Rauser talks about how deconstruction is a defining characteristic of PC, and I agree. But what separates it from historic Christianity is that nothing is off the table. The Church has always been united in the essentials such as the bodily resurrection, the universality of sin, the need for atonement, the authority of Scripture, the exclusivity of salvation through Christ, etc. All of these are deconstructed in PC, and what is reconstructed deviates from orthodoxy at some or many points. Another clear indication of the difference is that such deviation is celebrated by other progressives, even if they don’t share the same deviations. What’s more important is that deviation is a virtue.
I think that is a good way to put it. I'd also say there is an attempt at times to provoke deconstruction in other Christians (at times on fairly central doctrine), and this can be pastorally quite destructive.
@@drswamidass One thing I’d like to point out from the discussion is that both Alisa Childers and Sean McDowell have had discussions with progressive Christians. Alisa was on Unbelievable a couple years back in conversation with Lisa Gungor. Sean McDowell has had multiple conversations with a progressive pastor on his channel. The implication from this discussion was that neither was willing to have a discussion with someone from the other side, and that isn’t true.
@@stevefraley4283 The implication is that so far they have not been willing to engage with Rauser, a progressive Christian who has written a book specifically disputing Another Gospel.
@@drswamidass To be fair, his book just came out less than 2 months ago. I don’t know that McDowell owes him a response, but Childers probably should. Perhaps she hasn’t read the book yet or is working on a response.
@@stevefraley4283 yes it’s early in the story. So far there hasn’t been willingness to engage. But that could change. That’s part of the reason I’m saying something now, when the story could change for the better :)
If we were being honest, we'd be calling it something closer to "Critical Christianity." Progressive Christians smuggled in a lot of baggage, but the Christians people are concerned about now apply a postmodern critical analysis (in an academic sense) to the religion. Talking about "decolonizing" things, "centering" certain "voices," the elevation of "testimony" over classical data types--if you've studied critical theory, postmodern critical theory, critical race theory, feminist theory, Marxist theory, etc., you know this phrasing when you hear it. @0:19:48 He wants to "challenge the underlying framework of the conversation," and says, "One thing I've been trying to point out here is that there's a continuum." Deconstruction of foundational systems and "everything is a spectrum" is classic critical theory.
Thanks, Cam, for hosting such discussions. I appreciate all who take time to make things like this happen. For all the contention, it is utterly sane and refreshing compared to the "discussions" that are happening in the larger socio-political sphere.
This conversation was almost two hours and we still have no idea what Randall actually believes. I wish someone would’ve asked him. It appeared that he was either uncomfortable being labeled as a Progressive or he was trying to say that every Christian is progressive in some sense. It seemed like he was being evasive.
I appreciate that they were trying to be civil with each other but it certainly came off that they just danced around everything and never got to any of the core issues.
Exactly. They spent more time arguing what the definitions of a progressive and conservative Christian are, instead of talking about the views of each side.
I would have liked Randall and Joshua to actually discuss about the conflict between progressive and conservative Christianity. But Randall kept insisting to talk about how there isn't much of a difference and kept pointing fingers at other Christian groups. I think we should address the mistakes of all Christians, but that wasn't the topic of the discussion at hand. A bit disappointed. And Mormons aren't Christians. Joshua seems to be afraid to call out heretics. There are certain doctrines which define what a Christian is and if you can't agree with those doctrines don't bother calling yourself a Christian. If we are to classify Mormons as Christians, might as well consider Muslims too.
Finally, in closing, I'd like to thank Cameron, Randal, and Josh for doing this. It most certainly was thought-provoking and I'll be sharing this on my wall and encouraging folks to watch it, consider what's been said, and use it as an exercise to know not only WHAT you believe but WHY you believe it. The one caveat to that is that I would caution folks to be careful to LISTEN. Not only to what's being said but for the Holy Spirit's prompting as you do. Be quick to hit the Pause Button if needed and go search the Scriptures or even the internet if needed. Josh's final comments are VERY telling. He makes it crystal clear that he considered Randal and Cameron to be his brothers in Christ. And yet he can't define what a Christian is. At this point I would lean more to the side of none of the three being Christian but rather all of them holding hands in the Matt. 7:21-23 line. And that's heartbreaking. Videos like this can be a VERY good thing. They can also be a VERY bad thing. ESPECIALLY when you consider how many people may have viewed this coupled with the combined uncertainty of where Cameron stands in his theology and the inability for the two guests to even define what a Christian is. And we know it's at least been viewed by 250ppl. That is alarming.
To Chindi's question Randal says we need to think of the Gospel in terms of what one does with Social Justice issues and I say "NO! We need to think of the Gospel in terms of what God says!" Matt. 7:21-23 is chock full of people who did MANY "good things" and even miracles but what does Jesus say about them? Randal asks "Does that (affirming SSM) overwhelm and thereby excludes him who he lives his life of social justice and in keeping with the Kingdom?" Again, the answer is yes. One can NOT stand in opposition to Jesus and affirm, approve of, endorse, support, and promote a sin that Jesus says WILL exclude those who preach/teach and/or practice that sin. (See Scriptures I previously cited.) Those "social justice" issues "essential to the Kingdom" are fruits produced from one's BELIEF. There are countless people who have done and are doing all those "good" things that are NOT Believers/Christians and they will NOT inherit the Kingdom. I will say I can't specifically say whether that applies to Bishop Tutu or not. I'd have to hear what he said in context to determine but I can say that if he approved SSM for a Christian then he is self-condemned as a heretic. Hopefully that helps Randal find what he needs for his satisfaction. It's really crystal clear. It's really not that difficult. A man can claim to be a woman. Biology puts him outside that. Jesus said there would be many who would claim to be Christ. They aren't. Claiming to be Christian is NO different.
Josh has the right approach when suggesting individual conversations with those who challenge our cherished beliefs. The persistent error that most of us make is the broad generalization of ___________________, which is largely inevitable when using various labels. Despite having full knowledge that each of these labels are not monolithic, we still kick the words around and wonder why there is angst and offense. In the absence of intentionality to keep it technical on the individual level when referring to progressive Christianity (which is not monolithic and lacks any hint of having a magisterium), there will always be offense taken in both directions and thus the conversation goes sour fast. Likewise, technical critiques of conservative Christianity should get the same consideration. However, conservative movements DO in fact have a handful of denominational monoliths and in some cases a magisterium that allows for booting the heretic--for example, the SBC booting Saddleback for ordaining some women. Bottom line is that treating progressive Christianity as a monolith is an obscene characterization because it's more of a methodology under development towards becoming a movement. The amount of work required by sociologists and psychologists of religion to sort this out is gargantuan. There is some recent work on this, but it is preliminary at best and a very long way from having a definitive answer. The only (practical) way to properly define progressive Christianity is to wait for it to obtain some sort of organizational status that forms a federation or magisterium. On that day, there would be a fair comparison of it to other movements who have historical development and organizational structure on their side. Given all of that ... we are doomed in this debate to misunderstand because we start from the wrong premise with the wrong motivations.
I think this conversation would have benefited from a bit more moderation. It's didn't get out of hand, but it meandered quite a bit. Probably would have been helpful as well to start out with a definition of terms. What exactly is being discussed.
Great discussion. You two have a lot more in common than differences imho. 😉 Question for Dr. Josh Swamidass that’s been on my mind since hearing his view on Adam and Eve as de novo creations. Adam and Eve were created de novo and placed on the garden. They had the capacity to *not die* provided they did not take from the forbidden tree. They did not actually die until they ate from that tree, first dying spiritually, then later, physically. Correct? Okay, so here’s my question: We can surmise from evolution (as well as hints within the Biblical text) that non-textual humans were living outside the garden. Perhaps they were even living well before the de novo creation of Adam and Eve. We also know from fossil evidence that ancient homo-sapiens *did physically die*. So this brings me to my question: If non-textual humans were *already* dying prior to the de novo creation of Adam and Eve then how could the spread of sin be responsible for the *physical death* of these non-textual humans?
@@dan6481 but then you have to consider all the accretions of Catholicism. Adhering to historic Christianity avoids falling into progressivism. And it’s not just in Protestantism. Richard Rohr is a very progressive Franciscan Catholic priest.
This (to me) perfectly demonstrates a particular problem that I now have with Protestantism more broadly speaking: an inability to delineate with epistemic consistency what constitutes orthodoxy and heterodoxy. These questions cannot ever be answered coherently.
This is also the reason why there are so many protestant denominations. And why I consider the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church to be the only legitimate apostolic Churches. They have their flaws and I won't ignore them, but they are also more legitimate than the hundredth New American denomination. That's not to say that people who attend to these denominations aren't real Christians, but the creation of so many denominations only divided us further.
@@TheOtherCaleb What do you mean by progressive? I consider the Reformers radically progressive. What about the Papal excesses theologically in the Middle Ages? Are those progressive?
it seems to me, the real issue is orthodoxy and heterodoxy which would go into a broader debate about the limits of orthodoxy and how are those limits known. That's probably as much as I can say about this.
I'm confused by Randal's claim at the 1:09:00 mark. Is Randal stating that a heretic can be saved with his separation of ecclesiastical vs soteriological? If so, how so? Since God is the one who saves how can you believe in a different God and be saved by the real and ONLY God? And why would that also not impact one's Christology which MUST impact soteriology? And Josh agrees?
Josh said it, the goal of the faith is not to fall into left or right but to be connected to the historic Church, and ultimately it doesn't rest in the reformations.
I agree entirely, as a Protestant. The reformations only made any sense as a return to historical Christianity faith in ways Catholicism at the time had departed. But ultimately, for all of us, our faith must be trust in what God did in history to make himself known by raising this man Jesus from the dead.
Every single argument I’ve heard from Randall consists of “progressivism is complex, evangelicalism is complex, you lose”. It’s an awful framework of argumentation.
Yeah it’s a bad framework. When I speak generally he appeals to exceptions. When I speak specifically he responds generally. I’m happy to go with the general or the specific, but you can’t object to both levels!!!
Yeah, his main argument was that everyone is progressive and conservative to some degree. Okay. I agree with that, but I don't see how it leads to any meaningful conversation.
I agree, it's a very juvenile debate tactic that almost freezes at the mere mention of any in depth analysis below the surface. We've heard the "not all men/women" argument similarly to exhaustion. It's boring. As intelligent beings, it's perfectly reasonable to speak in generalities as long as your observations are rooted in some degree of accuracy. We could almost shed the first 30 minutes off of every debate that begins this way and get a far more fruitful exchange.
The best definition of liberals v conservative I found is from Anthony Davies where he breaks it down as freedom either economic or social freedom. When standard Democratic or Republican positions are put on a Cartesian coordinate plot neither side really wins this.
At the 50min mark and I confess this is an area that I may struggle in. I know several Level Two issues on the Theological Triage Scale brush right up tight to Level One but I'm at a loss as to why Josh would say that Pannenberg is not a heretic for claiming that the Virgin Birth is not Biblical. I'm curious. Would Josh say that Pannenberg or anyone else was a heretic if they claimed that Jesus was not resurrected? I submit that if one does not believe in the Virgin Birth, if one does not believe that Jesus lived a sinless life and died a sinless death, if one does not believe that Jesus was buried and rose again on the 3rd Day then they ARE a heretic BECAUSE they have placed their faith in a Jesus of their own creation and NOT the REAL Jesus of Scripture. And if Josh can't call that heresy then what would he call a heretic?
I identify as a progressive but I really agree with a lot of what Joshua is saying. I like revisionist versus traditionalist as a distinction and I agree you have to be careful with how you revise. I believe God still speaks and we have to keep listening, but for example with the gay Christian issue, I see wider and wider inclusivity being modelled in the gospel, so in my opinion it is biblical and not revisionist to accept people who are gay fully in the church. I accept that this stance puts me in the progressive camp, but I don't believe it's simply reactive revisionism. It's based in what Jesus demonstrated He was here to do.
I'm a former agnostic turned "progressive christian". I take the Bible seriously but I do not take it literally...no one does. We all pick and choose. Progressive Christianity offers a more honest evaluation of the Christianity based on what we know now.
Both Randal and then Josh blew the question from Thiago. Contrary to what they both say God says otherwise. Thiago, the correct answer is YES!! One can hold a belief that damns you. Believing there is no God or in another god damns one. Holding to and believing in a false gospel damns one. (Gal. 1:8-9) Believing that one can practice Homosexuality or any other sin and be saved damns one. (Matt. 7:23, 1st Cor. 6:9-11 et al, 1st Jn. 3:8-9, Rev. 21:8 & 22:15) And there are many more. Said it before and I'll say it again here. This kind of MAN-Centered Pro. 14:12 theology that distances itself or completely separates itself from Scripture and the Pro. 3:5-7 truth is EXACTLY what puts more folks into the Matt. 7:21-23 line, where the VAST MAJORITY are waiting to get the shock of their Eternity, than probably anything else. The fact that these two "experts" can't even bring themselves to say that is DEEPLY disturbing and problematic. And, as I said before, no wonder that Cameron is struggling with whether to become RCC. If he would just study SCRIPTURE as God says to do (2nd Tim. 2:15) the "struggle" would go away. And that's the main point I wanna make here. If one does not get it down pat and settle in their mind that it is Scripture who holds the final word. That Scripture alone is the ultimate and final authority for faith and practice then these kind of issues and discussions will always be present and there is a HIGH RISK and probability that you will succumb to apostasy. When someone can't even define what a Christian is and can't even call one a heretic who denies the virgin birth of Christ then they are only one step away from going apostate and/or becoming a heretic themselves. Yes Thiago! There are beliefs and unbeliefs that WILL and DO damn some people. I just watched that part again so let me make this CRYSTAL CLEAR. NO Josh, it is YOU who is doing the conflating. It is NOT conflating two different things to join Belief(s) with Soteriology!! For cryin' out loud. Belief is Soteriology 101!!!! "Confess and believe", "Repent and believe", "whosoever believes". WHERE is your head? Just do a simple word search on Pistis/Pisteuo ("Believe" and it's derivatives) and COUNT the number of times it is used soteriologically. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Faith IS "belief". It is ABSOLUTELY mandatory for one to BELIEVE that God exists in order to even draw near to Him. (Heb. 11:6) And Randal, you can NOT be in ANY kind of a relationship with God, except as an Enemy, if you don't BELIEVE He exists and in His Word.
About 30 minutes in we get to one of the rough spots in this debate space: how are you defining _______ Christianity? Are you using a sociological framework? A theological framework? A mix of the two? Something else? Regardless of the lens that you pick, it requires some high-level skills in disciplines like sociology, psychology, philosophy, and theology. In reality, you need an interdisciplinary approach from scholars in those fields with experience studying movements of the sort in debate here. If we are honest, most people DO NOT have those requisite skill sets because most of us do not endure a graduate degree in any field. The conversation needs to expand, but in a professionally focused way. IMO that has not happened yet, certainly not to the degree required. Furthermore, Childers and her promoters have not 'gone there' with sufficient and relevant expertise to sort this out. Childers herself absolutely lacks the expertise to make her claim and so far, her promoters do too. SOME of her promoters could be part of the investigative team that has a shot at success in defining progressive Christianity, but none of them have it what it takes to do it alone, certainly not Childers herself, who is the one who started this fire.
I do not self-identify as progressive, nor do I find the theology of Brian McClaren or Rob Bell particularly persuasive. Yet though I am the most conservative person in the room in most places, I feel attacked as a woke-progressive the moment I come into contact with the American Evangelical. I commend all participants for actually keeping the discussion limited to real Christian theology because the moment I share my convictions that the earth is more than 6000 years old, climate change is real, and Trump lost the 2020 election, I am treated as a flaming communist who has infiltrated the church in order to destroy both it and America. In such a context, I was surprised to see Dr. Swamidass, a scientist I respect, defend his position by labeling John MacArthur a fundamentalist in contrast to people like him who are properly located within historic orthodoxy (the true conservative). If you try this approach in more contexts, I hypothesize that you will discover that a great number of these “fundamentalists” think that they and John MaCarthur are the real historic evangelicals and that you - the evolution affirming, climate-change believing RINO - are the liberal progressive. Perhaps Dr. Swamidass could do some more clinical trials testing this approach and report the results back to us next time. But I think the title of that next episode would be “Is Joshua Swamidass a progressive Christian? Dr. Swamidass defends himself from critics Doug Wilson and John White.”
Having private opinions that maybe heretical due to ignorance is different than a establishing a manifesto for a movement that will be seen at the voting polls.
I think Rouser is missing the point of Swamidass when talking about revisionism. Rouser said that sometimes people do reconstru tion poorly. That is exactly what Swamidass is calling revisionism. Poor reconstruction of a persons faith comes by way of revising Christian doctrines to fit the person and where they are at. Swamidass seems to be saying g the person should be looking to Historic Christianity as the baseline and then have people change to fit that baseline.
34Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away. God’s word never changes and God never changes. Sorry toots you ain’t a Christian.
Then one cannot say "the Bible was written at a time where this was more relatable." We either ignore historical context, or accept that with time, some translations and updates are necessary.
I have NO problem with Randal's explanation of Deconstruction/Reconstruction and agree with him as he explained it there. However, it MUST be noted that "Deconstruction" today is being used as a complete doing away with or demolition of the entire house and starting over. THAT is VERY DANGEROUS for Scripture teaches if that were to occur then it is impossible to build another house to stick with the analogy. Or "room" as Randal put it earlier. So to that I would exhort Randal to be more clear and emphasize that important distinction. Or does Randal believe that one can have a saving faith, completely disavow it and walk totally away from all Christian beliefs into total Unbelief, and then get it back again?
This is a bad discussion. A better discussion is to figure out the limiting principle on both sides. Josh said the covenant, Randal didn't give anything. Exactly what does Randal think a Christian should affirm. What exactly in Christianity cannot be deconstructed? What can not be thought of differently? What heterodoxy makes someone not a Christian?
Both of them blew the question from "Old Things Have Passed Away". They both completely missed the requirement for Faith. MOREOVER though, Josh says "Enoch was not Jewish". Whaaat is he talking about? Is Josh saying that Enoch was not a Hebrew or Israelite? Let's be clear! Is Josh saying that Enoch was a gentile???? What say you, Josh?? Perhaps Josh was just walking in the Flesh or perhaps he needs to be saved. At this point I don't know. But what I do know is it's either one or the other and either way it explains why he asks the question "who are we to really make that decision". If he were walking in the spirit then he'd know the answer to that question.
The LAUSANNE COVENANT is narrowly defined TO SUPPORT THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION OF UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS, (Read it, it states this clearly) while engaging in missions. As for EVANGELICAL it was not defining a CLASS but an activity (as Josh points out). THE QUESTION I ASK IS WHY THAT SUPPORT OF THE U N DECLARATION WAS NECESSARY FOR A MISSION STATEMENT? Since it was, how has that shaped the present argument? Either a spectrum analysis (Randall) or finding the intersection of venn diagrams (Josh) and both are using a CRT style of explanation oppressor v oppressed. NOW, how did the early church handle these issues? Was Paul in your face argument with Peter progressive or conservative? (that language BTW, progressive v conservative directed toward collecting a voting block). Which side would Irenaeus against heresies have taken? Should Tertullian have been prevented from having Sabellius writings destroyed entirely, contrary to how Irenaeus handled heretics? IS THE BIBLE LEFT INTACT without a historical Adam and Eve? If you can't trust that what do you think Jesus saves you from? Jesus taught it, if it's not what Jesus taught how is it Christian? As to Rauser, Jesus taught he was the God of the OT and ordered the "genocide " of the descendents of the nephilim, after a global flood where it genocide of all but Noah. Neither the conquest nor the flood are told to give us criteria to undertake genocide today, and is not Christian if it redefines how christ defined himself and either we accept what the Bible says about that or we're just making stuff up to gain spiritual allegiance to someone's cause, a voting block. I don't like Josh's subtle shift to knowledge of the other side of the world, the shift being from scripture to a church fathers. Why would you think panenberg is a Christian if he denies the virgin birth which is a statement of ontological necessity to validate the title SON OF GOD? Panenberg would be someone who gives lip service to what he wishes while denying the required witnesses of original Apostolic testimony.
We were having a free flowing conversation, and I don’t think that Randall was angry. It’s best to avoid the tone policing, in both directions. We are better then that.
@@drswamidass Hi Dr. Swamidass, I tend to think tone is important in conversations. If the tone is extreme in an angry direction it can be harder to listen to. (subjective, I know) Although I don't think it was extreme in this case. Also, I'm a fan of yours and profited from the discussion, in spite of my negative initial questions. :)
6:21. So I guess in some sense I'm a progressive Christian and a conservative young Earth creation. I don't believe in the traditional view of hell, but rather an annihilation point of view.
I think it is HYSTERICAL that you all talk about Protestantism being "the historic Christian faith," and do not place Orthodox, Coptic, and Catholic Churches as "historic Christianity." THAT, chaps, is ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS! It SOUNDS for all the world like not one of you have followed the first 1500 years of Christianity. What a hoot!
I don't think the claim is that the first Christians were called protestants, but that some form of protestantism is closest to what the early church believed. Obviously every denomination of Christianity believes this about themselves, I don't know why that's surprising to you.
Interesting video but I couldn’t finish it. Randal portrayed progressives as well, just angry! He didn’t engage with any of the points that were raised but sought to dismiss them - the Adam and Eve point being an example, it was raised and got yeah but as a response - no attempt to engage and actually have the conversation he claimed he was there for.
Ok, now at the 25min mark we come down to the crux of the matter and BOTH of these guys fumble the ball. It all comes down to the answer to "What is a Christian." This idea that there are Evangelical Christians, Progressive Christians, et al is fallacious. There is CHRISTIAN. That's it. Period. End of story. I addressed this in the last video with Josh but I will add this. The word Evangelical comes from Evangel. Evangel means gospel. And it is the Gospel that defines what a Christian is. Period. Full stop. End of story. If you do not believe the Gospel, trust in the Gospel, hold to the Gospel, and share the Gospel then you are NOT Christian. Period. Full stop. End of story. Except to say that if you are not Christian you are not saved. If you are not Christian having been Born Again then you are not a child of God but rather a son of disobedience and child of wrath. It's downright laughable that here we have 2 guys on an Apologetics channel who can NOT even agree or define what a Christian is. All I can do is smh and say it is NO wonder that Cameron is struggling with whether to become a Catholic! I can't begin to count the number of times I've heard people say, "I'm not a Christian. I'm Catholic." Heard that very thing just last night. I think Cameron needs to have a show with these two and a couple of others I can think of that's discusses Matt. 7 from about v.13-14 on down and then answer the question "Who's standing in the Matt. 7:21-23 line?"!!
Swamidass is friends with a fellow biologist who happens to be gay and non Christian. But was religion needed for Swamidass to be friends with a fellow biologist? I think friendship is natural and depends on what kind of Christian or secularist you are. There are more tolerant Christians and more tolerant secularists. There are less tolerant ones as well. More tolerant members of any religion or philosophy can be friends, while less tolerant members of various religions and philosophies have difficulty getting along with even fellow members of their own religion or philosophy.
I think the point is, how would Swamidass tell his friend, who is in a gay marriage and has adopted children, that in the ideal Christian world his family should not exist.
30 minutes in and I do not understand what either of these men are defending. They’re just arguing about what they’re arguing about. Trying to understand their positions is like grasping sand.
JOSH IS CORRECT about the treatment of homsexuals v gay marriage, the quote on eunuchs is spot on and in ISAIAH it is written that in the day of Messiah the eunuch would shout for joy, and Jesus speaks directly to this, some are born, some made and some make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom. The disciples saw the connection and said isn't it then better to not marry? Or is celibacy preferred? Then we see Philip baptize the eunuch and then raptured to azotus to preach there, why azotus? In the OT it's Ashdod, not sure if Randall gets into the connection with God loves canaanites, but Ashdod is where Dagon fell before the ARK and lost head and hands, then has revival after Phillips is shown the God fearing eunuch is accepted.
Joshua Swamidass is friends with Nathan Lents, who is married to a guy and has adopted children. My point is, how can Dr. Swamidass gently tell his friend that in the ideal Christian world there would be no place for his family (so much for conservative love for the family-unit).
Every continuous measurement (eg “religious ideology is on a spectrum”) is transformable into a binary measurement (eg left-right / progressive-conservative / revisionist-traditionalist)
Also, ideology is not a spectrum anyway. It’s better understood as a categorical based on combinations of heterogenous statement affirmations (a collection of binaries).
First I'm not sure if I understood the purpose of this conversation. If it truly was to "duke it out" then maybe it succeeded. I think Joshua Swamidass was immediately derailed by the commenters who decried him as "progressive." The irony here is that it put on display how easily one can be cast as "progressive" and therefore discredited. It reminds me of Jesus' words, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you" (Matthew 7:2). Or another parallel seems to the current woke-wars. There will always be someone more woke or more progressive or more conservative than you. This style of identity-making and theological work seems divisive. Hadn't heard of Randal Rauser before. I was impressed by his clarity and professionalism. In fact, it was his press for clarification from Joshua Swamidass that the conversation continued to fall apart. If "progressive" is a group or movement what are the markers of this movement? Of those who self-identify as "progressive" what are their identity characteristics? Do they have a creed? Or is it a boogie-man term to label the "other." Maybe this conversation proved one thing... that what makes one conservative is marked by the desire to have (increasingly) small boundary, and what makes someone progressive is that you want a larger boundary marker. If you're not fighting for a small boundary (or narrow doctrinal statements) and fighting to exclude those who differ from you, your defacto progressive. I think it will remain this way unless these terms are given greater definition.
Given the climate, I believe terms like "progressive" and "conservative" bring a lot of baggage to any conversation, but I feel you've adroitly defined the terms in their broader philosophical sense. "Conservative" approaches, be they political or philosophical or theological, tend toward paring things down to the essentials....narrowing the focus to more concise and definite principles. "Progressivism" is a different approach. I think of it more like a large dredge that is far more willing to accept anything, while hopefully seeking to "eat the meat and spit out the bones". There is value in each approach, and truly, I think nearly everyone employs both approaches in some instances and not in others. I've learned of Swamidass through CC and am learning to respect him more and more. I found Rauser through CC's early vids and also respect him. He's likeable and intelligent, but I've interacted with him some in the past on twitter and found him saying some things that seem ridiculous. In his defense, I've said ridiculous things and will certainly say more in the future. When it comes to politics, it seems like his worldview is heavily curated by the academic circles he populates, but at bottom...I do believe he loves Jesus and means to pursue truth. In the world we occupy, those are often downright heroic virtues in whomever they are found.
I'm gonna save the Like or Dislike for after I finish this but I will say I already have my concerns. While I agree that one must be careful about generalizing and painting an entire group with a broad but it is just as EQUALLY IMPORTANT that one think about who they are identifying as as associating with. (1st Cor. 15:33) And when Randal starts off criticizing Childers for calling out Rob Bell and Jory Micah for being heretics then he's already lost credibility in my book. Ya wanna make a case for Deconstructing/Reconstructing? Fine. NO problem. That's something that can and should be discussed. But when you've got two people who have publicly made a BIG deal out of creating a god in their own image according to their own ways, will, and wisdom and stand in direct opposition to VERY CLEAR Biblical teachings AND, all the more worse, do their best to lead others to eternal torment in the lake of fire with them then that's another story altogether. If you can't call them heretics who can you?
I wonder what proportion of evolutionary scientists and palaeontologists would find Dr Swamidas’s views on genesis plausible, especially with respect to The Fall and the migrations of ancient populations. I suspect the number is quite low
@@Player-re9mo doesn’t swamidass believe that humans didn’t sin prior to 6000 years ago? What about far older human skulls that have been found which have fatal weapon injuries? How can one person kill another with neither committing a sin ?
@@Player-re9mo he says he believes in old earth theistic evolution, but I doubt that many scientists will actually agree with his ideas. The fossil record obviously shows humans killed eachother prior to 6000 years. He might mean they did kill each other, but there was no law prior to 6000 years so killing each other wasn’t a sin. However if this was true, you’d expect humans also not to have had a conscience prior to 6000 because why would humans think killing each other was wrong if god didn’t think so? But most scientists do think humans inherited their conscience from their nonhuman ancestors ie humans have never been without a conscience - non human primate behaviour studies provide strong evidence of this.
@@fabulousfabio8228 I don't think human existence began 6000 years ago. Humans have been around for much longer. And I don't think this is what the Bible teaches. Here is a video which talks in detail about the years in Genesis: ruclips.net/video/uoPbZnRN8xQ/видео.html Young Earth Creationism isn't the default position on scripture. In fact many saints disagreed with this view. Here's another video which explains how YEC came to be: ruclips.net/video/RLcNTAi0Cw4/видео.html
Next time get Christians to debate each other. This was awful. When you downplay doctrine, then you are left with appealing to relativism built upon shared biblical terminology. Yes, there are core fundamental Christian doctrines to be accepted because they help differentiate false gods from the living God.
I think the proper chain of terms should be that from the heresy of unbelief we are PROGRESSIVE Christian disciples, respecting what has been CONSERVED in Christian examples, measuring them against the FUNDAMENTALS of the Bible, until we arrive at the fulness of CHRIST. John, in first John, identifies 3 levels, baby Christians who have recognized God as Father, young men who have wrestled to overcome the evil one, and then fathers who have reconciled their personal opinions with scripture. Are you NOT a Christian if you don't understand penal substitution? Not necessarily but because the Bible uses substitution language you may disqualify yourself if you argue against it as a position others SHOULD take, I would say the same of the other ATONEMENT theories, they are not exclusionary (I would suggest WLCs book on the ATONEMENT, "a multifaceted jewel "). However, we can't throw away discipleship because the gift of omniscience didn't arrive at baptism.
Would have been nice if Josh would’ve let Randal finish a single thought without cutting him off. I like Josh but goodness he does this an awful lot in these types of discussions. That first half was almost unbearable.
Randal's definition of Inerrancy is wrong and by defining it as God's original intent which may be different than the author's is simply a way of allowing oneself to climb up on the throne and play God. That's horrific Hermeneutics.
I really wish we could just get plain answers from folks sometimes... Do you believe God created the Earth in 6 literal 24 hr days? Y/N. If not, why not? Please explain. Do you believe God created Man in the Imago Dei? Y/N. If not, why not? Please explain. Do you believe Jesus is the only source of salvation & forgiveness, and the only route to the Father & eternal life? Y/N. If not, why not? Please explain. Is the Bible the ultimate authority of morality and truth? Is it infallible? Is it inerrant? Y/N. If not, why not? Please explain. These, "depends on what you mean by (_fill in the blank_)" positions are killing me. Why is it so hard to stand firm in what you believe?
I think it's more a defense against people trying to get someone to agree with something else through an equivocation fallacy or the like. For instance, if someone asked me do you believe corporal punishment is good and I said yes meaning that spanking is sometimes appropriate, then they blast me by saying "You believe that prisoners should be beaten?! And that child abuse is a good thing?!" It would've been good for me to get some context about what they meant about corporal punishment. Rereading your comment, though, I wonder if I am actually misunderstanding what you meant.
Quick note because Josh just made the fundamental mistake that I'm thinking someone else who he seemingly holds in high regard does. He's interpreting Scripture thru Science. Ya got it backward, Josh.
So you believe the Sun goes round the earth right? The Bible says the Sun stood still, not that it appeared to stand still or that the earth stood still. If you deny geocentrism and affirm heliocentrism what scriptural grounds do you have for doing so?
Unfortunately, I don't think it is correct to define progressive Christianity in terms of deconstruction and reconstruction. That is simultaneous with the process of how anyone's faith grows. I do think it is important to define what a revisionist means and I think it's quite clear and this is the problem with progressive Christianity in terms of how it largely defines itself and that is it's basically revisionist. And by revisionist I mean it doesn't accept the primary sources of christianity, I.e the Bible, is an authority but find some other criteria to be the authority sometimes it's the gospel sometimes Jesus only or read letters but that view of the scriptures is a significant break with any historical form of christianity. And oftentimes what is usually happening in that is that it's basically a la carte Christianity where people just pick and choose what they want to believe according to their own tastes and preferences which is clearly problematic because there is no legitimate proclamation of the lordship of Christ occurring in that space because everyone is functioning as their own Lord. Obviously not every form of revisionism is that extreme but it's pretty common especially at the lay level and it's what's picked up because that's what's implied by so many progressive Christian leaders. But even if it's the red letter only or the Jesus only or the gospels only version of revisionism it's still revisionist because it basically rejects the inspiration and authority of the whole council of God and that is a denial of what all Christians have had in common as mere Christianity whether catholic, orthodox, or protestant. I did like the reframing of the conversation of how we need to deal with one another on an individual basis and not throw the baby out with the bathwater and treat all liberal Christians as such. Liberal Christian has a much broader basis in in usage than progressive christian. If you go on Wikipedia and look at progressive Christianity it's basically revisionist by definition but not all liberal Christians are necessarily revisionists. Regardless of any of this what was never discussed and I wish was discussed more was how progressive Christian institutions propagate error, or binds the practices of the church to things that are against orthopraxy in such a way that to stay in, or support financially or otherwise, such institutions runs contrary to Christian praxis. A significant example is the elca, the church I was born and raised with which I'm in the process of leaving which uses offering dollars to pay for abortions, and the sex change of pastors for example. Also much of the church-wide office is propagating revisionism and revisionism is now the norm as to what is taught in seminaries and so everything from here on out is going to continue to go in that direction and probably worse and worse unless there's some great act of God which I'm not going to wait around for because the remnant has largely left the institution at this point and if there is another remnant coming out it will probably after the institution has burned itself up.
These guys are both too far left. They both seem to not take God at his word, and believe the Bible is authoritative, inherency of scripture which reformed theology teaches. If you compromise on any part of the Bible then you are compromising on Christ. Both need to check themselves on who is the ultimate authority in their lives.
Well Josh, now at the 1:37:00 mark you've crossed the line and I'm seriously questioning your salvation at this moment. You call the way Johnson has been treated a "complete distortion of the Gospel". Then I say you obviously have a different gospel. See Gal. 1:8-9 for more on that. There is NOTHING in the true Biblical saving Gospel that say ANYTHING about how one treats another. NOTHING!! I STRONGLY suggest you ponder that for a good LONG while. My hope and prayer is that you realize you were at the very least in the Flesh and thus will come back and make a public confession and show of public repentance for your grave and egregious sin.
What type of heresy disqualifies? Paul addressed this in Romans and I paraphrase, don't say that anyone must be in heaven on merit, that robs God of sovereignty in judgment, likewise, don't say that anyone must be in hell because that robs the cross of it's sufficiency, rather you make sure your doctrine is sound. (This BTW, makes me leery of praying to canonized saints, and condemning known villains contrary to the example of the theif on the cross). I think Josh is a heretic with respect to his affirmation of evolution, but I know from experience how hard it is to break those chains, and for others wrestling with it there is an accommodation that at least begins discipleship. I think Ken Hamm is the easiest to defend, however I think there is more to the title ANCIENT OF DAYS referring to the 7, and to Moses dividing the calendar into DAYS OF OLD and YEARS OF THE MANY GENERATIONS, he separates at the time Adam left the garden (see Gerald Schroeder GENESIS AND THE BIG BANG). SO I'm suspicious that TIME was different in the 7 days without the arrow of entropy, but I also reject the Hugh Ross old earth model that affirms entropy from the beginning as we see it now. These are issues of heresy but don't disqualify discipleship otherwise who could be saved? You don't come out of baptism with the gift of omniscience, nor free from sinful desires, but you have affirmed a commitment to be discipled by Christ using scripture.
Lol this falls on its face right from the start, Jesus instituted the church and the gates of hell will not stand against it, so there’s no need for deconstruction… It is what it is and its not up to personal interpretation…thank God i’m catholic
Just started watching, but this is the problem w/ Protestantism. You have no authority to determine what orthodox belief given to us by Christ is. The Catholic Church is that for me. I am not in a sea of confusion bc I believe in the authority of the Catholic Church.
I guess that's the failure of abstract concepts and categorization. I mostly reject these as more useful than mere convenience tools of language. "Progressive" "Christianity" is a pretty meaningless phrase. Propositions such as "did Jesus agree with gay sodomy as being 'equal to' marital sexual relations that will produce families" or "Is killing your offspring by suctioning it's brains out of their heads so you will not suffer any inconvenience for having sex, a Christian value"; these are actual useful questions and they are provably wrong about all of these issues. I think "Progressive Christianity" is not in any way "progressive", and the phrase is question begging. Of coure you can be a saved whilst being a Progressive, but so could slave owners, capitalists who think it's Gods mandate for everyone to be rich, or people who think they know the day and hour of the Lord's return despite the fact that He said "nobody knows the day or the hour". Progressive "Christianity" simply is not Christianity. Progressive Christianity is evil, anti-biblical in every way, but God's grace can still extend to its adherents.
He does and that's his MO in these forums. As much as I respect Mr. Swamidass, I wish a trained theologian was in the conversation in lieu of him. That being said, Rauser's insistence in denying ANY identifiable systemic distinction (which we colloquially refer to as conservative and progressive) is problematic to the conversation and frustrating. He did more misrepresenting than Josh did.
I think you if brought someone who identifies with Inclusive orthodoxy (Little "o") you could have a hardly heard 3rd voice. The online magazine "Earth and Altar Mag" claims to be a bastion of inclusive orthodoxy which is a kind of "progressive Christian" who holds fast to the Creeds, the Bible, and the Traditions of the Church while also being inclusive of women, POC, and lgbtq+ persons
Will always find it intresting that when a conservative says “their is no such thing as a progressive Christian” all that can be translated to is that if your a liberal your going to hell. It’s just anothe stupid way for conservatives to get people to vote republican.
@@123beserk not all left wing Christian’s are progressive lol. Anyways, progressive Christian’s reject the sanctification doctrine and other basic Christian doctrines that should sound the alarm for any disciple of Jesus. The teachings seen in progressive Christianity is the same teachings Jesus, Paul, David, Solomon, John and others warned us to avoid.
@@123beserk If that were the case then conservative Christians would not exist outside the United States, which plainly isn't true. And within the US context; you could hardly call (for example) John Piper a progressive Christian, and he wrote an article strongly criticising Trump in 2020 for moral failings, and telling people not to vote for him. Although I am no fan of the phrase "there is no such thing as a progressive Christian". However, I would say (like Joshua) that I find the positions of many progressive Christians concerning; and I would also say it can crosses out of the bounds of Christianity more often than Rauser suggests. Although to be fair, his response was to Alissa Childers; who unfortunately seems to often focus on the less egregious elements of what might be called 'progressive christianity' such as Rob Bell.
@@123beserk On that note, Lee Strobel and Sean McDowell also strongly criticised Trump, and they were some of the people Rauser mentioned who endorsed Childers' work.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Rauser talks about how deconstruction is a defining characteristic of PC, and I agree. But what separates it from historic Christianity is that nothing is off the table. The Church has always been united in the essentials such as the bodily resurrection, the universality of sin, the need for atonement, the authority of Scripture, the exclusivity of salvation through Christ, etc. All of these are deconstructed in PC, and what is reconstructed deviates from orthodoxy at some or many points. Another clear indication of the difference is that such deviation is celebrated by other progressives, even if they don’t share the same deviations. What’s more important is that deviation is a virtue.
I think that is a good way to put it. I'd also say there is an attempt at times to provoke deconstruction in other Christians (at times on fairly central doctrine), and this can be pastorally quite destructive.
@@drswamidass One thing I’d like to point out from the discussion is that both Alisa Childers and Sean McDowell have had discussions with progressive Christians. Alisa was on Unbelievable a couple years back in conversation with Lisa Gungor. Sean McDowell has had multiple conversations with a progressive pastor on his channel. The implication from this discussion was that neither was willing to have a discussion with someone from the other side, and that isn’t true.
@@stevefraley4283 The implication is that so far they have not been willing to engage with Rauser, a progressive Christian who has written a book specifically disputing Another Gospel.
@@drswamidass To be fair, his book just came out less than 2 months ago. I don’t know that McDowell owes him a response, but Childers probably should. Perhaps she hasn’t read the book yet or is working on a response.
@@stevefraley4283 yes it’s early in the story. So far there hasn’t been willingness to engage. But that could change. That’s part of the reason I’m saying something now, when the story could change for the better :)
You need a 'WE ARE EXPERIENCING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES - PLEASE STAND BY' screen, Cameron 😁
If we were being honest, we'd be calling it something closer to "Critical Christianity." Progressive Christians smuggled in a lot of baggage, but the Christians people are concerned about now apply a postmodern critical analysis (in an academic sense) to the religion.
Talking about "decolonizing" things, "centering" certain "voices," the elevation of "testimony" over classical data types--if you've studied critical theory, postmodern critical theory, critical race theory, feminist theory, Marxist theory, etc., you know this phrasing when you hear it.
@0:19:48 He wants to "challenge the underlying framework of the conversation," and says, "One thing I've been trying to point out here is that there's a continuum." Deconstruction of foundational systems and "everything is a spectrum" is classic critical theory.
Thanks, Cam, for hosting such discussions. I appreciate all who take time to make things like this happen. For all the contention, it is utterly sane and refreshing compared to the "discussions" that are happening in the larger socio-political sphere.
Thanks for taking my superchat! 100% agree with both Randal and Josh that having minor heretical views doesn’t mean you aren’t saved.
Alittle bit of poison might not kill your
This conversation was almost two hours and we still have no idea what Randall actually believes. I wish someone would’ve asked him. It appeared that he was either uncomfortable being labeled as a Progressive or he was trying to say that every Christian is progressive in some sense. It seemed like he was being evasive.
He believes "not all progressive Christians." That and loosening the shackles of atonement.
He’s trying to avoid all the actual problems with Christian belief. But at least he’s aware of them.
You can tell Joshua is getting flustered and desperate whereas randall is calm, reasonable and logical.
I admire both of these guys, and their thoughtful engagement of these issues. Would love to see Sean McDowell weigh in.
I appreciate that they were trying to be civil with each other but it certainly came off that they just danced around everything and never got to any of the core issues.
Exactly. They spent more time arguing what the definitions of a progressive and conservative Christian are, instead of talking about the views of each side.
Not uncommon from these two even on other topics. Other interlocutors would have been more clear.
I would have liked Randall and Joshua to actually discuss about the conflict between progressive and conservative Christianity. But Randall kept insisting to talk about how there isn't much of a difference and kept pointing fingers at other Christian groups. I think we should address the mistakes of all Christians, but that wasn't the topic of the discussion at hand. A bit disappointed.
And Mormons aren't Christians. Joshua seems to be afraid to call out heretics. There are certain doctrines which define what a Christian is and if you can't agree with those doctrines don't bother calling yourself a Christian. If we are to classify Mormons as Christians, might as well consider Muslims too.
It's really not Joshua's fault if you've spent any amount of time following Randall.
I agree that Mormons are not theologically aligned with historical Christianity, what ever we choose to table them.
Finally, in closing, I'd like to thank Cameron, Randal, and Josh for doing this. It most certainly was thought-provoking and I'll be sharing this on my wall and encouraging folks to watch it, consider what's been said, and use it as an exercise to know not only WHAT you believe but WHY you believe it.
The one caveat to that is that I would caution folks to be careful to LISTEN. Not only to what's being said but for the Holy Spirit's prompting as you do. Be quick to hit the Pause Button if needed and go search the Scriptures or even the internet if needed.
Josh's final comments are VERY telling. He makes it crystal clear that he considered Randal and Cameron to be his brothers in Christ. And yet he can't define what a Christian is. At this point I would lean more to the side of none of the three being Christian but rather all of them holding hands in the Matt. 7:21-23 line. And that's heartbreaking.
Videos like this can be a VERY good thing. They can also be a VERY bad thing. ESPECIALLY when you consider how many people may have viewed this coupled with the combined uncertainty of where Cameron stands in his theology and the inability for the two guests to even define what a Christian is. And we know it's at least been viewed by 250ppl. That is alarming.
To Chindi's question Randal says we need to think of the Gospel in terms of what one does with Social Justice issues and I say "NO! We need to think of the Gospel in terms of what God says!" Matt. 7:21-23 is chock full of people who did MANY "good things" and even miracles but what does Jesus say about them? Randal asks "Does that (affirming SSM) overwhelm and thereby excludes him who he lives his life of social justice and in keeping with the Kingdom?" Again, the answer is yes. One can NOT stand in opposition to Jesus and affirm, approve of, endorse, support, and promote a sin that Jesus says WILL exclude those who preach/teach and/or practice that sin. (See Scriptures I previously cited.) Those "social justice" issues "essential to the Kingdom" are fruits produced from one's BELIEF. There are countless people who have done and are doing all those "good" things that are NOT Believers/Christians and they will NOT inherit the Kingdom.
I will say I can't specifically say whether that applies to Bishop Tutu or not. I'd have to hear what he said in context to determine but I can say that if he approved SSM for a Christian then he is self-condemned as a heretic.
Hopefully that helps Randal find what he needs for his satisfaction. It's really crystal clear. It's really not that difficult. A man can claim to be a woman. Biology puts him outside that. Jesus said there would be many who would claim to be Christ. They aren't. Claiming to be Christian is NO different.
This ended up being a fruitless debate about labels and not about beliefs
Josh has the right approach when suggesting individual conversations with those who challenge our cherished beliefs. The persistent error that most of us make is the broad generalization of ___________________, which is largely inevitable when using various labels. Despite having full knowledge that each of these labels are not monolithic, we still kick the words around and wonder why there is angst and offense.
In the absence of intentionality to keep it technical on the individual level when referring to progressive Christianity (which is not monolithic and lacks any hint of having a magisterium), there will always be offense taken in both directions and thus the conversation goes sour fast. Likewise, technical critiques of conservative Christianity should get the same consideration. However, conservative movements DO in fact have a handful of denominational monoliths and in some cases a magisterium that allows for booting the heretic--for example, the SBC booting Saddleback for ordaining some women.
Bottom line is that treating progressive Christianity as a monolith is an obscene characterization because it's more of a methodology under development towards becoming a movement. The amount of work required by sociologists and psychologists of religion to sort this out is gargantuan. There is some recent work on this, but it is preliminary at best and a very long way from having a definitive answer. The only (practical) way to properly define progressive Christianity is to wait for it to obtain some sort of organizational status that forms a federation or magisterium. On that day, there would be a fair comparison of it to other movements who have historical development and organizational structure on their side.
Given all of that ... we are doomed in this debate to misunderstand because we start from the wrong premise with the wrong motivations.
I think this conversation would have benefited from a bit more moderation. It's didn't get out of hand, but it meandered quite a bit. Probably would have been helpful as well to start out with a definition of terms. What exactly is being discussed.
Great discussion. You two have a lot more in common than differences imho. 😉
Question for Dr. Josh Swamidass that’s been on my mind since hearing his view on Adam and Eve as de novo creations.
Adam and Eve were created de novo and placed on the garden. They had the capacity to *not die* provided they did not take from the forbidden tree. They did not actually die until they ate from that tree, first dying spiritually, then later, physically. Correct?
Okay, so here’s my question: We can surmise from evolution (as well as hints within the Biblical text) that non-textual humans were living outside the garden. Perhaps they were even living well before the de novo creation of Adam and Eve. We also know from fossil evidence that ancient homo-sapiens *did physically die*.
So this brings me to my question: If non-textual humans were *already* dying prior to the de novo creation of Adam and Eve then how could the spread of sin be responsible for the *physical death* of these non-textual humans?
This whole discussion makes me very glad to be a catholic.
Right. Am considering this
Catholics have to deal with these issues too. Just look at the mess going on with catholicism in Germany.
@@dan6481 but then you have to consider all the accretions of Catholicism. Adhering to historic Christianity avoids falling into progressivism. And it’s not just in Protestantism. Richard Rohr is a very progressive Franciscan Catholic priest.
Richard Rohr is a very progressive Franciscan Catholic priest.
@@mc07 cardinal reinhard marx supports homosexuality.
This (to me) perfectly demonstrates a particular problem that I now have with Protestantism more broadly speaking: an inability to delineate with epistemic consistency what constitutes orthodoxy and heterodoxy. These questions cannot ever be answered coherently.
Progressivism is biblically self-defeating.
This is also the reason why there are so many protestant denominations. And why I consider the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church to be the only legitimate apostolic Churches. They have their flaws and I won't ignore them, but they are also more legitimate than the hundredth New American denomination. That's not to say that people who attend to these denominations aren't real Christians, but the creation of so many denominations only divided us further.
@@TheOtherCaleb What do you mean by progressive? I consider the Reformers radically progressive. What about the Papal excesses theologically in the Middle Ages? Are those progressive?
Exactly, Protestantism makes it impossible to have the unity that Christ prayed about
There is the same sort of issue in the Catholic Church including modernist “Catholics” that don’t affirm the Resurrection.
it seems to me, the real issue is orthodoxy and heterodoxy which would go into a broader debate about the limits of orthodoxy and how are those limits known. That's probably as much as I can say about this.
I'm confused by Randal's claim at the 1:09:00 mark. Is Randal stating that a heretic can be saved with his separation of ecclesiastical vs soteriological? If so, how so? Since God is the one who saves how can you believe in a different God and be saved by the real and ONLY God? And why would that also not impact one's Christology which MUST impact soteriology? And Josh agrees?
Josh said it, the goal of the faith is not to fall into left or right but to be connected to the historic Church, and ultimately it doesn't rest in the reformations.
I agree entirely, as a Protestant. The reformations only made any sense as a return to historical Christianity faith in ways Catholicism at the time had departed. But ultimately, for all of us, our faith must be trust in what God did in history to make himself known by raising this man Jesus from the dead.
Every single argument I’ve heard from Randall consists of “progressivism is complex, evangelicalism is complex, you lose”. It’s an awful framework of argumentation.
Yeah it’s a bad framework. When I speak generally he appeals to exceptions. When I speak specifically he responds generally. I’m happy to go with the general or the specific, but you can’t object to both levels!!!
@@drswamidass Precisely
Yeah, his main argument was that everyone is progressive and conservative to some degree. Okay. I agree with that, but I don't see how it leads to any meaningful conversation.
I agree, it's a very juvenile debate tactic that almost freezes at the mere mention of any in depth analysis below the surface. We've heard the "not all men/women" argument similarly to exhaustion. It's boring. As intelligent beings, it's perfectly reasonable to speak in generalities as long as your observations are rooted in some degree of accuracy. We could almost shed the first 30 minutes off of every debate that begins this way and get a far more fruitful exchange.
@@drswamidass are you an impersonator?
The best definition of liberals v conservative I found is from Anthony Davies where he breaks it down as freedom either economic or social freedom. When standard Democratic or Republican positions are put on a Cartesian coordinate plot neither side really wins this.
Would the Good Samaritan be "saved" according to evangelicals?
At the 50min mark and I confess this is an area that I may struggle in. I know several Level Two issues on the Theological Triage Scale brush right up tight to Level One but I'm at a loss as to why Josh would say that Pannenberg is not a heretic for claiming that the Virgin Birth is not Biblical.
I'm curious. Would Josh say that Pannenberg or anyone else was a heretic if they claimed that Jesus was not resurrected? I submit that if one does not believe in the Virgin Birth, if one does not believe that Jesus lived a sinless life and died a sinless death, if one does not believe that Jesus was buried and rose again on the 3rd Day then they ARE a heretic BECAUSE they have placed their faith in a Jesus of their own creation and NOT the REAL Jesus of Scripture.
And if Josh can't call that heresy then what would he call a heretic?
This is why the church has a hierarchical magisterium
Yeah cause the Vatican is 100% consistent lmao
I identify as a progressive but I really agree with a lot of what Joshua is saying. I like revisionist versus traditionalist as a distinction and I agree you have to be careful with how you revise.
I believe God still speaks and we have to keep listening, but for example with the gay Christian issue, I see wider and wider inclusivity being modelled in the gospel, so in my opinion it is biblical and not revisionist to accept people who are gay fully in the church. I accept that this stance puts me in the progressive camp, but I don't believe it's simply reactive revisionism. It's based in what Jesus demonstrated He was here to do.
I'm a former agnostic turned "progressive christian". I take the Bible seriously but I do not take it literally...no one does. We all pick and choose. Progressive Christianity offers a more honest evaluation of the Christianity based on what we know now.
Both Randal and then Josh blew the question from Thiago. Contrary to what they both say God says otherwise. Thiago, the correct answer is YES!! One can hold a belief that damns you. Believing there is no God or in another god damns one. Holding to and believing in a false gospel damns one. (Gal. 1:8-9) Believing that one can practice Homosexuality or any other sin and be saved damns one. (Matt. 7:23, 1st Cor. 6:9-11 et al, 1st Jn. 3:8-9, Rev. 21:8 & 22:15) And there are many more.
Said it before and I'll say it again here. This kind of MAN-Centered Pro. 14:12 theology that distances itself or completely separates itself from Scripture and the Pro. 3:5-7 truth is EXACTLY what puts more folks into the Matt. 7:21-23 line, where the VAST MAJORITY are waiting to get the shock of their Eternity, than probably anything else.
The fact that these two "experts" can't even bring themselves to say that is DEEPLY disturbing and problematic. And, as I said before, no wonder that Cameron is struggling with whether to become RCC. If he would just study SCRIPTURE as God says to do (2nd Tim. 2:15) the "struggle" would go away.
And that's the main point I wanna make here. If one does not get it down pat and settle in their mind that it is Scripture who holds the final word. That Scripture alone is the ultimate and final authority for faith and practice then these kind of issues and discussions will always be present and there is a HIGH RISK and probability that you will succumb to apostasy. When someone can't even define what a Christian is and can't even call one a heretic who denies the virgin birth of Christ then they are only one step away from going apostate and/or becoming a heretic themselves.
Yes Thiago! There are beliefs and unbeliefs that WILL and DO damn some people.
I just watched that part again so let me make this CRYSTAL CLEAR. NO Josh, it is YOU who is doing the conflating. It is NOT conflating two different things to join Belief(s) with Soteriology!! For cryin' out loud. Belief is Soteriology 101!!!! "Confess and believe", "Repent and believe", "whosoever believes". WHERE is your head? Just do a simple word search on Pistis/Pisteuo ("Believe" and it's derivatives) and COUNT the number of times it is used soteriologically.
Without faith it is impossible to please God. Faith IS "belief". It is ABSOLUTELY mandatory for one to BELIEVE that God exists in order to even draw near to Him. (Heb. 11:6) And Randal, you can NOT be in ANY kind of a relationship with God, except as an Enemy, if you don't BELIEVE He exists and in His Word.
About 30 minutes in we get to one of the rough spots in this debate space: how are you defining _______ Christianity? Are you using a sociological framework? A theological framework? A mix of the two? Something else? Regardless of the lens that you pick, it requires some high-level skills in disciplines like sociology, psychology, philosophy, and theology. In reality, you need an interdisciplinary approach from scholars in those fields with experience studying movements of the sort in debate here.
If we are honest, most people DO NOT have those requisite skill sets because most of us do not endure a graduate degree in any field. The conversation needs to expand, but in a professionally focused way. IMO that has not happened yet, certainly not to the degree required. Furthermore, Childers and her promoters have not 'gone there' with sufficient and relevant expertise to sort this out. Childers herself absolutely lacks the expertise to make her claim and so far, her promoters do too. SOME of her promoters could be part of the investigative team that has a shot at success in defining progressive Christianity, but none of them have it what it takes to do it alone, certainly not Childers herself, who is the one who started this fire.
I do not self-identify as progressive, nor do I find the theology of Brian McClaren or Rob Bell particularly persuasive. Yet though I am the most conservative person in the room in most places, I feel attacked as a woke-progressive the moment I come into contact with the American Evangelical. I commend all participants for actually keeping the discussion limited to real Christian theology because the moment I share my convictions that the earth is more than 6000 years old, climate change is real, and Trump lost the 2020 election, I am treated as a flaming communist who has infiltrated the church in order to destroy both it and America. In such a context, I was surprised to see Dr. Swamidass, a scientist I respect, defend his position by labeling John MacArthur a fundamentalist in contrast to people like him who are properly located within historic orthodoxy (the true conservative). If you try this approach in more contexts, I hypothesize that you will discover that a great number of these “fundamentalists” think that they and John MaCarthur are the real historic evangelicals and that you - the evolution affirming, climate-change believing RINO - are the liberal progressive. Perhaps Dr. Swamidass could do some more clinical trials testing this approach and report the results back to us next time. But I think the title of that next episode would be “Is Joshua Swamidass a progressive Christian? Dr. Swamidass defends himself from critics Doug Wilson and John White.”
Progressing to what and away from what?
Just progressing down the broad road that leads to destruction.
Randal Rauser reminds me why I'm not a protestant.
Having private opinions that maybe heretical due to ignorance is different than a establishing a manifesto for a movement that will be seen at the voting polls.
I think Rouser is missing the point of Swamidass when talking about revisionism. Rouser said that sometimes people do reconstru tion poorly. That is exactly what Swamidass is calling revisionism. Poor reconstruction of a persons faith comes by way of revising Christian doctrines to fit the person and where they are at. Swamidass seems to be saying g the person should be looking to Historic Christianity as the baseline and then have people change to fit that baseline.
No such thing as a progressive Christian.
nope traditional medieval Christianity is just too irrelevant nowadays!
The whole enterprise of Protestantism is progressive.
34Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away. God’s word never changes and God never changes. Sorry toots you ain’t a Christian.
Can you elaborate?
Then one cannot say "the Bible was written at a time where this was more relatable." We either ignore historical context, or accept that with time, some translations and updates are necessary.
I have NO problem with Randal's explanation of Deconstruction/Reconstruction and agree with him as he explained it there.
However, it MUST be noted that "Deconstruction" today is being used as a complete doing away with or demolition of the entire house and starting over. THAT is VERY DANGEROUS for Scripture teaches if that were to occur then it is impossible to build another house to stick with the analogy. Or "room" as Randal put it earlier. So to that I would exhort Randal to be more clear and emphasize that important distinction.
Or does Randal believe that one can have a saving faith, completely disavow it and walk totally away from all Christian beliefs into total Unbelief, and then get it back again?
The tendency to "other" people is a human problem that is simply worse with religion and any other ideological issues.
This is a bad discussion. A better discussion is to figure out the limiting principle on both sides. Josh said the covenant, Randal didn't give anything. Exactly what does Randal think a Christian should affirm. What exactly in Christianity cannot be deconstructed? What can not be thought of differently? What heterodoxy makes someone not a Christian?
Both of them blew the question from "Old Things Have Passed Away". They both completely missed the requirement for Faith.
MOREOVER though, Josh says "Enoch was not Jewish". Whaaat is he talking about? Is Josh saying that Enoch was not a Hebrew or Israelite? Let's be clear! Is Josh saying that Enoch was a gentile????
What say you, Josh??
Perhaps Josh was just walking in the Flesh or perhaps he needs to be saved. At this point I don't know. But what I do know is it's either one or the other and either way it explains why he asks the question "who are we to really make that decision". If he were walking in the spirit then he'd know the answer to that question.
The LAUSANNE COVENANT is narrowly defined TO SUPPORT THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION OF UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS, (Read it, it states this clearly) while engaging in missions. As for EVANGELICAL it was not defining a CLASS but an activity (as Josh points out). THE QUESTION I ASK IS WHY THAT SUPPORT OF THE U N DECLARATION WAS NECESSARY FOR A MISSION STATEMENT? Since it was, how has that shaped the present argument? Either a spectrum analysis (Randall) or finding the intersection of venn diagrams (Josh) and both are using a CRT style of explanation oppressor v oppressed. NOW, how did the early church handle these issues? Was Paul in your face argument with Peter progressive or conservative? (that language BTW, progressive v conservative directed toward collecting a voting block). Which side would Irenaeus against heresies have taken? Should Tertullian have been prevented from having Sabellius writings destroyed entirely, contrary to how Irenaeus handled heretics? IS THE BIBLE LEFT INTACT without a historical Adam and Eve? If you can't trust that what do you think Jesus saves you from? Jesus taught it, if it's not what Jesus taught how is it Christian? As to Rauser, Jesus taught he was the God of the OT and ordered the "genocide " of the descendents of the nephilim, after a global flood where it genocide of all but Noah. Neither the conquest nor the flood are told to give us criteria to undertake genocide today, and is not Christian if it redefines how christ defined himself and either we accept what the Bible says about that or we're just making stuff up to gain spiritual allegiance to someone's cause, a voting block.
I don't like Josh's subtle shift to knowledge of the other side of the world, the shift being from scripture to a church fathers. Why would you think panenberg is a Christian if he denies the virgin birth which is a statement of ontological necessity to validate the title SON OF GOD? Panenberg would be someone who gives lip service to what he wishes while denying the required witnesses of original Apostolic testimony.
35 minutes in and they haven't really talked about anything yet...
Honest question: does Dr. Rauser usually sound angry?
Also, does Dr. Swamidass usually interrupt others so much?
We were having a free flowing conversation, and I don’t think that Randall was angry. It’s best to avoid the tone policing, in both directions. We are better then that.
@@drswamidass Hi Dr. Swamidass, I tend to think tone is important in conversations. If the tone is extreme in an angry direction it can be harder to listen to. (subjective, I know) Although I don't think it was extreme in this case.
Also, I'm a fan of yours and profited from the discussion, in spite of my negative initial questions. :)
6:21. So I guess in some sense I'm a progressive Christian and a conservative young Earth creation. I don't believe in the traditional view of hell, but rather an annihilation point of view.
I think it is HYSTERICAL that you all talk about Protestantism being "the historic Christian faith," and do not place Orthodox, Coptic, and Catholic Churches as "historic Christianity." THAT, chaps, is ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS! It SOUNDS for all the world like not one of you have followed the first 1500 years of Christianity.
What a hoot!
I don't think the claim is that the first Christians were called protestants, but that some form of protestantism is closest to what the early church believed. Obviously every denomination of Christianity believes this about themselves, I don't know why that's surprising to you.
Interesting video but I couldn’t finish it. Randal portrayed progressives as well, just angry! He didn’t engage with any of the points that were raised but sought to dismiss them - the Adam and Eve point being an example, it was raised and got yeah but as a response - no attempt to engage and actually have the conversation he claimed he was there for.
Ok, now at the 25min mark we come down to the crux of the matter and BOTH of these guys fumble the ball. It all comes down to the answer to "What is a Christian." This idea that there are Evangelical Christians, Progressive Christians, et al is fallacious. There is CHRISTIAN. That's it. Period. End of story.
I addressed this in the last video with Josh but I will add this. The word Evangelical comes from Evangel. Evangel means gospel. And it is the Gospel that defines what a Christian is. Period. Full stop. End of story.
If you do not believe the Gospel, trust in the Gospel, hold to the Gospel, and share the Gospel then you are NOT Christian. Period. Full stop. End of story. Except to say that if you are not Christian you are not saved. If you are not Christian having been Born Again then you are not a child of God but rather a son of disobedience and child of wrath.
It's downright laughable that here we have 2 guys on an Apologetics channel who can NOT even agree or define what a Christian is. All I can do is smh and say it is NO wonder that Cameron is struggling with whether to become a Catholic! I can't begin to count the number of times I've heard people say, "I'm not a Christian. I'm Catholic." Heard that very thing just last night.
I think Cameron needs to have a show with these two and a couple of others I can think of that's discusses Matt. 7 from about v.13-14 on down and then answer the question "Who's standing in the Matt. 7:21-23 line?"!!
Oh brother... James Tour Ave Gunter Bechly have each manhandled Swammadiss on this topic already.
Swamidass is friends with a fellow biologist who happens to be gay and non Christian. But was religion needed for Swamidass to be friends with a fellow biologist? I think friendship is natural and depends on what kind of Christian or secularist you are. There are more tolerant Christians and more tolerant secularists. There are less tolerant ones as well. More tolerant members of any religion or philosophy can be friends, while less tolerant members of various religions and philosophies have difficulty getting along with even fellow members of their own religion or philosophy.
I think the point is, how would Swamidass tell his friend, who is in a gay marriage and has adopted children, that in the ideal Christian world his family should not exist.
30 minutes in and I do not understand what either of these men are defending. They’re just arguing about what they’re arguing about. Trying to understand their positions is like grasping sand.
I was clear that the Laussane Covenant is a good starting point, that many PC do not affirm it, and that is concerning, even though some do.
JOSH IS CORRECT about the treatment of homsexuals v gay marriage, the quote on eunuchs is spot on and in ISAIAH it is written that in the day of Messiah the eunuch would shout for joy, and Jesus speaks directly to this, some are born, some made and some make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom. The disciples saw the connection and said isn't it then better to not marry? Or is celibacy preferred? Then we see Philip baptize the eunuch and then raptured to azotus to preach there, why azotus? In the OT it's Ashdod, not sure if Randall gets into the connection with God loves canaanites, but Ashdod is where Dagon fell before the ARK and lost head and hands, then has revival after Phillips is shown the God fearing eunuch is accepted.
Joshua Swamidass is friends with Nathan Lents, who is married to a guy and has adopted children. My point is, how can Dr. Swamidass gently tell his friend that in the ideal Christian world there would be no place for his family (so much for conservative love for the family-unit).
Every continuous measurement (eg “religious ideology is on a spectrum”) is transformable into a binary measurement (eg left-right / progressive-conservative / revisionist-traditionalist)
Also, ideology is not a spectrum anyway. It’s better understood as a categorical based on combinations of heterogenous statement affirmations (a collection of binaries).
First I'm not sure if I understood the purpose of this conversation. If it truly was to "duke it out" then maybe it succeeded.
I think Joshua Swamidass was immediately derailed by the commenters who decried him as "progressive." The irony here is that it put on display how easily one can be cast as "progressive" and therefore discredited. It reminds me of Jesus' words, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you" (Matthew 7:2). Or another parallel seems to the current woke-wars. There will always be someone more woke or more progressive or more conservative than you. This style of identity-making and theological work seems divisive.
Hadn't heard of Randal Rauser before. I was impressed by his clarity and professionalism. In fact, it was his press for clarification from Joshua Swamidass that the conversation continued to fall apart. If "progressive" is a group or movement what are the markers of this movement? Of those who self-identify as "progressive" what are their identity characteristics? Do they have a creed? Or is it a boogie-man term to label the "other."
Maybe this conversation proved one thing... that what makes one conservative is marked by the desire to have (increasingly) small boundary, and what makes someone progressive is that you want a larger boundary marker. If you're not fighting for a small boundary (or narrow doctrinal statements) and fighting to exclude those who differ from you, your defacto progressive. I think it will remain this way unless these terms are given greater definition.
Given the climate, I believe terms like "progressive" and "conservative" bring a lot of baggage to any conversation, but I feel you've adroitly defined the terms in their broader philosophical sense. "Conservative" approaches, be they political or philosophical or theological, tend toward paring things down to the essentials....narrowing the focus to more concise and definite principles. "Progressivism" is a different approach. I think of it more like a large dredge that is far more willing to accept anything, while hopefully seeking to "eat the meat and spit out the bones". There is value in each approach, and truly, I think nearly everyone employs both approaches in some instances and not in others.
I've learned of Swamidass through CC and am learning to respect him more and more. I found Rauser through CC's early vids and also respect him. He's likeable and intelligent, but I've interacted with him some in the past on twitter and found him saying some things that seem ridiculous. In his defense, I've said ridiculous things and will certainly say more in the future. When it comes to politics, it seems like his worldview is heavily curated by the academic circles he populates, but at bottom...I do believe he loves Jesus and means to pursue truth. In the world we occupy, those are often downright heroic virtues in whomever they are found.
I'm gonna save the Like or Dislike for after I finish this but I will say I already have my concerns. While I agree that one must be careful about generalizing and painting an entire group with a broad but it is just as EQUALLY IMPORTANT that one think about who they are identifying as as associating with. (1st Cor. 15:33) And when Randal starts off criticizing Childers for calling out Rob Bell and Jory Micah for being heretics then he's already lost credibility in my book.
Ya wanna make a case for Deconstructing/Reconstructing? Fine. NO problem. That's something that can and should be discussed. But when you've got two people who have publicly made a BIG deal out of creating a god in their own image according to their own ways, will, and wisdom and stand in direct opposition to VERY CLEAR Biblical teachings AND, all the more worse, do their best to lead others to eternal torment in the lake of fire with them then that's another story altogether. If you can't call them heretics who can you?
I wonder what proportion of evolutionary scientists and palaeontologists would find Dr Swamidas’s views on genesis plausible, especially with respect to The Fall and the migrations of ancient populations. I suspect the number is quite low
I don't think his view is in conflict with evolution.
@@Player-re9mo doesn’t swamidass believe that humans didn’t sin prior to 6000 years ago? What about far older human skulls that have been found which have fatal weapon injuries? How can one person kill another with neither committing a sin ?
@@fabulousfabio8228 Is he a young earth creationist? I thought he was an old earth theistic evolutionist
@@Player-re9mo he says he believes in old earth theistic evolution, but I doubt that many scientists will actually agree with his ideas. The fossil record obviously shows humans killed eachother prior to 6000 years. He might mean they did kill each other, but there was no law prior to 6000 years so killing each other wasn’t a sin. However if this was true, you’d expect humans also not to have had a conscience prior to 6000 because why would humans think killing each other was wrong if god didn’t think so? But most scientists do think humans inherited their conscience from their nonhuman ancestors ie humans have never been without a conscience - non human primate behaviour studies provide strong evidence of this.
@@fabulousfabio8228 I don't think human existence began 6000 years ago. Humans have been around for much longer. And I don't think this is what the Bible teaches. Here is a video which talks in detail about the years in Genesis: ruclips.net/video/uoPbZnRN8xQ/видео.html
Young Earth Creationism isn't the default position on scripture. In fact many saints disagreed with this view. Here's another video which explains how YEC came to be: ruclips.net/video/RLcNTAi0Cw4/видео.html
Next time get Christians to debate each other. This was awful. When you downplay doctrine, then you are left with appealing to relativism built upon shared biblical terminology. Yes, there are core fundamental Christian doctrines to be accepted because they help differentiate false gods from the living God.
Galatians 1:8-9
These guys, especially Joshua, need to learn how to listen better. The constant interruptions detracted from the discussion.
I think the proper chain of terms should be that from the heresy of unbelief we are PROGRESSIVE Christian disciples, respecting what has been CONSERVED in Christian examples, measuring them against the FUNDAMENTALS of the Bible, until we arrive at the fulness of CHRIST. John, in first John, identifies 3 levels, baby Christians who have recognized God as Father, young men who have wrestled to overcome the evil one, and then fathers who have reconciled their personal opinions with scripture. Are you NOT a Christian if you don't understand penal substitution? Not necessarily but because the Bible uses substitution language you may disqualify yourself if you argue against it as a position others SHOULD take, I would say the same of the other ATONEMENT theories, they are not exclusionary (I would suggest WLCs book on the ATONEMENT, "a multifaceted jewel "). However, we can't throw away discipleship because the gift of omniscience didn't arrive at baptism.
Would have been nice if Josh would’ve let Randal finish a single thought without cutting him off. I like Josh but goodness he does this an awful lot in these types of discussions. That first half was almost unbearable.
Randal's definition of Inerrancy is wrong and by defining it as God's original intent which may be different than the author's is simply a way of allowing oneself to climb up on the throne and play God. That's horrific Hermeneutics.
Dr. Swamidass is better.
I really wish we could just get plain answers from folks sometimes...
Do you believe God created the Earth in 6 literal 24 hr days? Y/N. If not, why not? Please explain.
Do you believe God created Man in the Imago Dei? Y/N. If not, why not? Please explain.
Do you believe Jesus is the only source of salvation & forgiveness, and the only route to the Father & eternal life? Y/N. If not, why not? Please explain.
Is the Bible the ultimate authority of morality and truth? Is it infallible? Is it inerrant? Y/N. If not, why not? Please explain.
These, "depends on what you mean by (_fill in the blank_)" positions are killing me.
Why is it so hard to stand firm in what you believe?
I think it's more a defense against people trying to get someone to agree with something else through an equivocation fallacy or the like. For instance, if someone asked me do you believe corporal punishment is good and I said yes meaning that spanking is sometimes appropriate, then they blast me by saying "You believe that prisoners should be beaten?! And that child abuse is a good thing?!" It would've been good for me to get some context about what they meant about corporal punishment.
Rereading your comment, though, I wonder if I am actually misunderstanding what you meant.
@@JonathonMcClung That's exactly what I'm talking about. 🙄
Quick note because Josh just made the fundamental mistake that I'm thinking someone else who he seemingly holds in high regard does. He's interpreting Scripture thru Science. Ya got it backward, Josh.
So you believe the Sun goes round the earth right? The Bible says the Sun stood still, not that it appeared to stand still or that the earth stood still. If you deny geocentrism and affirm heliocentrism what scriptural grounds do you have for doing so?
Unfortunately, I don't think it is correct to define progressive Christianity in terms of deconstruction and reconstruction. That is simultaneous with the process of how anyone's faith grows. I do think it is important to define what a revisionist means and I think it's quite clear and this is the problem with progressive Christianity in terms of how it largely defines itself and that is it's basically revisionist. And by revisionist I mean it doesn't accept the primary sources of christianity, I.e the Bible, is an authority but find some other criteria to be the authority sometimes it's the gospel sometimes Jesus only or read letters but that view of the scriptures is a significant break with any historical form of christianity. And oftentimes what is usually happening in that is that it's basically a la carte Christianity where people just pick and choose what they want to believe according to their own tastes and preferences which is clearly problematic because there is no legitimate proclamation of the lordship of Christ occurring in that space because everyone is functioning as their own Lord. Obviously not every form of revisionism is that extreme but it's pretty common especially at the lay level and it's what's picked up because that's what's implied by so many progressive Christian leaders. But even if it's the red letter only or the Jesus only or the gospels only version of revisionism it's still revisionist because it basically rejects the inspiration and authority of the whole council of God and that is a denial of what all Christians have had in common as mere Christianity whether catholic, orthodox, or protestant.
I did like the reframing of the conversation of how we need to deal with one another on an individual basis and not throw the baby out with the bathwater and treat all liberal Christians as such. Liberal Christian has a much broader basis in in usage than progressive christian. If you go on Wikipedia and look at progressive Christianity it's basically revisionist by definition but not all liberal Christians are necessarily revisionists.
Regardless of any of this what was never discussed and I wish was discussed more was how progressive Christian institutions propagate error, or binds the practices of the church to things that are against orthopraxy in such a way that to stay in, or support financially or otherwise, such institutions runs contrary to Christian praxis. A significant example is the elca, the church I was born and raised with which I'm in the process of leaving which uses offering dollars to pay for abortions, and the sex change of pastors for example. Also much of the church-wide office is propagating revisionism and revisionism is now the norm as to what is taught in seminaries and so everything from here on out is going to continue to go in that direction and probably worse and worse unless there's some great act of God which I'm not going to wait around for because the remnant has largely left the institution at this point and if there is another remnant coming out it will probably after the institution has burned itself up.
These guys are both too far left. They both seem to not take God at his word, and believe the Bible is authoritative, inherency of scripture which reformed theology teaches. If you compromise on any part of the Bible then you are compromising on Christ. Both need to check themselves on who is the ultimate authority in their lives.
I believe the BIble is authoritative and inerrant and I affirm the Chicago Statements.
Now we know. Obviously you misread me.
@@drswamidass is Gods word authoritative and do you submit yourself too it?
Inerrancy is a new concept.
@@mackinm00se new concept? If by new you mean since the reformation
@@mackinm00se Inerrancy is a RECENT articulation of a fairly OLD concept, for the purpose of responding to modernists and higher criticism.
Well Josh, now at the 1:37:00 mark you've crossed the line and I'm seriously questioning your salvation at this moment. You call the way Johnson has been treated a "complete distortion of the Gospel". Then I say you obviously have a different gospel. See Gal. 1:8-9 for more on that. There is NOTHING in the true Biblical saving Gospel that say ANYTHING about how one treats another. NOTHING!!
I STRONGLY suggest you ponder that for a good LONG while. My hope and prayer is that you realize you were at the very least in the Flesh and thus will come back and make a public confession and show of public repentance for your grave and egregious sin.
What type of heresy disqualifies? Paul addressed this in Romans and I paraphrase, don't say that anyone must be in heaven on merit, that robs God of sovereignty in judgment, likewise, don't say that anyone must be in hell because that robs the cross of it's sufficiency, rather you make sure your doctrine is sound. (This BTW, makes me leery of praying to canonized saints, and condemning known villains contrary to the example of the theif on the cross). I think Josh is a heretic with respect to his affirmation of evolution, but I know from experience how hard it is to break those chains, and for others wrestling with it there is an accommodation that at least begins discipleship. I think Ken Hamm is the easiest to defend, however I think there is more to the title ANCIENT OF DAYS referring to the 7, and to Moses dividing the calendar into DAYS OF OLD and YEARS OF THE MANY GENERATIONS, he separates at the time Adam left the garden (see Gerald Schroeder GENESIS AND THE BIG BANG). SO I'm suspicious that TIME was different in the 7 days without the arrow of entropy, but I also reject the Hugh Ross old earth model that affirms entropy from the beginning as we see it now. These are issues of heresy but don't disqualify discipleship otherwise who could be saved? You don't come out of baptism with the gift of omniscience, nor free from sinful desires, but you have affirmed a commitment to be discipled by Christ using scripture.
Why the emphasis on race? There's nothing to do with race in Christianity.
It's a sociological observation, not a theological one.
Lol this falls on its face right from the start, Jesus instituted the church and the gates of hell will not stand against it, so there’s no need for deconstruction… It is what it is and its not up to personal interpretation…thank God i’m catholic
Just started watching, but this is the problem w/ Protestantism. You have no authority to determine what orthodox belief given to us by Christ is. The Catholic Church is that for me. I am not in a sea of confusion bc I believe in the authority of the Catholic Church.
I guess that's the failure of abstract concepts and categorization. I mostly reject these as more useful than mere convenience tools of language. "Progressive" "Christianity" is a pretty meaningless phrase. Propositions such as "did Jesus agree with gay sodomy as being 'equal to' marital sexual relations that will produce families" or "Is killing your offspring by suctioning it's brains out of their heads so you will not suffer any inconvenience for having sex, a Christian value"; these are actual useful questions and they are provably wrong about all of these issues.
I think "Progressive Christianity" is not in any way "progressive", and the phrase is question begging. Of coure you can be a saved whilst being a Progressive, but so could slave owners, capitalists who think it's Gods mandate for everyone to be rich, or people who think they know the day and hour of the Lord's return despite the fact that He said "nobody knows the day or the hour". Progressive "Christianity" simply is not Christianity. Progressive Christianity is evil, anti-biblical in every way, but God's grace can still extend to its adherents.
Progressivism is the fulfillment of Christ's true message.
Lol. No.
If it quacks like a duck
Sorry, what?
@@mackinm00se
Liberal leaning Christian duck noises.
didn't love the tone of this dialogue
Tuning out… WLC put Swamidass over and he is loving the spotlight.
Only 25 minutes into this and I’m highly disappointed in Swamidass. He is not allowing a conversation, just cutting Rauser off over and over. Awful.
45 minutes in now and I’m turning it off. Swamidass wasn’t ready for this conversation. He is not listening to Rauser’s points.
He does and that's his MO in these forums. As much as I respect Mr. Swamidass, I wish a trained theologian was in the conversation in lieu of him.
That being said, Rauser's insistence in denying ANY identifiable systemic distinction (which we colloquially refer to as conservative and progressive) is problematic to the conversation and frustrating. He did more misrepresenting than Josh did.
Swampiass is incapable of letting Rauser finish a thought. Such a big ego on this guy
Swamisass loves to talk… sheesh… ~20 minutes in and Rauser hasn’t had much of a chance to speak…
I think you if brought someone who identifies with Inclusive orthodoxy (Little "o") you could have a hardly heard 3rd voice. The online magazine "Earth and Altar Mag" claims to be a bastion of inclusive orthodoxy which is a kind of "progressive Christian" who holds fast to the Creeds, the Bible, and the Traditions of the Church while also being inclusive of women, POC, and lgbtq+ persons
Will always find it intresting that when a conservative says “their is no such thing as a progressive Christian” all that can be translated to is that if your a liberal your going to hell. It’s just anothe stupid way for conservatives to get people to vote republican.
This isn’t referring to a political party you silly goose.
@@BuiltOnTruth progressive Christian’s are not republicans. It absolutely is in reference to politics 95 percent of the time.
@@123beserk not all left wing Christian’s are progressive lol. Anyways, progressive Christian’s reject the sanctification doctrine and other basic Christian doctrines that should sound the alarm for any disciple of Jesus. The teachings seen in progressive Christianity is the same teachings Jesus, Paul, David, Solomon, John and others warned us to avoid.
@@123beserk
If that were the case then conservative Christians would not exist outside the United States, which plainly isn't true.
And within the US context; you could hardly call (for example) John Piper a progressive Christian, and he wrote an article strongly criticising Trump in 2020 for moral failings, and telling people not to vote for him.
Although I am no fan of the phrase "there is no such thing as a progressive Christian".
However, I would say (like Joshua) that I find the positions of many progressive Christians concerning; and I would also say it can crosses out of the bounds of Christianity more often than Rauser suggests.
Although to be fair, his response was to Alissa Childers; who unfortunately seems to often focus on the less egregious elements of what might be called 'progressive christianity' such as Rob Bell.
@@123beserk
On that note, Lee Strobel and Sean McDowell also strongly criticised Trump, and they were some of the people Rauser mentioned who endorsed Childers' work.