used together, they don't mix)_ is simply a living relationship with the living God ... not head knowledge nor Bible knowledge nor of good works. "Progressive christianity" is yet another religion of the blind leading the blind -- both will end of up in hell. Matthew 10:28 - Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell; Luke 12:5 - But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!
John 1:12 - But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God; John 17:3 - And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
I enjoy Alisa’s podcast and my theology leans more in her direction than Pete Enns. But I really enjoy Pete’s podcast. Pete talks to very sincere, Jesus-seeking “progressive” Christians who have great perspectives. Pete disagrees with conservatives like Alisa but he’s very respectful and kind. The two sides of the aisle should dialogue more. Sean McDowell does a great job reaching across the aisle in his podcast.
You miss quote Bart Ehrman. If one would look up ~ Bart Ehrman Blog 1 Cor 15:1 ~ 3 he clearly disagrees with 3 to 6 year earliest creed . That creeds weren’t developed until centuries later when Christianity became a unified world wide movement. Look it up. We need to be right when we quote someone.
Thank you for a little light in the swamp if the majority of the comments here
@J DV
I don't know whether you're being intentionally dishonest or just silly and arrogant....🤔🤔
I love this. Alisa allows an Atheist to define "Christianity". Wow.
What atheist a where?
Well he was right. Truth is truth.
39:00 But Alisa, just think of all the Bibles in publication that have verse-finders for whatever issue a person may be facing, e.g., when you're sad, lonely, angry, doubting, etc.
I'm not saying I'm in full agreement with Enns, but he does have a point.
So...after Alisa just agreed with an Atheist on the definition of "Christianity", she then turns and [unironically] warns us to beware those who...[wait for it]....agree with Atheists. Wow.
her "HISTORIC" christian belief. wow. i cant continue listening to her. well not that i cant but it's hard.
She agreed with Hitchens because what he said was true! He knows what Christianity believes, even though he rejects it. Gotta give credit where credit is
Due.
Christ died "because of" our sins is the correct Greek translation of that verse. Jesus did not die to erase/forgive our sins. He died because we, in our sins, killed Him [the innocent Son of God].
Why can't it be both? Jesus died because of ours sins and in dying cleansed us from our sin by his blood.
@@jotink1 Jesus forgave without anyone asking for forgiveness. Jesus never forgave anyone AFTER the cross. "For God was in Christ not counting our sins against us but reconciling the World to Himself." [2 Cor. 5:19] God did not require a virgin child sacrifice in order to forgive us. That's Molech.
@@KeithGileskgilesify Jesus forgave sin in many different circumstances. The man who's friends let him down through a roof had his sins forgiven because Jesus saw their faith. The key message was he could forgive sin. Only God could forgive sin showing Jesus was God in the flesh. Regarding your scripture quote you need to go back to to v16 for the context as v19 is in mid-sentence. God required the shedding of blood and a sacrifice was the means to do that. Jesus was not a virgin child but the God man so I don't see the relevance of the Molech thing.
Christ died to forgive sin. Jesus himself clearly believes that's what his mission is for. He makes that clear over and over again.
As I listen to this podcast, I am reminded of the revelation of the lead singer of Hawk Nelson and other so called Christian singers claiming to be atheists. I wonder if they were progressive Christians
Spot on.
Thanks for the video. Perhaps we should allow our view of scripture help interpret our experiences, instead of allowing our experiences to determine our view of scripture.
Love what you are about, Alisa ... thank you.
12:20 The Christian faith is actually diverse - not anything goes, but many things go.
Well, I think he's right.
Alisa goes on to address the development of the Christian Faith in the early Church culminating in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
She mentions that Christ's death was understood as substitutionary.
But she fails to say that the NT records a variety of ways the Atonement was perceived.
Substitution is merely one of many.
She also fails to say that the Eastern Church does not emphasize the substitution theory, but the Christus Victor theory, and has for 2,000 years.
I'm only half-way through this video, but this is what I see so far:
Alisa has a truncated view of Christianity, steeped in conservative, American Evangelicalism. I'm not saying she's wrong necessarily, although I find myself in disagreement with her on some key points.
But she is viewing Enns through colored lenses. She has placed God in a box, to borrow from JB Phillips' old book.
And she seems to be operating from a mindset of fear - that if someone moves away from her theological comfort zone, they could be a Progressive which, of course, is very dangerous.
Nor am I saying she doesn't have reason for some of her concerns.
Christianity needs clear boundaries if it's adherents are going to be faithful followers of Jesus.
But I think there's a good bit more wiggle room in the Faith than she's willing to accept.
You are not necessarily correct on the point that Jesus had died for our sins...May I ask in WHICH sense??? What does it change? How exactly does it works??? See, if God is not ancient Greek god, who needs sucrifices, then He does not need such sacrifices, etc.!!! Read Nicolas Berdyaev "On the destiny of Man"
Assuming from your comments that you call yourself a Christian, do you not believe that Christ died for our sins?
Read Stenley Grenz, James Dunn, Arthur Peacocke, Ian Barbour, etc. Unfortunately, there are those people that are quite smart in some areas, but they are somehow blind in some other fields or in some sections of their knowledg /understanding.... Do you really believe there was real "snake in the Garten"???? Then, how can we really discuss anything else..., unless we really want to learn and dig deeper, instead of being stubborn!
Did you know one early idea that was NOT heretical to those early Christians? Universal Reconciliation! Most of them embraced this view for the first 400 years of Church History.
That's not true. Jesus's earliest disciples and Jesus himself never taught that.
@@Convexhull210 Amen. The OP is just rehashing Dr. David Bentley Hart's arguments.
@@Convexhull210 It is actually true. Many of the church fathers taught a form of universalism that could be more aptly termed "ultimate redemption." They proposed that everyone will be "salted with fire" as Jesus says, and that if we "die now" to our false selves, then that judgment, or cleansing, begins now and at the final judgment, the presence of God would be welcome "warmth and light" to us. If we don't commit to that process in Christ, (if we do not love love, but hate love) then the judgment would be like Gehenna to us. The heat would sear. But many held the belief that God's judgment was a purification fire, a furnace of refinement. The main argument between the church fathers was whether for some, there was so little good left in them that the fire of Gods presence would burn up every bit of them until they were entirely non existent (annihilationism). Or whether the furnace of Gods judgment would be able to refine every human. (apokatastasis). The third option, that the fire of judgment was a place of everlasting torment, didn't come into vogue as a main belief until later in history, and that had much to do with the Book of Enoch, the Nephilim of Genesis, Dante's Inferno, and Some of the theology introduced by Augustine and refined by Luther and Calvin. Check it out. Its a humbling thing to realize the wide lane of thought that Christianity has held on the topic.
@@tealeaves92i can only think of Gregory of Nyssa and Origen. Who else believed in universalism?
@@ElvisI97 Isaac of Syria as well. But it's not just that. Those who didn't espouse Universalism still largely espoused annihilationism. Eternal Conscious Torment just wasnt a widely held possibility. It's also notable that they held their ideas as Possibilities, not certainties. They had leanings, not dogmas, concerning the afterlife.
I listen to Rob Bell. What I hear from what he says is that the scripture is the history of Humans discovering who God is, and God interacting and participating, accommodating, revealing himself over time, keeping his promises and covenant with a people that constantly disappoint Him. It is a divine and human library. God is progressively revealing himself to mankind as we are increasingly better able to imagine him. It seems to me that he chose just the right time to reveal himself and become incarnate. I am in total agreement with you that Jesus is our ultimate authority, and that we are in danger of loosing our essential center - God revealed in Jesus Christ.
What a great summary of Bell. I listen to him too. Thank you for this.
Wow I’m amazed that you guys got to mention the name of Rob Bell here without someone jumping on you!
I don’t think any of us can truly fully know God, but it bids us well to try 🙂
What you describe, as also Rob Bell said that about the Bible, that is quite a good picture of how it was :) 😉!!!
Hi Rhonda. I think robs views are enticing but he is a progressive. The notion of the OT as being humans discovering god is not correct. The OT is the word of god pointing to Jesus. That view of the OT is typically progressive and is used to get rid of parts of the OT that some don’t like.
Very good my sister!
She gives a lot of early church church history but doesn’t do a good job saying why she disagrees with Ennes other than this is the way things have always been done. We always want a one shoe fit all Christianity. This is not how the faith should be. No one knows the whole mystery of God!
*We always want a one shoe fit all Christianity. This is not how the faith should be.*
Aren‘t you doing the exact same thing by claiming how the faith should or should not be? Aren‘t you proposing a literal one shoe fit all Christianity, if you claim that Christianity can be whatever someone says it is?
*No one knows the whole mystery of God!*
I find it interesting how many people use this fact to say that any belief goes. Unfortunately, that‘s a non-sequitur. Only because we can‘t know the whole mystery of God, doesn‘t mean we can‘t know anything about God. We can certainly know the things he has revealed about himself. And those are unambiguous, unless you want to call God a liar.
Enns is a tough one to try and combat. He’s a well studied scholar with a whole lot of good thinking to be carefully considered. There is a growing scandal of the collective evangelical mind with such shallow thinking on the depths of how the Bible came to be … and how to read and understand Scripture. To paraphrase Dr. Jennifer Knust - “Stop pretending that God is dictating to you, and admit that you are merely reading Scripture.” Take all the time you need to THINK about that.
Hello, can you do a video on torah observant Christians
Taking the idea of inspiration as an example: it seems that your view would lead to the conclusion that God commanded genocide in the Old Testament in various passages... that is, as you insist, that an inspired author cannot be influenced by the morality of his culture.
Marcus Anthony When God calls for the killing of humans in whatever form, that is an act of judgement. God is not guilty of murder or genocide or any other sin. Therefore, since God cannot sin due to the fact that He cannot act against His own nature, ‘the inspired author’ is not calling for murder or genocide by faithfully relaying the will of God.
@@nicholasprice6902 So God commands things not because they are good , but things are good because God commands them?
So Jesus commanded the killings and rape and enslavement if people in the Old Testament. And those are morally praiseworthy acts?
@@marcusanthony488 I never said anything was good or bad. What I’m saying is that if God commanded the killing of a person or persons, that is not murder. That is an act of judgement upon His own creation. Whether I’m 2 or 82 God can move me from this life to the next for whatever reason He sees fit. If not, why not?
@@nicholasprice6902 Read this passage in Numbers 31.
Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
If I understand you, you are saying that God's command to kill little boys and women was "okay" because he commanded it? Oh yes, then save the virgins for yourselves ? So if Jesus commands this, it is okay because he commanded it, right?
@@marcusanthony488 Again, whether you believe it to be good or bad or ‘okay’ is not pertinent. My point is that God’s judgement was upon these people and this is not murder or genocide. I don’t know what reasons God had for killing the women and boys and choosing to have mercy on the girls, but His judgement in these things surely is more grounded in wisdom of the situation than yours or mine.
This is why once saved always saved is suspect.. If a person is REALLY saved their faith will hold fast, if a person walks away they were NEVER saved to begin with.
How does that make it suspect? It seems you have disproven your own point.
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou True Salvation will ALWAYS persevere, because God Himself is the source of it, fake salvation WILL show itself fake, its a flimsy mask that falls off under test or trials of this life.
Why would Paul need to ‘discipline himself’ (1 Cor 9:27) if it is true that a saved person will always hold fast? Was Paul claiming that if he did walk away that he was never really saved in his current state?
I don't know how Alisa is defining Atheism.
"You share an opinion with an atheist" or "you sound liberal" are all small minded Sunday School teacher's pets phrases for, "I can't think for myself." EVERYTHING Christianity is, is about "my way or the high way." Literally everything. "Hey, I don't think John is a historical Gospel because the Crucifixion happens on a different day." Ever make that statement in Sunday School? It doesn't get met with an answer with thought. It gets met with getting kicked out.
BTW, that creed from Paul is the ONLY thing required to believe to be a Christian. You said it's the beginning of Substitution atonement. False. Nowhere is the Molechian Demonic child sacrifice atonement theory ever recorded in that creed.
Thank you for demonstrating some critical thinking instead of what's provided by the Alisa Childers of the world.
@@greglogan7706 She seems happier than me, so she might be better off. Thinking only gets me in trouble.
@J DV I don't know what moral statement I made, and I'm not anywhere near being a progressive. If you're a protestant you are the progressive that has lead to the utter downfall of Western thought.
I'm judging nothing. I'm stating facts about the protestant mindset and their idol book worship.
I realize it might look anecdotal, but I've only ever heard these anecdotes so it seems like the law of large numbers.
Good job on attempting to be intelligent than you are with your statement. I gave actual examples, you generalities.
Have a pleasant evening.
a Harvard PhD vs a High schooler
Well said Alisa.
Alisa
Excellent job on addressing his weak reasoning. His PhD does not allow him to continue with weak arguments.I've read and listened to him a lot lately and I find him very light in substance in many of his accusations.
Instead of silly blatant accusations how about providing some substance??
@@greglogan7706 I don't need substance because I'm not accusing him. I stating my experience from reading his work. I found many of his proposition lacking .
@@michaelglass9604
Just hear accusations... I provided specific examples of the horrible disgusting pathetic reason of Alyssa Childers
That’s your perception and bias talking. Do you have a PhD, do you read Greek or Hebrews? Read is books, and listen more. Stop judging and observe.
Yes, there is an "arrogance" to that, Pete! And you demonstrate it!
There is an arrogance to your silliness that comes through in Alyssa's horrible please see my comments above dead simply decimates her own arrogance and self righteousness and condescension
@@greglogan7706 Luke 12:5 (Jesus)... I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed the body, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!
I totally agreea with your comment that Progressive Christianity has the same rhetoric that atheists use. I have heard progressives and atheists and sometime if is virtually the same arguments.
Please give an example of this
@@MrSASA51 I heard a vicar say that homosexuality even though it is condemned in the OT wasn't mentioned by Jesus.
@@stephenargent4010 I don't doubt Jesus didn't directly condemn homosexuality. Jesus didn't mention many things so it is an argument from silence. Morality should be something that differentiates those who follow Christ and those who don't not as this vicar said that it dosn't matter. God in the OT made a clear distinction between Israel and the nations around them. In the NT a clear distinction is made between light and darkness. This vicar was speaking to an unbeliever but all that came across to him was you are ok. She could have been speaking as an unbeliever to an unbeliever there was no distinction in anything she said about her faith and his beliefs regarding morality.
@@jotink1 I think you will find that the OT purity laws which are regarded as proof texts condemning homosexuality are commenting on anal sex not an act exclusive to homosexuals in fact you won’t find the word homosexual mentioned in any Bible translation dated earlier than 1947
@@MrSASA51 I don't really want to argue over words. What I do see in scripture is a clear distinction between light and darkness. How we are to be that light in the world is to be distinct from it and in so doing change it. I suggest you look at Milo Yiannopoulos his channel is Milo, he recently came back to his Catholic roots from a homosexual lifestyle. This conversation began with why progressive Christianity to me isn't distinctive enough. If you are progressive, then it is by the Holy Spirit acting on your own conscience how far that distinctiveness needs to be.
The Enemy is desperate to get people calling Christians fundamentalists. Describing Christians as fundamentalists because you have to hold certain beliefs to be a Christian - well that's the same with all religions, what he's defining is religion, not Christianity. Plus, as you say, this is not how people use the word, they usually mean extremists, people who are prepared to kill those who don't follow their religion, or who criticise it, or try to leave it.
I think he probably has other motives for wanting to use the word in relation to Christians. I've seen this elsewhere, Christians portrayed as extremists. The Handmaids Tale, based on Margaret Atwood's novel, about a future society where women are oppressed by totalitarian state, which is patriarchal and Christian, has been turned into a tv series which has been running since 2016. What is maddening about these feminist writers is they ignore the fact that actually, women have been given the same rights as men in the west, in nations whose societies and morals are founded upon Christian values, and ignore the fact that the oppression of women by theocratic patriarchies is actually going on, today, right under our noses, in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan.
Surely Atwood, if she cares about her fellow woman, should be writing about these women, who have to live under Islamic extremism, not fantasising about Christianity turning into something similar, which is as unlikely as you can get. In fact, with progressive Christianity, and the New Age seeping in, things have been going in the opposite direction, with churches opening their doors to an array of beliefs and practices that go against their own scripture.
The Enemy wants to create an oppressive totalitarian state, to do it he needs to get rid of those institutions which would oppose this, which stand for freedom, liberty, peace, forgiveness, loving others. Hence the attacks on Christianity. And liars being liars, they do it by accusing Christians are being what they themselves are - oppressive, power crazy, dictators. Everything is manufactured in this world, our culture has been and is being, manipulated and controlled, nothing is accidental, nothing evolves of its own accord. We live in a very artificial world.
Extraordinary comment.... you have missed the whole point of the book- but perhaps you are basing you view on the TV series...
Your comment shows how when conservative Christianity and politics mix how Christianity becomes a thing of everyone is out to get us and full of conspiracy theories. The truth is that people are afraid of opinions or ideas different from what they have always been taught.
Great response Alisa. The first attack of any false belief is on the word. The serpent questioned did God really say that. God bless you and your family.
Thing is Enns didn’t attack. It’s not either this or that.
@@77advisor it is an attack. It's either completely true or not.
I hate it when i cannot see u the speaker Alisa what your loving self there on video.
You view of the Bible is incorrect! Continue top search and dig deeper! God will open you!!!
I think there is only a very limited usefulness in dealing with this pagan theistic philosophers like Enns as Christian in any meaningful sense.
After establishing a crippled view of inspiration, they go on to fill the void by creating their own god. They are idolaters in the true sense, therefore bound to appreciate the " rainbow" sin and to face damnation (Romans 1).
P
You think that the Gospels can be harmonized, then you are in a big error! If you mean "in all historical facts and factuality" the Bible is "inerrant", then you are errant! That is just wishful thinking! Unfortunately, you do not what to pay attention and research the issue!!! You want to be "sure", instead of believing where it is not that clear and absolute....
Craig is not really very smart in the sense of creative interpretation of the Bible:)!!!!
Don't sweat this all too much Alisa; you seem to have all a so handle on this, and are taking good swings. Atheists and liberals are puffed up they never have any strong argument here.
But it is just fine for you and Alyssa to be puffed up isn't it...😖
@J DV you are part of the rump who hi jacked Christianity just 500 yrs ago. You do not represent historical Christianity