I really hope he presses this liberal pastor on why he’s even a “Christian” (in his own mind). What’s the point? Seems sick to join a religion to try to ruin its most core belief.
@@fighterofthenightman1057 That would seem to me like a satanic attack on the church to change a core tenet of theology. Satan shifts and lies little increments at a time.
I mean literally the list of sins mentioned by St. Paul has homosexuality as one of them. St. Paul mentions Homosexuality as a serious sin in all his letters.
Any church having gay marriage has already accepted the heresy of believing the God of the old testament is a "different evil god" than the one in the new testament. Clips I've seen of gay affirming churches look more like cults than Christian churches. I would not stay with a church that did this. I can't blame people for splitting if they think the alternative is their church no longer preachibf the gospel.
@@infiniteded The odd thing about Redeemed Zoomer's pyramid is that any church having gay marriage has already accepted the heresy of believing the God of the old testament is a "different evil god" than the "good one" in the new testament. Clips I've seen of gay affirming churches look more like cults than Christian churches. I would not stay with a church that did this. I can't blame people for splitting if they think the alternative is their church no longer preaching the gospel.
Eh, I dislike the aesthetics of the globe light style but I very much dislike the light reflection pattern of individual candelabra style bulbs. Overall… I’d give his fan a 5/10
A big issue you seem to have skipped over is the nature of the Eucharist (Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, Representation, what does "real presence" mean, etc.). It's probably a secondary issue, much like infant baptism.
It would go in tertiary I think because it's one of those issues that only matter to higher church dominations. In open communion churches this is just a non-issue.
@@maxxiongThat makes it secondary. The Eucharist is a sacred rite and to deny the physical presence of God in it splits churches because we are no longer in full communion. Even sub-sections of the Anglican churches split off and form sub-sections over the Eucharist and are not in full communion because of transubstantiation. Going back to the days of the ancient Christus cult in Judea and Roman Syria, the Romans heard rumors of a cannibalistic cult who would meet before dawn and eat the flesh of their leader and drink his blood. They misunderstood, but it's clear that it's always been the physical body. It's not symbolic. God himself said whoever eats my human flesh shall have life, and whoever does not eat it, there is no life within you.
Wait are you actually serious if you are don’t feel too bad because I have grown up in a holiness denomination and I’ve heard stories of other holiness churches splitting over women’s hairstyles.
"Im an urbanized New Yorker, ok? I dont do your silly farm things," omg i literally burst out laughing. Another banger from the east coast elitest, sending respect as a midwestern Lutheran. God bless!
LOL, yes me too. As a lifetime dairy farmer, I drank unpasteurized milk my entire life, but my dairy was grade A.You really don't know what you are getting with herd shares.
I wonder how he takes his steak, a disgusting liberal communist medium-rare or actually fully cooked. Dramatization.....I take mine rare, and have no problem with unpasteurized milk if its produced sanitarily.
@Hispanocel Yeah. Everyone went crazy thinking masks would protect them, and no one wanted to work, inflation sky rocketed, and we're still feeling the affects...
The issue of gay marriage stems directly from the view of scripture as authoritative. God has defined marriage in the Bible. It is not in the power of man to redefine it.
RZ is actually a very good debater. Just lost confidence but there’s no shame in losing to dyer he’s one of the best out there. But even against dyer wannabes like Luigi I think you could say he won
It is just way too hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that “you shouldn’t murder babies” is a non-essential Christian belief. I can’t do it. God spend thousands of years trying to break His people of the habit of child sacrifice.
The issue of abortion has to do with wether or not abortion is murder, not if murder is right, and I really wish both sides would realize this. Yes, yes, there are crazies who think it’s murder and still support it. I’m not talking about them.
An example of why it’s non-essential. If someone grew up liberal, supporting abortion, converted, then died in 5 months without the topic coming up, they would die still believing abortion was right. Would that disqualify their salvation? Absolutely not.
Because fundamentally “Lutherans” who are pro choice (eew) and Lutherans who don’t like murder are both in the same tradition. This is in a sense an ecclesiological ranking of issues,it is writer basically from the position of a church body.
@strangerson712 if a woman believed abortion was fine and had one, would she be disqualified from salvation? (I'm just curious because a lot of women are led astray by the dehumanising of unborn children.) Basically if you don't know you're going something wrong, does it count against you?
Think gay marriage is a higher issue than tertiary (just like any sin). One would be hard pressed to be openly affirming of clear sin and also call Jesus their lord. Not to say that Christians are sinless or can’t be in error of course but that we do not call what is good evil and evil good. It is important for us know the context of the gospel, that is why there was a need for the good news in the first place. The question of evolution is quaternary in my view. This doesn’t really affect the primary issues given here or the life and ministry of Jesus. Good video though, appreciate them as always.
I’d say that whatever stance on evolution you have, as long as Jesus has raised from the dead and is God, it is ultimately unimportant as long as you fully believe in the latter. There are way of interpreting Genesis in way that can be excused, on either a literalist or symbolic way. Gay marriage is a blatant disregard of what God the Father and even Jesus have said of marriage.
A church that approves gay marriage is not a Christian church by definition. If we are specifically told this is evil by our Lord and creator, but the body of Christ decides to approve it, they evidence by their works they are not the true church.
Evolution would be quarternary in an ideal situation but many people consider it (or rather, being _against_ it in most cases) as Secondary at least, or even Primary.
@@meteo28 macroevolution isn’t science it’s theoretical at best with little to no evidence. Most other components of evolution are well supported empirically. You could have a young earth creation or an old earth creation and the empirically supported components of evolution can exist in either.
As a Catholic I must clarify: a heretic is a baptised Catholic who is wrong about an important issue, despite knowing the Church teaching on it and who is openly advocating for his wrong opinion. A Baptist for example wouldn’t be a heretic for being against infant baptism, but a Catholic would be.
This is simply the Catholic definition of heresy. To most protestants, anyone exposed to the Gospel is capable of being heretical if they claim Christianity
Actually no, as a catholic this is incorrect. CIC 751 states: Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. Can. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church. As such any baptized Christian can be guilty of heresy.
By your own logic, you absolutely need to move gay marriage up in your pyramid. Same with women's ordination and abortion, things that directly contradict the Bible should be hard lines, period. Bible translations are a big deal also. Some Bibles have translation errors, like the KJV saying "Thou shalt not kill" which is a mistranslation that has a MASSIVE impact on social aspects. "Murder" and "kill" have a specific and distinct differences and they certainly matter.
Homosexual relationships are clearly immoral according to multiple verses in the bible. I don’t know how its a debate in Christianity like Infant baptism is. A society full of baptized infants wouldn’t lead to an extinct human race , homosexually would. So then the Christians would answer to god with shrugged shoulders because they didn’t view it as a “dividing issue”
Yeah. "Sexual confusion is a little troublesome yes, but don't you DARE reject the Nicene Creed!" Come on man, really. Deuteronomy 22:5. Leviticus 20:13. Abomination before the Lord. 1 Timothy 2:12, Ephesians 5:22-24. But you care more about your man-made creeds. Learn this: Christianity is defined by Christ, not by Christians. By God, not popular consensus. (I suppose I should note that Deuteronomy 22:5 is mistranslated in just about every case - it uses two different words for "clothing", and the first would be better translated as "warrior's garb" or some such rather than "men's clothing")
@@ExtratoneRegeneration depends on which side of the Great Schism you land. Most Nicene Creed prints have it in brackets, so you can choose to say or ignore.
Mostly agree, but I don’t agree that women’s ordination should be tertiary. This is not because I think it’s more theologically important than the others as you said, but because it causes schism within the body of people who don’t believe women can consecrate the Lord supper. Whenever you have a body that denies the Lord supper to these people, that is a big enough deal that the church should split over it so that everyone can receive the Lord supper.
He put it in tertiary because his denominarion affirms female pastors while he doesn't, if he had put it in secondary he would need to leave that denomination if he wants to be consistent.
@@Michael-bk5nz I don’t think women pastors are the same level as Arianism actually. It’s a serious error, and disobedient to God, but it doesn’t rise to heresy.
@@TheRoark if women are not eligible for ordination and cannot validly consecrate the Eucharist then potentially millions of will be denied access to the sacraments, this is a very big deal even to most (non-Baptist) Protestants
I don't know about splitting, but given that Paul told the Corinthians to throw out the man who got with his own mother in law I think he would have done the same to anyone promoting homosexuality, and probably abortion too.
@@hiptoalieu Everything should go in the red, especially worship style. God explicitly stated in Deut. 12 that He is to be worshiped according to His instructions instead of human reasoning. That is not negotiable. He specifically told ppl not to deviate from His instructions. Every time Israelites did that, they ended up worshiping false gods, though they deceived themselves into thinking they were worshiping God properly.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779Nah, not everything should go in red. Whether someone believes in Calvinism or Molinism does not have any bearing on whether they enter the Kingdom of Heaven, it’s silly to think otherwise. Also, what verses specifically state that “He is to be worshiped according to His instructions instead of human reasoning?” Genuinely curious.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 deut 12 is talking to a specific group of people in the OT about specific instructions, not for all people across all time. actually read it
3 месяца назад+55
As a young-earth creationist, I agree that it is not important, maybe even for the 4th category. But for me, a church with gay marriage or a church that supports abortion is not a church and I see a bigger problem in that than in Filioque or all other theological fancy things. I do not care if the church is 100% right in theory if it will support immoral stuff in practice.
I see your logic, but you have to consider the bigger historical picture. The first split ever in Church history happened over Filioque. And all different Christians agreed on all of these moral issues throughout history, until the last few decades, which is a small timeframe in the history of the Church. No Christian would ever consider such a marriage permissible until a “few” years ago.
3 месяца назад
@@sebastijan5894 I know, it's really sad. In history, they had not such a problem so they split over "smaller" issues like Oriental and Eastern Orthodox. (Just my opinion, for someone it is the most important)
There are just things that are clearly stated in the bible and there are some about which only science can tell us something, evolution is not really about relligion if you manage to link it somehow with the biblical creation of world, so it shouldn't split christians if it doesn't support atheist world of view. I dont really know what to think about evolution, but its not really important to me if God created the world either way
Thank you for elaborating on the Sola fide point. I've always wondered y u didn't consider it a primary issue but this explanation makes a lot of sense.
It is, so is slavery. But according to his criteria, yes, churches don't split because some of its members and officials agree with abortion or slavery. Churches did split up because of infant baptism. Look at it this way: Secondary issues are THEOLOGICAL issues, most of the tertiary issues aren't (doesn't mean they are less important SOCIETAL issues). He repeated that point like 10 times in this video
Sacramental issues are always of higher importance than issues pertaining to morals and ethics. Baptism is a matter of theology, abortion and other crimes, no matter how horrendous, are merely matters of discipline. You can be anathematized for denying baptism, but only excommunicated for performing/supporting abortion or any other litany of disciplinary violations.
If infant baptism can be a secondary issue, I'd argue that gay marriage and women's ordination should also be secondary issues. Paul relates complementary and hierarchical relationships between men and women to creation, to God, between the Father and the Son, and between Christ and us as a Church (see Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11). From a complementarian perspective, if one argues that these differences don't or shouldn't exist, they are essentially arguing that there isn't, or shouldn't be similar relationships between Christ and the Church, or between the Father and the Son. "This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church" (Eph 5:32)
Too many "and thens" in your argument. To call someone heretic (or, in this case, to say that their theology is absolutely unacceptable) you must debate what the other side believes in, not the beliefs that you think follow from what they believe. Most of those guys would disagree (as you do) with the notion that there shouldn't be differences between Christ and the Church.
The issue with infant baptism is actually that the main positions are either requiring or forbidding infant baptism which are simply incompatible with each other. And the moderating position of viewing infant baptism as improper but not invalid upsets both sides.
I totally agree. This list is completely arbitrary. If the Bible is clear on a topic then there is no need to repeat it 100 times. It is still very important. They are trying to redefine sin. Is that not what being heretic means?
@@leusher9024 Note that as RZ points out, secondary issues would not be heretical, but rather heterodox. I have yet to hear a rationalization of Eph 5:32 as it relates to marriage aside from entirely discounting Paul's words' applicability to today. Given the context of Ephesians 5, I would argue this violates Sola Scriptura, and therefore it becomes a "secondary issue" in RZ's chart, so we're stuck there either way.
He’s literally the Pope What does the church teach about people of other faiths? - US Catholic TLDR by the guy to send me this: It’s basically if you’re religious but not Christian it means you’re trying and that’s good, so you still get a good chance at going to heaven.
@@cherryho9122 My brother in Christ. Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." I pray that Pope Francis, and the church heads of today return to Jesus. The papacy does not seem to be preaching a message of repentance these days: quite the opposite.
Yes. He has multiple times defended that Jesus is the only way to eternal life. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of Francis but the unhinged takes that he is some sort of unitarian universalist communist disguised as a Catholic are not based in reality.
Yeah still less important than holy baptism, “baptism now saves you” and all that. I mean, there are Lutherans that ordain women, and ones that don’t, but there are no Lutherans that teach baptism is a mere symbol.
As a Lutheran myself I have to agree with memeboi here. But also I think peoples' opinions on the middle two tiers will be kind of fluid depending on your denomination.
@@memeboi6017So basically humans are allowed to completely toss out God's law and make up their own? What did God and Jesus say about people who teach others to disobey the law?
I grew up a Baptist. Baptists believe that all Christians were baptized under the great Baptism performed by John the Baptist. Being baptized in the church simply is done a symbolic gesture of your faith to the church congregation. They also don’t believe in baptizing infants. Other denominations believe that baptism goes along with salvation but treat them as separate acts. Usually you are saved and then you are baptized. That’s where the phrase “he’s a good Christian man, been saved and baptized” comes from. This is the vast majority of Christian denominations. Some denominations believe that salvation comes through baptism and that’s it. They’re the same thing. I’d say all that is definitely a cause for a split in the church. Now… ordaining women. Some churches will ordain women as senior pastors, some won’t ordain a woman at all, and the vast majority will ordain women so long as those women are not in a position to minister to adult men in any capacity (the vast majority are following the Bible pretty much spot on). What this means is women can absolutely be a youth pastor, a children’s pastor, an assistant pastor (with limited roles) a women’s pastor, and can even be in charge of an outreach ministry because she wouldn’t be *teaching* adult men just working alongside them. She could not be a senior pastor, a worship leader, or teach any sort of men’s ministry. The best way to rid the church of this at all is to vote these women out of the non-biblical roles rather than splitting the church. Personally, I’m not attending a church that has women in a position to teach me anything but it’s not worth splitting over. Gay marriage, in my opinion, should split a church because I’d personally refuse to ever be part of a church that thought the practice was fine much less perform the ceremony itself. That said, using the logic RZ uses in this video, that conservatives leaving the church would only allow the practice to continue instead of squandering it, I can see why he placed it as a third tier problem. In his logic, it’s like women’s ordination. The best way to rid the church of the practice is to remove the people that support it rather than leaving and allowing them to keep on.
I thought about this a little more. I actually think any person who believes homosexuality is not a sin is outside the universal church. So in that case, I’m thinking gay marriage needs to be at the top.
I completely disagree. Believing sola fide is required for salvation means you don't believe in sola fide, as your imposing a secondary requirement on your salvation, whereas faith is the only requirement. Catholics still have faith that Jesus is their savior, meaning that they are saved, even though they add other requirements I disagree with. Although part of me believes gay marriage should be a secondary issue, I'm not sure as it says in James that he who commits breaks one law is just as guilty as one who breaks the entire law, and people forget that in the same breath Paul condemned homosexuality, he condemned slander which we all do at some point. Now certainly homosexuality is a horrible sin, and I think that a church who affirms it is very wrong, but I think that an individual who affirms doesn't necessarily need to expelled from the church, but I think that someone who commits that sin might should be if given the chance to turn around and they show unwillingness to. For women's ordination, people who make that so important are weird. Like I understand believing against it but making it so important makes no sense to me. I personally believe that women can have any position in the church except as a pastor. The reason for this is because it's clear that the 1 Corinthians passage has been translated wrong and that Paul is actually going against the Corinthians keeping women down, and the 1 Timothy passage needs context to understand what Paul was trying to say. I'm willing to disagree on this as I understand not believing in it but I don't think its overly important. Also I do believe that when Paul lists the requirements in 1 Timothy for being a pastor he more or less exclude women from this. I think there could have been a cultural reason why he would do that which wouldn't apply but I'm more inclined to take it literally.
But why is gay marriage wrong without using the Bible as evidence? If the argument is that marriage is only a thing for people to have children then what about a man and a woman who don’t want children? Or a man and a woman who can’t have children? I’m a Christian but I don’t think gay marriage is wrong. Love is love and if two men or two women want to get married why should the church say no?
@@osbellgarcia7065 Erm, he didn't give an interpretation, how do you know he was quoting it out of context? He might have meant whatever your interpretation of the verse was.
@@IamGrimalkin before that verse there is more teaching of Jesus, saying we have to forgive each other, and when we agree in that he is in that agreement. We need to learn to read our bibles, I can say Jesus wept to is right to cry for anything, no you can't do that, there is background in that test why Jesus wept. Do you understand?
@@osbellgarcia7065 Why do you think scott is denying that? He didn't give an interpretation. Why would you assume someone simply quoting a bible verse means to endorse some interpretation which you disagree with?
@@IamGrimalkin Christ was clearly referring to how judicial matters ought to be handled in His Church. He was definitely NOT supporting or preaching the idea that 2 or 3 Christians could study the Bible together without a qualified minister or teacher. "Christians" like to weaponize this statement into saying it, but the context clearly doesn't support it.
Actually, the Filioque was probably a secondary issue at the time. Beards and leaven seem to have been more important. (And I don't think, from where I sit, that they should be anywhere near that level.)
@@jdotozEastern Catholic here - no we don't, we just don't think the Filioque is heretical. Different theology but shouldn't be big enough to break the Church.
Hey RZ. You should do a video on proper Christian attire. Should women wear head coverings? Are some items of clothing too casual (or too formal) for Church. What are thoughts/opinions on jeans?
Women are wearing head coverings when prophet and praying. Another thing about what clothes in the Bible said is that it has to be modest. And you cannot wear the other gender clothing. If you are women wear women jeans if you're a man wear man jeans no vice versa.
@@thatsauce882 Everyone agrees that clothes should be modest. The problem is that people have often have different interpretations of what it means to be dressed modestly. This why dress codes are so useful, they eliminate guesswork and potential conflict.
@@Condr324 follow your interpretation of modest then. Because height can influence your clothes example; if you are wearing short shorts and your height is 4'2-5'4 it is least likely to be called Immodest compared to someone who is above that height. There is a school book story about a girl who was tall and her clothes that were once looked modest are Immodest because of her height (bare with me here). The clothes that once fit her when she was smaller looked modest compared to her now height. Unfortunately she faced scrutiny by her teachers. The clothes didn't get smaller. It was her height getting taller. [I will find that story for you]. Moral of this is to dress your height & weight. Because it can affect how you look. Also find a personalized style.
2:24 Fighting over what kind of coffee to drink is a perfect example of a Quaternary issue...that's fought between heretics who reject the Truth of Tea Drinking.
I'm anti abortion but pro capital punishment, some people would say that is murder. Obviously the two aren't equivalent, but consider that abortion is sometimes more nuanced than just murder (though it often is) for example, women who conceive an ectopic pregnancy MUST get an abortion or they WILL die and the baby will also. Technically that's an abortion and most pro life people are fine with that, but I have met people who are SO pro life that they would say it's even murder then and that the mother should die rather than get the necessary medical intervention. I don't think it's black and white all abortion is good or all abortion is evil, that's why it's tertiary.
Another Quaternary issue a lot of conservative Christians get hung up on is what type of music Christians should and shouldn't listen to in private. Like "You shouldn't listen to heavy metal, it's all Satanic" or "All rap music is about gangbanging and drugs". My belief is that God cares more about the lyrical themes rather than the genre. There are thousands of Christian heavy metal bands spanning every Metal Subgenre from Power Metal to Black Metal. Stryker, Antestor, etc. It's the same with rap. There are a lot of Christian rappers. There are also a lot of metal bands that don't touch religious topics and instead sing about topics like history, emotions, fantasy, etc. Heck, if we are judging the genre as a whole, then Christians shouldn't listen to Country or Pop either. A lot of Country and Pop music can be as filthy or even filthier than most Rap and Metal. Obviously, Christians shouldn't listen to music that openly blasphemes God or promotes a sinful lifestyle. And obviously I am not saying we should be singing rap or metal for worship during church. But not everyone likes hymns or choir music. God made us all different, that includes our musical taste.
This is an awesome explanation. I almost entirely agree with each of these placements. People don't understand the idea of maintaining unity in spite of doctrinal disagreements. Even with disagreements on something as big as abortion or slavery, we need to stay committed to our churches
My ELCA congregation prevented me from attending over the vaxxine. As a result of that I committed to never going back to that church, despite it being where I grew up in.
Your pyramid of importance reflects an unconventional liberal perspective. In my view, the issues you categorize as tertiary should indeed cause a division within the Church. Any kind of communion with a church that endorses same-sex marriage, ordains women, and adopts modern worship styles compromises the truth of the gospel. Additionally, I regard the teachings on Holy Baptism and the Eucharist as of paramount significance for anyone professing to be a Christian (secondary matter).
The issue with your opinion is you associate almost EVERY thing in the green with what SHOULD be (according to Christian doctrine) in the yellow or honestly the red. Seriously man, SINGING the Gospel accompanied by a Worship Band, some Synths, Lyrics on a screen, and a couple of Moving Lights…doesn’t compromise the Gospel truths!
Whose teaching do you refer to? You didn't make it clear whether or not you correctly understand the biblical basis and intention of Christian baptism and Holy Communion. Are these sacramental issues worthy of study, discernment and discussion? Of course they are. However, why don't we just agree that both are important for believers to practice and leave it for the Lord to judge our hearts and faithfulness, rather than appointing ourselves to pass judgement on other believers.
@@nerdkidd05 Sin does not take people to Hell unless we refuse Christ as our way out. We believe in Christ and that seals our fate, positively, for Heaven.
@@Marinanor Unless that sin actively means denying Christ. You might not agree with a doctrine of mortal sin, but some sins definitely come with neglecting Christ's gospel and its truth. Sodomy is one of these sins. 1 John 5:16 is a clear expression of what I just said
As a whole, I agree with most of the pyramid. The only thing I disagree with is Worship Style. When it comes down to it worship style is a matter of preference as long as the worship is done to God. While I personally do agree that modern Christian music often sucks, it's still worshiping God and has the intention of spreading the love and word of God. At its heart, worship is worship as long as it is bringing glory to God and within the morals set about by the Bible. Yes, have your preference, but singing hymns vs. contemporary worship music is completely theologically unimportant.
I see in the comments a lot of arguments about tertiary issues. What were tertiary issues made me actively avoid the church for decades, until the creeping feeling of a spiritual hole in my life got me looking for a church to attend again. Realizing that one can still be Christian and disagree on those tertiary issues, and finding a church that aligned with my beliefs has made me a happier person, and much more spiritually fulfilled. (My parents never quite fully approved of my new church, but their beliefs over those tertiary issues had drifted from the faith they raised me in. They were happy I was at least attending a church, any church, again.)
I agree with you. I think his example of what mattered in the 17th century didn't land as well/ was ignored because folks don't attach any modern/ relevant meaning to it. Another example I would give is: do you think (opposing) euthanasia is as important as believing sola fide? Most people would ultimately say no. Euthanasia and abortion divide people heavily on almost the same exact arguments. Abortion just has a ton of public policy since the 1970s backing it, while euthanasia doesn't. I'm not saying neither are extremely important, though I think the examples used can help or hurt the viewer's comprehension.
@@aperson4057 I think they were being facetious and making a joke. RZ said that he didn't not think these items were important about 50x. Nobody could miss it.
3:32 You are wrong about this! Eastern Orthodoxy and the Latin church take "proceed" to mean different things; greek "ἐκπορευόμενον" essentially implies that the Holy spirit came from the father as a matter of immediate creation while the western "procedit" implies a more active description of how it works in the world. This would be "προϊέναι" in Greek. This is at its core a linguistic issue more so than a theological one.
There was a small split in the Church of Scotland because of the issue of Women's and Gay ordination and they formed the Didasko Churches. In 2009, on the way to the General Assembly God crippled our minister's hip like He did to Jacob. After being carried across the road, our minister stood up in general assembly to bring the 'Complaint and Dissent' against the Presbytery. The issue was the ordination of Gays and women, our minister brought forward the biblical case against the ordinations. The Assembly said "We know that the bible is against the ordinations of woman and gays, but we now know better.". It is very sad to now that after ordination of a gay minister that church split and many churches in the presbytery have closed down and a good chunk of the churches have been sold. Just as our minister has been crippled the Church of Scotland has been as well, because they decided that they know better, and many of Godly churches of the presbytery where shut down leaving the dying liberal churches.
Hey man! Your channel has brought me deeper into my faith as a Catholic. I can't wait for you to convert! It will be great to have a mind like yours inside the Church. Never let the haters get to you. You're braver than 99% of the people who try to put you down in any way. Stay honest, stay true to yourself, keep pursuing truth. God bless you.
11:00 “Contradicts all historical Christian teaching” Hey Zoomer, it’d be cool if you focused more on the Bible rather than tradition. Tradition is super important, but it can be wrong. With something as clear as marriage, maybe go to the Bible and say it contradicts the Bible, not historic Christian teaching. It just shows priorities.
@Sm64wii Slight counterpoint, the Pharisees. They're a prime example of abusing adherence to tradition in order to fuel their self-righteous ego and hypocrisy. As Jesus put it, "straining a gnat and swallowing a camel", to hold those they see as lesser to the strict edicts, while constantly breaking those same rules and justifying it because they're better.
@@Sm64wii First comment deleted. Counterargument, the Pharisees. They used adherence to tradition as an excuse and way to act like they were better than others. And Jesus called them out on that a lot.
In this day and age...the tertiary issues have become the church-splitters...because they are vital and critical to the survival of the Christian faith. Sorry brother but I disagree with this pyramid.
As a member of a Christian Reformed Church which is trying to stay conservative, I am very proud of my denomination's leadership taking the hard conservative stance on human sexuality.
Zoomer does not agree with the Bible. A deacon is to be a man of one wife. This is not like the infant baptism debate because the Bible is extremely clear and direct on deacon qualification.
I’m a traditional LCMS Lutheran. I disagree with some of your theology but bro, I love your videos and appreciate the time and effort you put into this stuff. It’s all so important.
As a Catholic, my instinct is to say most of these are primary lmao but our definition of heresy is a bit different, for Catholics you cannot disagree on an issue such as gay marriage or sex protection as it makes you a heretic. (This doesn't apply to protestants)
@@StewForTheGospelno I’m saying I’ve heard from both catholic and orthodox in debates that filioque is not an actual issue. Eastern Catholics don’t even recite the Filioque.
The filioque is an issue and did get resolved at the council of Florence, by saying the spirit proceeds thru the son. The Catholic Church already had too much political power at that point and decided the didn’t want to unionize
please help redeemed zoomer my entire family is atheist besides one person and I have a “christian” in my family but she’s gay and trans and I’m trying to go to a normal church with the family but they are all lgbtq churches and my mom is forcing me to support lgbtq and im tryna tell her that i respect it but I don’t support it because I can’t support sinn
If you don't support the LGBTQ movement, you're supporting a genocide. You can be a Christian while still respecting human rights. Homosexuality isn't even a sin lol
That situation you are in is rough. Just know that you are doing the right thing by respecting them as human beings of God. Keep on praying my guy, and remember to pray for them as well so that God may show them the truth as well. Keep strong
Does the Bible spell out “primary issues”, “secondary issues”, “tertiary issues”, and “quaternary issue”? Is there a verse that teaches something along the lines of “God hates divorce, but this is a tertiary issue, so feel to disagree” or perhaps “I Peter teach that baptism now saves you, but you can disagree with me, this is only a secondary issue” Because otherwise this whole endeavor seems made up. Granted, I already know it made up because issues such as female ordination and sexual morality keep getting moved further down the pyramid.
Women's ordination and Gay marriage should go into the primary issues section. 1 Cor 6:9-10 tells us that if a church approves of gay marriage then it's a false "Chruch". In the same way, 1 Tim 2 & 3 proves that if a Church allows Women's ordination then it's apostate because gender roles in the Church and family are a primary issue which is the reason why egalitarianism is a damnable heresy. When it comes to distinguishing the differences in issues, I just sort them into salvation issues and secondary issues. Salvation issues are essential doctrines and secondary issues are areas where we can have different views on and still be true Christians.
Actually among damnable heresies homosexual activities would come as it's listed in the types of sins that would not allow you enter heaven but Female ordination is forbidden without any penalty mentioned
@@FromElsewhear What I was saying is that 1 For 6:9-10 condemns the sin of homosexuality. As for the issue on church roles, 1 Timothy 2 & 3 gives us guidelines as to how a Church is supposed to be operated and that applies today and not just back then. Because of this, the topic of gender roles in the Church and family is a primary issue and therefore a non-negotiable issue. Context is key when it comes to studying scripture. On the other hand, an issue like when the rapture takes place is a negotiable issue because we can have different views on the rapture as that one topic is a secondary issue.
@@CreationForeverMinistries In Heaven, there will be no church or marriage, but there will be a trinity and divine Jesus. That alone puts them lower than the top.
im literally so happy theology is my special interest and im autistic and redeemed zoomer is my fave theology ytber and the reason for my special interest in the first place
But why is the Nicean creed important at all? Why is the trinity important? Who articulated these things and why does their interpretation matter at all?
Because it goes against the Catholic Church whose primary purpose is to convert all people however necessary to their religion. Always has been, always will be. The truth is that the only thing that matters to make you a Christian is that you believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and that his is also God. Hence the words from the thief on the cross: “Remember me as you go into YOUR kingdom.” That, and obviously that Jesus rose from the dead. Don’t let these catholic sympathizers confuse you. Catholicism IS BIBLICALLY heretical. They falsely claim Peter to be their founder, and turned him into an idol, going against the second commandment. Not just with Peter, but with all the “Saints”. They are FUNDAMENTALLY idolaters. Do not be deceived. They are of their father the devil, the same as the church in Jesus’s time. No REAL difference.
This video is a reflection of how important church splits are to you. It’s not that Tertiary issues are not that important, it’s just that church unity is more important than tertiary issues.
A short lesson in Greek for you: Whenever kurios precedes a name it ALWAYS means "master" or "sir", and in the context of Jewish culture it means "rabbi". So the notion that context supports "Lord Jesus" or "Jesus is Lord" being a claim to deity is completely baseless. In exactly the same way me calling you Mr. Redeemed Zoomer is not claiming you are God, neither Paul or any of the other apostles ever claimed that Jesus was God. They all called him Master and Teacher. This should also be especially obvious when the actual context is that Jesus is specifically declared to be the "Son of God" over 43 times in the Bible and there are zero verses where he claims to be God.
“neither Paul nor any of the other apostles ever claimed that Jesus was God” This statement is objectively false. “and there are zero verses where he claims to be God.” As is this.
@@DarkBlade37 John 8:58 the context supports a claim to existence, not deity. John 20:28 the context supports the title of Master here as well, not a claim to deity. Revelation 1:17 once again the context supports a claim to existence, not deity. There are zero verses where Jesus claimed to be God, but a multitude of passages explaining that Jesus actually prayed to God.
Other tertiary issues: polygamy, abortion, nature of the Eucharist, & aesthetics. A point of clarity for people saying some of the tertiary issues should be secondary: I believe that what he means is that you could still fellowship with someone who *believes* that those things are okay, not necessarily that they themselves practice them.
The Eucharist, polygamy and abortion are absolutely primary. Transubstantiation allows Catholics to worship God physically within The Tabernacle; can the protestants say the same?
I thought it was well done. I would have put gay marriage in the secondary group as it is such a denial of the definition of marriage in the Bible. Yes, our church left MCUSA over that.
Opinions on gay marriage are a result of differing metaphysics/ eschatologies. All of which are important and often, but do not always, split the church. Putting them imo into the tertiary category.
Hello! Catholic here, just got back from Mass and Bible study, and I have a question. When you put Sola Scriptura in the secondary tier, of and elaborate that "we" (I'm not sure if you mean your denomination, your particular lineage in the Reformed Calvinist tradition, or Protestants as a whole) mean the Bibles not alone, but tue highest authority. If that's the case to your belief, why do you continue to say Sola Scriptura rather than Prima Scriptura, or scripture first/scripture primarily? Why do you hold onto a term that doesn't seem to accurately articulate your beliefs? It's not an understanding of Sola Scriptura that completely aligns with my close Lutheran Friend's understanding, which by his articulation sounds closer to the literal meaning of Sola in sola Scriptura, while also not completely unrelegating biblical interpretation like some evangelicals.
his articulation is the original meaning/definition of sola scriptura. Incidentally, as a Lutheran myself, your friend should probably hold to this "prima" scriptura formulation you described as that is our historic position (Lutherans came up "sola scriptura" originally). unfortunately the American protestant churches are so influenced by the cultural dominance of baptist and pentecostals that the original meaning of sola scriptura has become "me and my bible" to most people, when it really should always have been the primacy of the authority of scripture over but not excluding the other sources of authority such as tradition as a guide to proper interpretation of that supreme authority.
He stated in one of his video that the Bible isn't the only authority, but it's the only INFALLIBLE authority. So in a sense he does literally believe in scripture alone
Sola Scriptura always meant that. Nuda Scriptura is where you only follow the bible (or pretend to, I don't think true Nuda Scriptura is really possible as you need external sources to interpret words). Prima Scriptura is sometimes used as a synonym for Sola Scriptura; but sometimes means that Scripture is *mostly* the final authority, but *sometimes* is trumped by other sources. The latter position is rejected by Sola Scriptura advocates.
Why is it wrong? Can you justify gay marriage being prohibited without using the Bible? If not, then why is it wrong? They way I see it, love is love and why should the church get in the way of that.
@@John-hy6qz Yes, because marriage is defined as a man and a woman anything else is not marriage. Jesus said to remain married and sex outside marriage is fornication. If the Bible isn't your supreme authority, why are you a Christian? The issue is really what authority are you under?
Well, isn't this about people who are Christian? If it's about laws in countries, there probably is a way to give legal permissions to people you would consider a "romantic partner" without it having to be called "Marriage", and Churches shouldn't be forced to perform a "gay marriage". I'm not a fan of the "love is love" mantra because now it's used to justify even incest, so it's meaningless to me.
Great video! But as a Catholic, theres a few things I would disagree with. 1. If someone doesn't believe tier 1 issues, maybe they were Christian in like the 3rd century AD, but in modern times, if you reject any tier 1 stuff, you're not even a heretic, you're just flat out not Christian. 2. Catholics would split the 2nd tier into two separate tiers. Sola Scriptura is a major issue, and is something that would make you a heretic to the Catholic Church. Rejecting the Filioque is barely even a problem anymore, and along with papal infallibility and diaphysitism/miaphysitism/monophysitism is something that would make you *schismatic/hereterodox* if you disagreed. 3. Bible version matters a lot, specifically making sure you're using a Catholic Church approved version like the NRSV. The KJV is a heretical Bible to Catholics. 4. Finally, I think you misrepresented some Catholic standpoints. We don't believe that Tradition and the Magisterium are above the Bible, but that they are all equally important. We also don't believe that tradition and the Magisterium are important because the Church made the Bible, but because the Bible doesn't say everything we need to believe, and stuff that the Church Fathers said that we believe to be true doesn't come out of the Bible, but from Tradition and the Magisterium.
I disagree with 2/3 primary and all Secondary issues. (I'm ready for the dogpile). Reason being is that I know that the Church Christ established was Restored (rather than preserved as Catholicism claims). A Catholic Opinion.-Many years ago there came to Salt Lake City a learned doctor of divinity, a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I became well acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen, languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy, and was never weary of displaying his vast erudition. One day he said to me: “You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. If we are wrong, they are wrong with us, for they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we really have, as we claim, the apostolic succession from St. Peter, there was no need for Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days.” The Catholic theologian’s name is John A. Reiner. The source is Orson F. Whitney’s autobiography, Through Memory’s Halls: The Life Story of Orson F. Whitney, as Told by Himself (Independence, MO: Zion’s Printing and Publishing Company, 1930), 222-23
Miaphysitism/monophysitism was anathematized by Chalcedon, an anathema means you're completely cut off from the Church, they are not Christians; just as Iconoclasts are not Christians. You can't be subject to any of the anathemas of the Ecumenical Councils and remain a Christian, you're just a heathen at that point.
Some of the most fun I ever had: when I had to live for a short time in rural Southern California, we joined aKJV-only church. During the new member class, I continued using my NASB and Amplified Bibles, so the church gave me a book about why the KJV is the only inspired translation. I read it and marked it up, highlighting all of the factual errors it made. I then listed several poorly translated passages and then took the previous month’s worth of sermons from our pastor, took every time he gave a definition of aKJV word, and showed how the NASB translated that word in the same way the pastor did. I don’t know if anyone read that copy after I returned it, but I still enjoyed the exercise.
Honestly, I think Bible translate should at least be a tertiary issue. I know most of them are accurate enough and so I don’t care that much, BUT there are some pretty bad ones out there, like any of the translations that take out the concept of the Trinity or the virgin birth
I don’t think the goal of contemporary music is to “not sound like church music” but rather to make worship music available to anyone at any time. Many aren’t singing angelic church hymns or chants on a casual afternoon, not everyone has that vocal range to do it and the fact of the matter is most of the time it’s reserved for the church choir on Sundays. But why? We should be able to sing worship song at any time, and not just those with choir vocal range, anyone should be able to sing worship songs, I think that’s where contemporary music comes In. It gives every member the opportunity to join In unity and sing for the Lord. I agree traditional hymns sound beautiful and angelic, but worship should go beyond pretty sounds
I don't agree with the assumption that worship style is unimportant. The question is how God wants to be worshipped and if he wants to be worshipped liturgically, then non-liturgical worship is a sin.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 I wasn’t referring to worship service clearly, I was referring to a literal casual afternoon at home where you decide to sing worship music, it doesn’t have to be reserved for church
@@webjev430 No, it isn't, worship is about God, not man, it is about what we give to God, not what we get out of it or whether we "enjoy" it. This is why, before the First Great Awakening in the 18th century, when evangelicals started introducing the Revival and informal worship, all Christians in the West used a liturgical style of worship which was a reform of the Mass, even today the Mainline Protestant denominations still base their worship on the Mass, although this time the 1969 Novus Ordo Mass
Except we can't agree on what issues are minor. Like look at RZ's third tier. Women's ordination? The possible consequences of getting that wrong run from "we don't recognize them but they aren't our leaders so it's okay" to "they have no authority and the sacraments they attempt to celebrate are worse than nothing." Marriage? Get this wrong and you're either depriving people of living a legitimate vocation or encouraging one of the sins that cry to Heaven.
@@jdotoz can't even agree on what issues are primary and fundamental. Gavin Ortlund and RZ have different lists for what the core doctrines that you absolutely must have to be a non-heretical Christian are.
@@jdotoz "For where two or three gather together in My name, there am I with them.” - Matthew 18:20. Lazy chatty Christians must grasp that "winning debates" is not a goal. Real world Christians - a whopping 1/3 of the global population - run more Law Schools and Medical Schools than any government on earth.
Hey 18 year old reformed Presbyterian here I go to a church lead by a female pastor, I'm against it, but my parents are forcing me to go I'm asking how should l feel at that church How should I feel towards the female pastor should I disregard everything she says and does as null and void or what...
I knew of one church that literally split over a piece of chicken… Definitely not ALL issues. But if something is written in the Bible then it absolutely IS a primary issue 💯!
Bible translation can be a huge issue and also reflective of deeper underlying problems, it is at least Tertiary issue if not Secondary, for Sola Scriptura to mean anything, you gotta have proper Scriptura that reflects the Church tradition/Holy Spirit inspiration from the earlier days
I listened to your reasoning but, women’s ordination and gay marriage are absolutely higher. It’s not giving over to them to split … allowing it is tacit acceptance. God destroyed while cities for this. I would not attend a church that upheld these beliefs… i believe it is important enough for that.
Hmmm well…Tertiary on a church level, on a personal level more important. See my problem with Free Grace theology is simply that too much of the focus gets taken OFF of repentance and actually confessing our sins to Jesus. Now here’s something that should be said, Elevation Worship Songs actually DO talk about repentance and actually one of their newer songs (which is a TOTAL BOP BTW) actually talks about the 3rd Commandment!😎🤣🙌🏼✝️
If they deny the resurrection are they even a Christian at that point. Thats kinda the main reason why even believes he is the Messiah.
“And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.”
1 Corinthians 15:17 NIV
Yes. Its similar to denying the virgin birth in that regard.
I really hope he presses this liberal pastor on why he’s even a “Christian” (in his own mind). What’s the point? Seems sick to join a religion to try to ruin its most core belief.
@@Condr324what is so hard to believe about a virgin having a child? Modern medicine can do it now why couldn't the Holy Spirit then?
@@fighterofthenightman1057 That would seem to me like a satanic attack on the church to change a core tenet of theology. Satan shifts and lies little increments at a time.
"We are saved by faith in Christ alone, not by faith in faith alone alone"
-redeemed zoomer
Gay marriage has split almost every church that has adopted it
BASED OPINION
I mean literally the list of sins mentioned by St. Paul has homosexuality as one of them. St. Paul mentions Homosexuality as a serious sin in all his letters.
Any church having gay marriage has already accepted the heresy of believing the God of the old testament is a "different evil god" than the one in the new testament. Clips I've seen of gay affirming churches look more like cults than Christian churches. I would not stay with a church that did this. I can't blame people for splitting if they think the alternative is their church no longer preachibf the gospel.
@@infiniteded The odd thing about Redeemed Zoomer's pyramid is that any church having gay marriage has already accepted the heresy of believing the God of the old testament is a "different evil god" than the "good one" in the new testament. Clips I've seen of gay affirming churches look more like cults than Christian churches. I would not stay with a church that did this. I can't blame people for splitting if they think the alternative is their church no longer preaching the gospel.
Im shocked gay marriage is not in primary issues, it goes against what the Bible teaches literally
Nice ceiling fan bro
Bro has bro in every comment
It's his halo 😐
Eh, I dislike the aesthetics of the globe light style but I very much dislike the light reflection pattern of individual candelabra style bulbs.
Overall…
I’d give his fan a 5/10
A big issue you seem to have skipped over is the nature of the Eucharist (Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, Representation, what does "real presence" mean, etc.). It's probably a secondary issue, much like infant baptism.
right, I forgot that one
Definitely a secondary issue. It’s one of the issues that split the Protestants into the Lutherans and the Reformed.
It would go in tertiary I think because it's one of those issues that only matter to higher church dominations. In open communion churches this is just a non-issue.
@maxxiong Historically in Christianity it has been a big issue, so in the grandscheme of things it would be atleast secondary
@@maxxiongThat makes it secondary. The Eucharist is a sacred rite and to deny the physical presence of God in it splits churches because we are no longer in full communion. Even sub-sections of the Anglican churches split off and form sub-sections over the Eucharist and are not in full communion because of transubstantiation. Going back to the days of the ancient Christus cult in Judea and Roman Syria, the Romans heard rumors of a cannibalistic cult who would meet before dawn and eat the flesh of their leader and drink his blood. They misunderstood, but it's clear that it's always been the physical body. It's not symbolic. God himself said whoever eats my human flesh shall have life, and whoever does not eat it, there is no life within you.
as a catholic, i've learned a lot about christianity with this channel, God bless.
Check out Father Mike Schmitz if you're Catholic. I'm Anglican/Episcopal and I just have to avoid Redeemed Zoomer's Calvinist theology.
@@ExaltedLambWho is he?
@@veryangryduckpl2122A priest that is popular with the youth, and has videos about different subjects within Christianity/Catholicism
@@ExaltedLamb Agreed
@@ExaltedLamb
I am an augustinian-thomist Anglo-Catholic and his Calvinism has just to be tweeked in some places.
I'm Independent Baptist. We've been known to split over the color of toilet paper. 😢
Wait are you actually serious if you are don’t feel too bad because I have grown up in a holiness denomination and I’ve heard stories of other holiness churches splitting over women’s hairstyles.
@@Primrose2004
In essentials, unity, in non essentials liberty, in all things charity lol
3ply pillowy soft toilet paper is the work of the devil!
@@soundthealarm83 LOL I love it. I cant stand those thin sheeted toilet papers that they have in schools and public washrooms.
Prots being prots.
"Im an urbanized New Yorker, ok? I dont do your silly farm things," omg i literally burst out laughing. Another banger from the east coast elitest, sending respect as a midwestern Lutheran. God bless!
LOL, yes me too. As a lifetime dairy farmer, I drank unpasteurized milk my entire life, but my dairy was grade A.You really don't know what you are getting with herd shares.
@@oldfarmerboy4158 Unpasteurised milk‽ Seems like heresy! /j
I wonder how he takes his steak, a disgusting liberal communist medium-rare or actually fully cooked.
Dramatization.....I take mine rare, and have no problem with unpasteurized milk if its produced sanitarily.
Hey I hope you are having a good day just wanted to let you know not to use “omg” as it is using the Lord’s name in vain. Have a good day ❤️
@@nicolozkhamashuridze36 Fair enough, i managed to stop staying it, but im far too used to typing it out. I definitely need to work on that.
“In 2020 there was a very big medical event” 😂
Hmm. Do you know anything about it?
@@graaaby I can’t say man, it was a very big medical event
@Hispanocel Yeah. Everyone went crazy thinking masks would protect them, and no one wanted to work, inflation sky rocketed, and we're still feeling the affects...
Yeah. There were unnecessary masks, unemployment, and inflation...no wait the inflation is still here...
It is pretty bad that those ungodly imbeciles at RUclips have managed to control our discourse.
The video was going well until RZ pronounced “coffee” as KWAUFFEE
Hey HEY Im walkin' here!
We need to split the church about this
💀
At least he didn't call it covfefe
Are you mad you’re not a New Yorker
It's the Lord's day, went to church, spiritually received Christ at the Lord's table and now redeemed zoomer posts, sounds like an amazing day!
Saaaame
Literally my day rn plus youth group at 5 later lol
@@jaddee4273 same but at 6
@@jaddee4273 we have that at 4 on Saturdays
I didn't and I felt bad about it, I wanted to go but have my exams going on today, although I went after the service for this quiz we had today.
The issue of gay marriage stems directly from the view of scripture as authoritative. God has defined marriage in the Bible. It is not in the power of man to redefine it.
"im done with debating"
"very soon im going to be debating a theologically liberal pastor"
Come on man
It’s impossible to lose lol
RZ is actually a very good debater. Just lost confidence but there’s no shame in losing to dyer he’s one of the best out there. But even against dyer wannabes like Luigi I think you could say he won
He was referring to debating ecclesiasts
I mean I'm done debating other CHRISTIANS
He said he wouldn't do protestant apologetics, not he wouldn't debate
It is just way too hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that “you shouldn’t murder babies” is a non-essential Christian belief. I can’t do it.
God spend thousands of years trying to break His people of the habit of child sacrifice.
The issue of abortion has to do with wether or not abortion is murder, not if murder is right, and I really wish both sides would realize this.
Yes, yes, there are crazies who think it’s murder and still support it. I’m not talking about them.
An example of why it’s non-essential. If someone grew up liberal, supporting abortion, converted, then died in 5 months without the topic coming up, they would die still believing abortion was right. Would that disqualify their salvation? Absolutely not.
Because fundamentally “Lutherans” who are pro choice (eew) and Lutherans who don’t like murder are both in the same tradition. This is in a sense an ecclesiological ranking of issues,it is writer basically from the position of a church body.
@strangerson712 if a woman believed abortion was fine and had one, would she be disqualified from salvation? (I'm just curious because a lot of women are led astray by the dehumanising of unborn children.)
Basically if you don't know you're going something wrong, does it count against you?
I feel that way about Homosexual marriages in churches.
Think gay marriage is a higher issue than tertiary (just like any sin). One would be hard pressed to be openly affirming of clear sin and also call Jesus their lord. Not to say that Christians are sinless or can’t be in error of course but that we do not call what is good evil and evil good.
It is important for us know the context of the gospel, that is why there was a need for the good news in the first place.
The question of evolution is quaternary in my view. This doesn’t really affect the primary issues given here or the life and ministry of Jesus.
Good video though, appreciate them as always.
This is my opinion to, same with the abortion issue. I would put it secondary at the bare minimum.
I’d say that whatever stance on evolution you have, as long as Jesus has raised from the dead and is God, it is ultimately unimportant as long as you fully believe in the latter. There are way of interpreting Genesis in way that can be excused, on either a literalist or symbolic way. Gay marriage is a blatant disregard of what God the Father and even Jesus have said of marriage.
A church that approves gay marriage is not a Christian church by definition. If we are specifically told this is evil by our Lord and creator, but the body of Christ decides to approve it, they evidence by their works they are not the true church.
Evolution would be quarternary in an ideal situation but many people consider it (or rather, being _against_ it in most cases) as Secondary at least, or even Primary.
@@meteo28 macroevolution isn’t science it’s theoretical at best with little to no evidence. Most other components of evolution are well supported empirically. You could have a young earth creation or an old earth creation and the empirically supported components of evolution can exist in either.
As a Catholic I must clarify: a heretic is a baptised Catholic who is wrong about an important issue, despite knowing the Church teaching on it and who is openly advocating for his wrong opinion.
A Baptist for example wouldn’t be a heretic for being against infant baptism, but a Catholic would be.
This is simply the Catholic definition of heresy. To most protestants, anyone exposed to the Gospel is capable of being heretical if they claim Christianity
That creates a problem, doesn't it? It seems to imply there is no difference between an Orthodox or Baptist and a Muslim.
@@lc9991xone can still believe heresy, but wouldn’t be a heretic
Actually no, as a catholic this is incorrect. CIC 751 states:
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Can. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.
As such any baptized Christian can be guilty of heresy.
@@michaelkistner6286 Historically, the Catholic church would generally condemn Orthodox and Baptist as worse than a Muslim.
By your own logic, you absolutely need to move gay marriage up in your pyramid. Same with women's ordination and abortion, things that directly contradict the Bible should be hard lines, period. Bible translations are a big deal also. Some Bibles have translation errors, like the KJV saying "Thou shalt not kill" which is a mistranslation that has a MASSIVE impact on social aspects. "Murder" and "kill" have a specific and distinct differences and they certainly matter.
The kjv has the "proper" translation in Matthew 19:18 so it's not that huge of a deal.
Agreed- the KJV also pusposefully mistranslated Junia to be a man to affirm women shouldn’t hold positions of authority or rank in the church
Homosexual relationships are clearly immoral according to multiple verses in the bible. I don’t know how its a debate in Christianity like Infant baptism is. A society full of baptized infants wouldn’t lead to an extinct human race , homosexually would. So then the Christians would answer to god with shrugged shoulders because they didn’t view it as a “dividing issue”
Yeah.
"Sexual confusion is a little troublesome yes, but don't you DARE reject the Nicene Creed!"
Come on man, really. Deuteronomy 22:5. Leviticus 20:13. Abomination before the Lord. 1 Timothy 2:12, Ephesians 5:22-24. But you care more about your man-made creeds. Learn this: Christianity is defined by Christ, not by Christians. By God, not popular consensus.
(I suppose I should note that Deuteronomy 22:5 is mistranslated in just about every case - it uses two different words for "clothing", and the first would be better translated as "warrior's garb" or some such rather than "men's clothing")
@@nlytnlyt6644They can't have authority what so ever. Paul explains this by saying it was women who sinned first
I agree with Rupertus Meldenius,
"In essentials unity,
in nonessentials liberty, and
in all things charity."
@@georgemonnatjr.172 Sure. So what's essential?
The question is what falls in each category.
@@Steelblaidd short answer is Nicene Creed
@@georgemonnatjr.172 sooo errr... that includes the Filioque issue right?
@@ExtratoneRegeneration depends on which side of the Great Schism you land. Most Nicene Creed prints have it in brackets, so you can choose to say or ignore.
This is the best presentation of heresy vs heterodoxy vs other disagreements I've seen. Great job!
Mostly agree, but I don’t agree that women’s ordination should be tertiary. This is not because I think it’s more theologically important than the others as you said, but because it causes schism within the body of people who don’t believe women can consecrate the Lord supper. Whenever you have a body that denies the Lord supper to these people, that is a big enough deal that the church should split over it so that everyone can receive the Lord supper.
He put it in tertiary because his denominarion affirms female pastors while he doesn't, if he had put it in secondary he would need to leave that denomination if he wants to be consistent.
Women's ordination is definitely primary
@@Michael-bk5nz I don’t think women pastors are the same level as Arianism actually. It’s a serious error, and disobedient to God, but it doesn’t rise to heresy.
@@TheRoark if women are not eligible for ordination and cannot validly consecrate the Eucharist then potentially millions of will be denied access to the sacraments, this is a very big deal even to most (non-Baptist) Protestants
@@Michael-bk5nz VERY big deal. Just like disagreements on baptism, it is a serious issue for the church.
I don't know about splitting, but given that Paul told the Corinthians to throw out the man who got with his own mother in law I think he would have done the same to anyone promoting homosexuality, and probably abortion too.
(EXACTLY) Worship Style goes in the BLUE (there’s other stuff that needs to go higher to ACTUALLY align with Biblical teachings!!)
@@hiptoalieu Everything should go in the red, especially worship style. God explicitly stated in Deut. 12 that He is to be worshiped according to His instructions instead of human reasoning. That is not negotiable. He specifically told ppl not to deviate from His instructions. Every time Israelites did that, they ended up worshiping false gods, though they deceived themselves into thinking they were worshiping God properly.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779Nah, not everything should go in red. Whether someone believes in Calvinism or Molinism does not have any bearing on whether they enter the Kingdom of Heaven, it’s silly to think otherwise. Also, what verses specifically state that “He is to be worshiped according to His instructions instead of human reasoning?” Genuinely curious.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 What sola is that?
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 deut 12 is talking to a specific group of people in the OT about specific instructions, not for all people across all time. actually read it
As a young-earth creationist, I agree that it is not important, maybe even for the 4th category. But for me, a church with gay marriage or a church that supports abortion is not a church and I see a bigger problem in that than in Filioque or all other theological fancy things. I do not care if the church is 100% right in theory if it will support immoral stuff in practice.
I see your logic, but you have to consider the bigger historical picture. The first split ever in Church history happened over Filioque. And all different Christians agreed on all of these moral issues throughout history, until the last few decades, which is a small timeframe in the history of the Church. No Christian would ever consider such a marriage permissible until a “few” years ago.
@@sebastijan5894 I know, it's really sad. In history, they had not such a problem so they split over "smaller" issues like Oriental and Eastern Orthodox. (Just my opinion, for someone it is the most important)
@@sebastijan5894 if you look at this from historical point of view, yes
There are just things that are clearly stated in the bible and there are some about which only science can tell us something, evolution is not really about relligion if you manage to link it somehow with the biblical creation of world, so it shouldn't split christians if it doesn't support atheist world of view. I dont really know what to think about evolution, but its not really important to me if God created the world either way
You should care if the church is 100% accurate. This failiure protestant attiude is so stupid.
Thank you for elaborating on the Sola fide point. I've always wondered y u didn't consider it a primary issue but this explanation makes a lot of sense.
Okay, abortion has to be a bigger issue than infant baptism
It is, so is slavery. But according to his criteria, yes, churches don't split because some of its members and officials agree with abortion or slavery. Churches did split up because of infant baptism. Look at it this way: Secondary issues are THEOLOGICAL issues, most of the tertiary issues aren't (doesn't mean they are less important SOCIETAL issues).
He repeated that point like 10 times in this video
Sacramental issues are always of higher importance than issues pertaining to morals and ethics. Baptism is a matter of theology, abortion and other crimes, no matter how horrendous, are merely matters of discipline. You can be anathematized for denying baptism, but only excommunicated for performing/supporting abortion or any other litany of disciplinary violations.
Who gives af. Jeez
If infant baptism can be a secondary issue, I'd argue that gay marriage and women's ordination should also be secondary issues. Paul relates complementary and hierarchical relationships between men and women to creation, to God, between the Father and the Son, and between Christ and us as a Church (see Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11). From a complementarian perspective, if one argues that these differences don't or shouldn't exist, they are essentially arguing that there isn't, or shouldn't be similar relationships between Christ and the Church, or between the Father and the Son. "This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church" (Eph 5:32)
Too many "and thens" in your argument. To call someone heretic (or, in this case, to say that their theology is absolutely unacceptable) you must debate what the other side believes in, not the beliefs that you think follow from what they believe. Most of those guys would disagree (as you do) with the notion that there shouldn't be differences between Christ and the Church.
The issue with infant baptism is actually that the main positions are either requiring or forbidding infant baptism which are simply incompatible with each other. And the moderating position of viewing infant baptism as improper but not invalid upsets both sides.
I totally agree. This list is completely arbitrary. If the Bible is clear on a topic then there is no need to repeat it 100 times. It is still very important. They are trying to redefine sin. Is that not what being heretic means?
@@leusher9024 Note that as RZ points out, secondary issues would not be heretical, but rather heterodox. I have yet to hear a rationalization of Eph 5:32 as it relates to marriage aside from entirely discounting Paul's words' applicability to today. Given the context of Ephesians 5, I would argue this violates Sola Scriptura, and therefore it becomes a "secondary issue" in RZ's chart, so we're stuck there either way.
I am in 100% agreement with you!
With the recent statements by Pope Francis, one has to wonder, "Is the Pope Catholic?"
And for once, it's an actual question instead of redundant.
He’s literally the Pope
What does the church teach about people of other faiths? - US Catholic
TLDR by the guy to send me this: It’s basically if you’re religious but not Christian it means you’re trying and that’s good, so you still get a good chance at going to heaven.
@@cherryho9122 My brother in Christ. Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
I pray that Pope Francis, and the church heads of today return to Jesus. The papacy does not seem to be preaching a message of repentance these days: quite the opposite.
Yes. He has multiple times defended that Jesus is the only way to eternal life. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of Francis but the unhinged takes that he is some sort of unitarian universalist communist disguised as a Catholic are not based in reality.
@@brimonk if you don't know Christ there is something called ignorance
Dude just put baptism above women’s ordination and gay “marriage” women’s ordination and gay “marriage” are literally creation order issues
Yeah still less important than holy baptism, “baptism now saves you” and all that. I mean, there are Lutherans that ordain women, and ones that don’t, but there are no Lutherans that teach baptism is a mere symbol.
As a Lutheran myself I have to agree with memeboi here. But also I think peoples' opinions on the middle two tiers will be kind of fluid depending on your denomination.
@@memeboi6017So basically humans are allowed to completely toss out God's law and make up their own? What did God and Jesus say about people who teach others to disobey the law?
@@rampage241 The importance of a given issue has no bearing on it’s moral weight, but rather how relevant it is to theology.
I grew up a Baptist. Baptists believe that all Christians were baptized under the great Baptism performed by John the Baptist. Being baptized in the church simply is done a symbolic gesture of your faith to the church congregation. They also don’t believe in baptizing infants.
Other denominations believe that baptism goes along with salvation but treat them as separate acts. Usually you are saved and then you are baptized. That’s where the phrase “he’s a good Christian man, been saved and baptized” comes from. This is the vast majority of Christian denominations.
Some denominations believe that salvation comes through baptism and that’s it. They’re the same thing.
I’d say all that is definitely a cause for a split in the church.
Now… ordaining women.
Some churches will ordain women as senior pastors, some won’t ordain a woman at all, and the vast majority will ordain women so long as those women are not in a position to minister to adult men in any capacity (the vast majority are following the Bible pretty much spot on).
What this means is women can absolutely be a youth pastor, a children’s pastor, an assistant pastor (with limited roles) a women’s pastor, and can even be in charge of an outreach ministry because she wouldn’t be *teaching* adult men just working alongside them. She could not be a senior pastor, a worship leader, or teach any sort of men’s ministry. The best way to rid the church of this at all is to vote these women out of the non-biblical roles rather than splitting the church. Personally, I’m not attending a church that has women in a position to teach me anything but it’s not worth splitting over.
Gay marriage, in my opinion, should split a church because I’d personally refuse to ever be part of a church that thought the practice was fine much less perform the ceremony itself. That said, using the logic RZ uses in this video, that conservatives leaving the church would only allow the practice to continue instead of squandering it, I can see why he placed it as a third tier problem. In his logic, it’s like women’s ordination. The best way to rid the church of the practice is to remove the people that support it rather than leaving and allowing them to keep on.
I’m excited to hear you debate about the resurrection.
Funnily, this is the reversed pyramid of what gets the most attention.
Thank you for staying in your little circle in the lower right corner of the screen. It would be really scary if you were to broke out of that circle.
Fr
IMO sola fide, gay marriage, and women’s ordination should all be moved one level up.
I thought about this a little more. I actually think any person who believes homosexuality is not a sin is outside the universal church. So in that case, I’m thinking gay marriage needs to be at the top.
I agree with those two and MOSTLY agree with the last one you listed.
I completely disagree. Believing sola fide is required for salvation means you don't believe in sola fide, as your imposing a secondary requirement on your salvation, whereas faith is the only requirement. Catholics still have faith that Jesus is their savior, meaning that they are saved, even though they add other requirements I disagree with. Although part of me believes gay marriage should be a secondary issue, I'm not sure as it says in James that he who commits breaks one law is just as guilty as one who breaks the entire law, and people forget that in the same breath Paul condemned homosexuality, he condemned slander which we all do at some point. Now certainly homosexuality is a horrible sin, and I think that a church who affirms it is very wrong, but I think that an individual who affirms doesn't necessarily need to expelled from the church, but I think that someone who commits that sin might should be if given the chance to turn around and they show unwillingness to. For women's ordination, people who make that so important are weird. Like I understand believing against it but making it so important makes no sense to me. I personally believe that women can have any position in the church except as a pastor. The reason for this is because it's clear that the 1 Corinthians passage has been translated wrong and that Paul is actually going against the Corinthians keeping women down, and the 1 Timothy passage needs context to understand what Paul was trying to say. I'm willing to disagree on this as I understand not believing in it but I don't think its overly important. Also I do believe that when Paul lists the requirements in 1 Timothy for being a pastor he more or less exclude women from this. I think there could have been a cultural reason why he would do that which wouldn't apply but I'm more inclined to take it literally.
@@jedidiahthompson4000nah sola fide is legit primary, because it's about salvation, and it's the only way to be saved. U can't earn salvation.
But why is gay marriage wrong without using the Bible as evidence? If the argument is that marriage is only a thing for people to have children then what about a man and a woman who don’t want children? Or a man and a woman who can’t have children? I’m a Christian but I don’t think gay marriage is wrong. Love is love and if two men or two women want to get married why should the church say no?
"Not faith in faith alone alone", lmao ^^ Good point
"For where two or three gather together in My name, there am I with them.” - Matthew 18:20.
That verse is out of context, read the others verse behind that, you cant use a verse without context.
@@osbellgarcia7065 Erm, he didn't give an interpretation, how do you know he was quoting it out of context?
He might have meant whatever your interpretation of the verse was.
@@IamGrimalkin before that verse there is more teaching of Jesus, saying we have to forgive each other, and when we agree in that he is in that agreement. We need to learn to read our bibles, I can say Jesus wept to is right to cry for anything, no you can't do that, there is background in that test why Jesus wept. Do you understand?
@@osbellgarcia7065
Why do you think scott is denying that?
He didn't give an interpretation.
Why would you assume someone simply quoting a bible verse means to endorse some interpretation which you disagree with?
@@IamGrimalkin Christ was clearly referring to how judicial matters ought to be handled in His Church. He was definitely NOT supporting or preaching the idea that 2 or 3 Christians could study the Bible together without a qualified minister or teacher. "Christians" like to weaponize this statement into saying it, but the context clearly doesn't support it.
Actually, the Filioque was probably a secondary issue at the time. Beards and leaven seem to have been more important. (And I don't think, from where I sit, that they should be anywhere near that level.)
Beards are non-negotiable for the Eastern Orthodox, "theosis" means "one with the beard" (hat tip to Bible Illustrated channel)
The biggest issue was the supremacy of Rome.
8:00 not really. Eastern catholics don't recite the filioque in their creed, but are still in communion with Rome.
@@domen6398 They affirm it, though.
They still believe in it.
@@jdotozEastern Catholic here - no we don't, we just don't think the Filioque is heretical. Different theology but shouldn't be big enough to break the Church.
Hey RZ. You should do a video on proper Christian attire. Should women wear head coverings? Are some items of clothing too casual (or too formal) for Church. What are thoughts/opinions on jeans?
Women are wearing head coverings when prophet and praying. Another thing about what clothes in the Bible said is that it has to be modest. And you cannot wear the other gender clothing. If you are women wear women jeans if you're a man wear man jeans no vice versa.
Church clothing should just be modest. Like who cares unless the church imposes a dress code.
@@thatsauce882 Everyone agrees that clothes should be modest. The problem is that people have often have different interpretations of what it means to be dressed modestly. This why dress codes are so useful, they eliminate guesswork and potential conflict.
@@Condr324 follow your interpretation of modest then. Because height can influence your clothes example; if you are wearing short shorts and your height is 4'2-5'4 it is least likely to be called Immodest compared to someone who is above that height. There is a school book story about a girl who was tall and her clothes that were once looked modest are Immodest because of her height (bare with me here). The clothes that once fit her when she was smaller looked modest compared to her now height. Unfortunately she faced scrutiny by her teachers. The clothes didn't get smaller. It was her height getting taller. [I will find that story for you]. Moral of this is to dress your height & weight. Because it can affect how you look. Also find a personalized style.
Wear whatever feel right for you. Churches shouldn't regulate clothing, that is definitely a Tier 4 issue.
2:24 Fighting over what kind of coffee to drink is a perfect example of a Quaternary issue...that's fought between heretics who reject the Truth of Tea Drinking.
Only cold unsweetened tea, though.
Aint no way abortion is a tertiary issue. Its litteral murder. How is your view of murder equally important to tour view of Eschatology?
I'm anti abortion but pro capital punishment, some people would say that is murder. Obviously the two aren't equivalent, but consider that abortion is sometimes more nuanced than just murder (though it often is) for example, women who conceive an ectopic pregnancy MUST get an abortion or they WILL die and the baby will also. Technically that's an abortion and most pro life people are fine with that, but I have met people who are SO pro life that they would say it's even murder then and that the mother should die rather than get the necessary medical intervention. I don't think it's black and white all abortion is good or all abortion is evil, that's why it's tertiary.
Even Harry Potter is linked to Witchcraft.
In the words of RZ..."We can make a denomination out of that"😂
Another Quaternary issue a lot of conservative Christians get hung up on is what type of music Christians should and shouldn't listen to in private. Like "You shouldn't listen to heavy metal, it's all Satanic" or "All rap music is about gangbanging and drugs". My belief is that God cares more about the lyrical themes rather than the genre. There are thousands of Christian heavy metal bands spanning every Metal Subgenre from Power Metal to Black Metal. Stryker, Antestor, etc. It's the same with rap. There are a lot of Christian rappers. There are also a lot of metal bands that don't touch religious topics and instead sing about topics like history, emotions, fantasy, etc.
Heck, if we are judging the genre as a whole, then Christians shouldn't listen to Country or Pop either. A lot of Country and Pop music can be as filthy or even filthier than most Rap and Metal.
Obviously, Christians shouldn't listen to music that openly blasphemes God or promotes a sinful lifestyle. And obviously I am not saying we should be singing rap or metal for worship during church. But not everyone likes hymns or choir music. God made us all different, that includes our musical taste.
This is an awesome explanation. I almost entirely agree with each of these placements. People don't understand the idea of maintaining unity in spite of doctrinal disagreements. Even with disagreements on something as big as abortion or slavery, we need to stay committed to our churches
"I don't do your silly farm things."
Poor Yankee thinks food comes from the grocery store
Wait until you find out the biggest food producer is California
@MrAndyhdz on Californian farms. Thank you for furthering my point sir.
@@archdukeslippy1263 My main point is the South definitely does not fead us
@@MrAndyhdz I agree. Grocery stores also don't feed us. It's silly farm people doing their silly farm things
@@MrAndyhdzvegetables aren’t food.
My ELCA congregation prevented me from attending over the vaxxine.
As a result of that I committed to never going back to that church, despite it being where I grew up in.
If you weren't pro-life than maybe the church wasn't the best place for you anyway? just saying
@@tomlem64 you'll make your appeal to heaven one day.
I'd switch infant baptism and ecclesiology with gay marriage and women pastors
%100,100
Your pyramid of importance reflects an unconventional liberal perspective. In my view, the issues you categorize as tertiary should indeed cause a division within the Church. Any kind of communion with a church that endorses same-sex marriage, ordains women, and adopts modern worship styles compromises the truth of the gospel. Additionally, I regard the teachings on Holy Baptism and the Eucharist as of paramount significance for anyone professing to be a Christian (secondary matter).
The issue with your opinion is you associate almost EVERY thing in the green with what SHOULD be (according to Christian doctrine) in the yellow or honestly the red.
Seriously man, SINGING the Gospel accompanied by a Worship Band, some Synths, Lyrics on a screen, and a couple of Moving Lights…doesn’t compromise the Gospel truths!
How does a modern worship style compromise the truth of the gospel?
You're seriously putting supporting gay marriage at the same level as having different worship styles? Yikes.
Whose teaching do you refer to? You didn't make it clear whether or not you correctly understand the biblical basis and intention of Christian baptism and Holy Communion. Are these sacramental issues worthy of study, discernment and discussion? Of course they are. However, why don't we just agree that both are important for believers to practice and leave it for the Lord to judge our hearts and faithfulness, rather than appointing ourselves to pass judgement on other believers.
Bro your channel literally make me come closer to God, thanks
Gay marriage takes people to hell, credobaptism doesn't, so I can't fully agree with this pyramid
Refusing to believe in Christ takes people to Hell, not gay marriage even if it's sin
@@Marinanor both take people to hell, sin takes people to hell
@@nerdkidd05 Sin does not take people to Hell unless we refuse Christ as our way out. We believe in Christ and that seals our fate, positively, for Heaven.
@@Marinanor Unless that sin actively means denying Christ. You might not agree with a doctrine of mortal sin, but some sins definitely come with neglecting Christ's gospel and its truth. Sodomy is one of these sins. 1 John 5:16 is a clear expression of what I just said
@@nerdkidd05 16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him.
As a whole, I agree with most of the pyramid. The only thing I disagree with is Worship Style. When it comes down to it worship style is a matter of preference as long as the worship is done to God. While I personally do agree that modern Christian music often sucks, it's still worshiping God and has the intention of spreading the love and word of God. At its heart, worship is worship as long as it is bringing glory to God and within the morals set about by the Bible. Yes, have your preference, but singing hymns vs. contemporary worship music is completely theologically unimportant.
I can’t agree MORE!
I see in the comments a lot of arguments about tertiary issues. What were tertiary issues made me actively avoid the church for decades, until the creeping feeling of a spiritual hole in my life got me looking for a church to attend again. Realizing that one can still be Christian and disagree on those tertiary issues, and finding a church that aligned with my beliefs has made me a happier person, and much more spiritually fulfilled. (My parents never quite fully approved of my new church, but their beliefs over those tertiary issues had drifted from the faith they raised me in. They were happy I was at least attending a church, any church, again.)
I agree with you. I think his example of what mattered in the 17th century didn't land as well/ was ignored because folks don't attach any modern/ relevant meaning to it. Another example I would give is: do you think (opposing) euthanasia is as important as believing sola fide? Most people would ultimately say no. Euthanasia and abortion divide people heavily on almost the same exact arguments. Abortion just has a ton of public policy since the 1970s backing it, while euthanasia doesn't. I'm not saying neither are extremely important, though I think the examples used can help or hurt the viewer's comprehension.
14:50 getting the jab is one thing, endorsing the closure of churches is another.
SBC been real quiet since this dropped.
😂
@@AlexD-yl6qr RZ's pushing some soft Lost Cause nonsense; the split happened in 1845 and it was explicitly about affirming slaveholders.
Bruh SBC needs to accept the creed already. We baptists have historically affirmed it.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8tyTrue, I still can't gasp the idea in our Church that Catholics are not Christians. Like, bruh, they're Christians too.
I can't believe he put all those important issues in the tertiary section, therefore meaning they are not important in his eyes.
Haha, that's funny.
“I am not saying these issues are not unimportant.” 8:22
At least watch the video before coming up with falsehoods.
@@aperson4057 I think they were being facetious and making a joke. RZ said that he didn't not think these items were important about 50x. Nobody could miss it.
@@aperson4057I hate to be that guy, but r/woosh! 😂
I couldn’t tell you were from New York, until I heard you say “coffee” in this video. And then I was like “yup he’s a yankee for sure”
JESUS CHRIST SAID =
JOHN CHAPTER
14 VERSE 6 =
[ I AM THE WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE
NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT BY ME ]
Yeah Francis could never 🫣
3:32 You are wrong about this! Eastern Orthodoxy and the Latin church take "proceed" to mean different things; greek "ἐκπορευόμενον" essentially implies that the Holy spirit came from the father as a matter of immediate creation while the western "procedit" implies a more active description of how it works in the world. This would be "προϊέναι" in Greek. This is at its core a linguistic issue more so than a theological one.
Fantastic content! Your best video yet!
There was a small split in the Church of Scotland because of the issue of Women's and Gay ordination and they formed the Didasko Churches. In 2009, on the way to the General Assembly God crippled our minister's hip like He did to Jacob. After being carried across the road, our minister stood up in general assembly to bring the 'Complaint and Dissent' against the Presbytery. The issue was the ordination of Gays and women, our minister brought forward the biblical case against the ordinations. The Assembly said "We know that the bible is against the ordinations of woman and gays, but we now know better.". It is very sad to now that after ordination of a gay minister that church split and many churches in the presbytery have closed down and a good chunk of the churches have been sold. Just as our minister has been crippled the Church of Scotland has been as well, because they decided that they know better, and many of Godly churches of the presbytery where shut down leaving the dying liberal churches.
Hey man! Your channel has brought me deeper into my faith as a Catholic. I can't wait for you to convert! It will be great to have a mind like yours inside the Church.
Never let the haters get to you. You're braver than 99% of the people who try to put you down in any way. Stay honest, stay true to yourself, keep pursuing truth.
God bless you.
I don’t like gay marriage but a church shouldn’t germs do decide who joins
11:00 “Contradicts all historical Christian teaching”
Hey Zoomer, it’d be cool if you focused more on the Bible rather than tradition. Tradition is super important, but it can be wrong. With something as clear as marriage, maybe go to the Bible and say it contradicts the Bible, not historic Christian teaching. It just shows priorities.
Church Tradition was before scripture was ever compiled and canonized. Paul says to follow both word of mouth traditions and written.
@@Sm64wii so many things wrong with this comment
@Sm64wii Slight counterpoint, the Pharisees. They're a prime example of abusing adherence to tradition in order to fuel their self-righteous ego and hypocrisy. As Jesus put it, "straining a gnat and swallowing a camel", to hold those they see as lesser to the strict edicts, while constantly breaking those same rules and justifying it because they're better.
Literally the first thing I thought.
@@Sm64wii First comment deleted. Counterargument, the Pharisees. They used adherence to tradition as an excuse and way to act like they were better than others. And Jesus called them out on that a lot.
Really like your handling of the sola fide discussion. Made me smile and feel a little more comfort in Jesus.
The Nicean cred professes only one Baptism. If this is so why did Paul rebaptise around 12 people near Ephesus?
In this day and age...the tertiary issues have become the church-splitters...because they are vital and critical to the survival of the Christian faith. Sorry brother but I disagree with this pyramid.
As a member of a Christian Reformed Church which is trying to stay conservative, I am very proud of my denomination's leadership taking the hard conservative stance on human sexuality.
Cool
I had no idea you watched RZ?😮
Are you Christian Z? thats great.
Zoomer does not agree with the Bible. A deacon is to be a man of one wife. This is not like the infant baptism debate because the Bible is extremely clear and direct on deacon qualification.
I’m a traditional LCMS Lutheran. I disagree with some of your theology but bro, I love your videos and appreciate the time and effort you put into this stuff. It’s all so important.
As a Catholic, my instinct is to say most of these are primary lmao but our definition of heresy is a bit different, for Catholics you cannot disagree on an issue such as gay marriage or sex protection as it makes you a heretic. (This doesn't apply to protestants)
“I’m an urbanized New Yorker, I don’t do your silly farm things” 😭
As if those silly farmers are necessary for his urban lifestyle 🙄
3:41 Eastern Orthodox affirm that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son.
IIRC its just semantics when it comes time filioque
@@Sm64wii Are you saying, “I’m Roman Catholic. It’s just semantics till it’s time to discuss the Filioque?”
@@StewForTheGospelno I’m saying I’ve heard from both catholic and orthodox in debates that filioque is not an actual issue. Eastern Catholics don’t even recite the Filioque.
@@Sm64wii Thank you for clarifying.
The filioque is an issue and did get resolved at the council of Florence, by saying the spirit proceeds thru the son. The Catholic Church already had too much political power at that point and decided the didn’t want to unionize
please help redeemed zoomer my entire family is atheist besides one person and I have a “christian” in my family but she’s gay and trans and I’m trying to go to a normal church with the family but they are all lgbtq churches and my mom is forcing me to support lgbtq and im tryna tell her that i respect it but I don’t support it because I can’t support sinn
That's a tough situation, the solutions would likely vary depending on how old are you and how much control you have over the situation?
Lmao it is impossible to even imagine such a thing in lands where I live lol
If you don't support the LGBTQ movement, you're supporting a genocide. You can be a Christian while still respecting human rights. Homosexuality isn't even a sin lol
Oof that's tuff
That situation you are in is rough. Just know that you are doing the right thing by respecting them as human beings of God. Keep on praying my guy, and remember to pray for them as well so that God may show them the truth as well. Keep strong
That clarified a lot of things for me, thank you
Does the Bible spell out “primary issues”, “secondary issues”, “tertiary issues”, and “quaternary issue”?
Is there a verse that teaches something along the lines of “God hates divorce, but this is a tertiary issue, so feel to disagree” or perhaps “I Peter teach that baptism now saves you, but you can disagree with me, this is only a secondary issue”
Because otherwise this whole endeavor seems made up. Granted, I already know it made up because issues such as female ordination and sexual morality keep getting moved further down the pyramid.
Women's ordination and Gay marriage should go into the primary issues section. 1 Cor 6:9-10 tells us that if a church approves of gay marriage then it's a false "Chruch". In the same way, 1 Tim 2 & 3 proves that if a Church allows Women's ordination then it's apostate because gender roles in the Church and family are a primary issue which is the reason why egalitarianism is a damnable heresy. When it comes to distinguishing the differences in issues, I just sort them into salvation issues and secondary issues. Salvation issues are essential doctrines and secondary issues are areas where we can have different views on and still be true Christians.
Actually among damnable heresies homosexual activities would come as it's listed in the types of sins that would not allow you enter heaven but Female ordination is forbidden without any penalty mentioned
No. Corinthians doesn't talk about marriage, just "sex". Timothy is about setting up a church for the times, and the times have changed.
@@FromElsewhear What I was saying is that 1 For 6:9-10 condemns the sin of homosexuality.
As for the issue on church roles, 1 Timothy 2 & 3 gives us guidelines as to how a Church is supposed to be operated and that applies today and not just back then. Because of this, the topic of gender roles in the Church and family is a primary issue and therefore a non-negotiable issue. Context is key when it comes to studying scripture.
On the other hand, an issue like when the rapture takes place is a negotiable issue because we can have different views on the rapture as that one topic is a secondary issue.
@@CreationForeverMinistries In Heaven, there will be no church or marriage, but there will be a trinity and divine Jesus. That alone puts them lower than the top.
Gay marriage, primary issue. Women’s ordination, secondary issue.
im literally so happy theology is my special interest and im autistic and redeemed zoomer is my fave theology ytber and the reason for my special interest in the first place
Same
@@JoWilliams-ud4eu real
Day 6 of asking for an “Understanding Methodists” video
Your vids never get old. Thanks for your awesome content. 💞
But why is the Nicean creed important at all? Why is the trinity important? Who articulated these things and why does their interpretation matter at all?
Because it goes against the Catholic Church whose primary purpose is to convert all people however necessary to their religion. Always has been, always will be. The truth is that the only thing that matters to make you a Christian is that you believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and that his is also God. Hence the words from the thief on the cross: “Remember me as you go into YOUR kingdom.” That, and obviously that Jesus rose from the dead. Don’t let these catholic sympathizers confuse you. Catholicism IS BIBLICALLY heretical. They falsely claim Peter to be their founder, and turned him into an idol, going against the second commandment. Not just with Peter, but with all the “Saints”. They are FUNDAMENTALLY idolaters. Do not be deceived. They are of their father the devil, the same as the church in Jesus’s time. No REAL difference.
This video is a reflection of how important church splits are to you. It’s not that Tertiary issues are not that important, it’s just that church unity is more important than tertiary issues.
Yeah BUT…come on absolutely NO apostle or disciple of Christ would condone a homosexual “wedding” ceremony.
But we aren’t compromising to fit anti Christian modern times sorry
Yo can you collab with testify
Fr
Fr real
Fr
A short lesson in Greek for you: Whenever kurios precedes a name it ALWAYS means "master" or "sir", and in the context of Jewish culture it means "rabbi". So the notion that context supports "Lord Jesus" or "Jesus is Lord" being a claim to deity is completely baseless. In exactly the same way me calling you Mr. Redeemed Zoomer is not claiming you are God, neither Paul or any of the other apostles ever claimed that Jesus was God. They all called him Master and Teacher. This should also be especially obvious when the actual context is that Jesus is specifically declared to be the "Son of God" over 43 times in the Bible and there are zero verses where he claims to be God.
“neither Paul nor any of the other apostles ever claimed that Jesus was God” This statement is objectively false.
“and there are zero verses where he claims to be God.” As is this.
@@DarkBlade37 until you can prove it's objectively false (which you cannot), that is simply your misinformed opinion...
@@AntiChristExposed John 8:58, 20:28, Revelation 1:17
@@DarkBlade37 John 8:58 the context supports a claim to existence, not deity. John 20:28 the context supports the title of Master here as well, not a claim to deity. Revelation 1:17 once again the context supports a claim to existence, not deity. There are zero verses where Jesus claimed to be God, but a multitude of passages explaining that Jesus actually prayed to God.
@@AntiChristExposed False on all three counts.
“There are zero verses where Jesus claimed to be God” As is this.
I enjoy this video. This is what more people need to see. The amount of people denying the trinity on social media is staggering.
Other tertiary issues: polygamy, abortion, nature of the Eucharist, & aesthetics.
A point of clarity for people saying some of the tertiary issues should be secondary: I believe that what he means is that you could still fellowship with someone who *believes* that those things are okay, not necessarily that they themselves practice them.
The Eucharist, polygamy and abortion are absolutely primary. Transubstantiation allows Catholics to worship God physically within The Tabernacle; can the protestants say the same?
I thought it was well done. I would have put gay marriage in the secondary group as it is such a denial of the definition of marriage in the Bible. Yes, our church left MCUSA over that.
Opinions on gay marriage are a result of differing metaphysics/ eschatologies. All of which are important and often, but do not always, split the church. Putting them imo into the tertiary category.
God Bless You All Amen ✝️♥️✝️♥️✝️
Hello! Catholic here, just got back from Mass and Bible study, and I have a question.
When you put Sola Scriptura in the secondary tier, of and elaborate that "we" (I'm not sure if you mean your denomination, your particular lineage in the Reformed Calvinist tradition, or Protestants as a whole) mean the Bibles not alone, but tue highest authority. If that's the case to your belief, why do you continue to say Sola Scriptura rather than Prima Scriptura, or scripture first/scripture primarily? Why do you hold onto a term that doesn't seem to accurately articulate your beliefs? It's not an understanding of Sola Scriptura that completely aligns with my close Lutheran Friend's understanding, which by his articulation sounds closer to the literal meaning of Sola in sola Scriptura, while also not completely unrelegating biblical interpretation like some evangelicals.
his articulation is the original meaning/definition of sola scriptura. Incidentally, as a Lutheran myself, your friend should probably hold to this "prima" scriptura formulation you described as that is our historic position (Lutherans came up "sola scriptura" originally). unfortunately the American protestant churches are so influenced by the cultural dominance of baptist and pentecostals that the original meaning of sola scriptura has become "me and my bible" to most people, when it really should always have been the primacy of the authority of scripture over but not excluding the other sources of authority such as tradition as a guide to proper interpretation of that supreme authority.
He stated in one of his video that the Bible isn't the only authority, but it's the only INFALLIBLE authority. So in a sense he does literally believe in scripture alone
Sola Scriptura always meant that.
Nuda Scriptura is where you only follow the bible (or pretend to, I don't think true Nuda Scriptura is really possible as you need external sources to interpret words).
Prima Scriptura is sometimes used as a synonym for Sola Scriptura; but sometimes means that Scripture is *mostly* the final authority, but *sometimes* is trumped by other sources. The latter position is rejected by Sola Scriptura advocates.
@kaktustustus1244 Which Bible though? The one lacking the Deuterocanon? The one in a particular language?
@@tylere.8436 idk which tranlation RZ uses, but he uses the standard Protestant 66 book version. I'm Catholic so I do believe Deuterocanon is inspired
The video ive been waiting for amen
The correct answer: Nothing from God is negotiable, no compromise. ☦️
Did someone watch the last episode of Shameless Popery or is this just funny accidental timing?
I just saw that one 😂
Yeah, Shameless Popery savagely pre-bunked this video.
Big league
Homosexual Marriage IS NOT a TERTIARY issue!
WRONG category, should go in the YELLOW
Why is it wrong? Can you justify gay marriage being prohibited without using the Bible? If not, then why is it wrong? They way I see it, love is love and why should the church get in the way of that.
@@John-hy6qz Yes, because marriage is defined as a man and a woman anything else is not marriage. Jesus said to remain married and sex outside marriage is fornication. If the Bible isn't your supreme authority, why are you a Christian? The issue is really what authority are you under?
Well, isn't this about people who are Christian? If it's about laws in countries, there probably is a way to give legal permissions to people you would consider a "romantic partner" without it having to be called "Marriage", and Churches shouldn't be forced to perform a "gay marriage". I'm not a fan of the "love is love" mantra because now it's used to justify even incest, so it's meaningless to me.
Great video! But as a Catholic, theres a few things I would disagree with.
1. If someone doesn't believe tier 1 issues, maybe they were Christian in like the 3rd century AD, but in modern times, if you reject any tier 1 stuff, you're not even a heretic, you're just flat out not Christian.
2. Catholics would split the 2nd tier into two separate tiers. Sola Scriptura is a major issue, and is something that would make you a heretic to the Catholic Church. Rejecting the Filioque is barely even a problem anymore, and along with papal infallibility and diaphysitism/miaphysitism/monophysitism is something that would make you *schismatic/hereterodox* if you disagreed.
3. Bible version matters a lot, specifically making sure you're using a Catholic Church approved version like the NRSV. The KJV is a heretical Bible to Catholics.
4. Finally, I think you misrepresented some Catholic standpoints. We don't believe that Tradition and the Magisterium are above the Bible, but that they are all equally important. We also don't believe that tradition and the Magisterium are important because the Church made the Bible, but because the Bible doesn't say everything we need to believe, and stuff that the Church Fathers said that we believe to be true doesn't come out of the Bible, but from Tradition and the Magisterium.
I disagree with 2/3 primary and all Secondary issues. (I'm ready for the dogpile). Reason being is that I know that the Church Christ established was Restored (rather than preserved as Catholicism claims).
A Catholic Opinion.-Many years ago there came to Salt Lake City a learned
doctor of divinity, a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I became well
acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar,
with perhaps a dozen, languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all
about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy, and was never weary
of displaying his vast erudition. One day he said to me: “You Mormons are
all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It
is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian
world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between
Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right,
we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg
to stand on. If we are wrong, they are wrong with us, for they were a part
of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom
we cut off long ago. If we really have, as we claim, the apostolic
succession from St. Peter, there was no need for Joseph Smith and Mormonism;
but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was
necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either
the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the
Gospel in latter days.”
The Catholic theologian’s name is John A. Reiner. The source is Orson F. Whitney’s autobiography, Through Memory’s Halls: The Life Story of Orson F. Whitney, as Told by Himself (Independence, MO: Zion’s Printing and Publishing Company, 1930), 222-23
Miaphysitism/monophysitism was anathematized by Chalcedon, an anathema means you're completely cut off from the Church, they are not Christians; just as Iconoclasts are not Christians. You can't be subject to any of the anathemas of the Ecumenical Councils and remain a Christian, you're just a heathen at that point.
Some of the most fun I ever had: when I had to live for a short time in rural Southern California, we joined aKJV-only church. During the new member class, I continued using my NASB and Amplified Bibles, so the church gave me a book about why the KJV is the only inspired translation. I read it and marked it up, highlighting all of the factual errors it made. I then listed several poorly translated passages and then took the previous month’s worth of sermons from our pastor, took every time he gave a definition of aKJV word, and showed how the NASB translated that word in the same way the pastor did. I don’t know if anyone read that copy after I returned it, but I still enjoyed the exercise.
Honestly, I think Bible translate should at least be a tertiary issue. I know most of them are accurate enough and so I don’t care that much, BUT there are some pretty bad ones out there, like any of the translations that take out the concept of the Trinity or the virgin birth
I don’t think the goal of contemporary music is to “not sound like church music” but rather to make worship music available to anyone at any time. Many aren’t singing angelic church hymns or chants on a casual afternoon, not everyone has that vocal range to do it and the fact of the matter is most of the time it’s reserved for the church choir on Sundays. But why? We should be able to sing worship song at any time, and not just those with choir vocal range, anyone should be able to sing worship songs, I think that’s where contemporary music comes In. It gives every member the opportunity to join In unity and sing for the Lord. I agree traditional hymns sound beautiful and angelic, but worship should go beyond pretty sounds
calling a worship service of the creator of the universe a "casual afternoon" is VERY impious
I don't agree with the assumption that worship style is unimportant. The question is how God wants to be worshipped and if he wants to be worshipped liturgically, then non-liturgical worship is a sin.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 I wasn’t referring to worship service clearly, I was referring to a literal casual afternoon at home where you decide to sing worship music, it doesn’t have to be reserved for church
@@Michael-bk5nz that’s such a reach
@@webjev430 No, it isn't, worship is about God, not man, it is about what we give to God, not what we get out of it or whether we "enjoy" it. This is why, before the First Great Awakening in the 18th century, when evangelicals started introducing the Revival and informal worship, all Christians in the West used a liturgical style of worship which was a reform of the Mass, even today the Mainline Protestant denominations still base their worship on the Mass, although this time the 1969 Novus Ordo Mass
funny how the higher most issues are, the less biblical they become
@@ScribeAlicious you should try reading your Bible instead of making futile attempts to find heretics 😂
I like this approach similar to Gavin Ortlund's theological triage.
We can disagree in minor issues.
Except we can't agree on what issues are minor.
Like look at RZ's third tier. Women's ordination? The possible consequences of getting that wrong run from "we don't recognize them but they aren't our leaders so it's okay" to "they have no authority and the sacraments they attempt to celebrate are worse than nothing."
Marriage? Get this wrong and you're either depriving people of living a legitimate vocation or encouraging one of the sins that cry to Heaven.
@@jdotoz can't even agree on what issues are primary and fundamental. Gavin Ortlund and RZ have different lists for what the core doctrines that you absolutely must have to be a non-heretical Christian are.
@@jdotoz "For where two or three gather together in My name, there am I with them.” - Matthew 18:20. Lazy chatty Christians must grasp that "winning debates" is not a goal. Real world Christians - a whopping 1/3 of the global population - run more Law Schools and Medical Schools than any government on earth.
@@jdotozZommer's third tiers mostly fall under Gavin's second tier actually
@@maxxiong You see?
Hey 18 year old reformed Presbyterian here
I go to a church lead by a female pastor, I'm against it, but my parents are forcing me to go I'm asking how should l feel at that church
How should I feel towards the female pastor should I disregard everything she says and does as null and void or what...
No you should go, deal with it, and realize there's bigger problems that a church can have than the pastor being the wrong gender
All issues are primary issues. The Bible teaches one truth
I knew of one church that literally split over a piece of chicken…
Definitely not ALL issues. But if something is written in the Bible then it absolutely IS a primary issue 💯!
No resurrection = no Christ. That’s not a Christian issue, that’s a Muslim/Jewish issue.
Bible translation can be a huge issue and also reflective of deeper underlying problems, it is at least Tertiary issue if not Secondary, for Sola Scriptura to mean anything, you gotta have proper Scriptura that reflects the Church tradition/Holy Spirit inspiration from the earlier days
King James Onlyests: Hold my grape juice.
I listened to your reasoning but, women’s ordination and gay marriage are absolutely higher.
It’s not giving over to them to split … allowing it is tacit acceptance.
God destroyed while cities for this.
I would not attend a church that upheld these beliefs… i believe it is important enough for that.
Agreed. Homosexuality is primary, and women's ordination is secondary.
Secondary issue: view of the sacraments. Does baptism save? Do we truly receive the body and blood of our Lord in communion?
Where do you place free grace theology?
Hmmm well…Tertiary on a church level, on a personal level more important.
See my problem with Free Grace theology is simply that too much of the focus gets taken OFF of repentance and actually confessing our sins to Jesus.
Now here’s something that should be said, Elevation Worship Songs actually DO talk about repentance and actually one of their newer songs (which is a TOTAL BOP BTW) actually talks about the 3rd Commandment!😎🤣🙌🏼✝️
@@hiptoalieu I don’t think free grace takes the focus off those things. It rather places them in their proper place.
I would guess secondary since it's related to sola fide
@@joshuadonahue5871 how can a salvation issue be placed secondary?