@@jonathanspeicher5298 yes, but also the ingredients in the chicken are made to be additive. That’s my problem with chick Fil A being a Christian company that puts harmful additives in its ingredients. I eat there, because of the quality and kindness, and possibly because of the addictive nature. If another Christian competitor came out without the addictive ingredients that cause more harm than addiction, I'd go their
I'm a Southern Baptist. My brothers and I attended a dialogue with a liberal UMC church last night on Christian Nationalism. Your reconquista efforts inspired us to do that and share Biblical truth with them. Praying that their denomination is reclaimed for Christ!
"Some 17-year-old will send me his 90-page essay. Okay, buddy." Says the 22-year-old with hundreds of hours of content on this exact topic in a video on this very topic. Zoomer, it's you. You're the really passionate 17-year-old sending the DMs.
I mean you certainly are not wrong here. :) I quite love Zoomer, especially when he talks about different denominations and such. But he's a bit of an ideologue on this issue, Children, and new converts to Christianity really should find a proper bible believing church, and would not be well served engaging in a fight to save broken churches.
Those of us who have children will have a harder time taking our children to a liberal church. Singles, empty nesters, and newlyweds are going to have to do all the work before you’d see conservative young fathers raising their kids there. Right now conservative denominations are a safe haven for families with small children trying to have community with other families committed to godly households. Saving a mainline denominations is great, but saving the kids is more urgent, and the command to train up a child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord presses heavily on parents of young kids. They need a supportive community at church to help with that very difficult job.
This right here, all day. You can't take your kids to church, then spend the ride home talking about all the ways the pastor is wrong, and expect that child to develop a healthy relationship with Christ. Reconquering is definitely a task for those who are not raising children.
I'm Catholic. I was raised in Catholic Church School, till the age of reason(10-11yrs). --Then, my mom encouraged us to accept all invites to Christian denominations. To gain more understanding; caused me to reflect/look to the Word & appreciate the Mass. --We're all reading the same book, just highlighting & placing more emphasis on some teachings as a way to build our own personal relationships with God through Christ. --My husband's "non-denominational"(pentacostal); we share the same beliefs, values, & always defer to the scripture. Still some disagreements over the methods. --Our son attends Catholic School & take we take Mass, bcuz I think it provides a more structured environment to help build his foundation on. BUT we also attend Grace Assembly(dad plays Bass there & we're close to the Pastor). --I can see why some ppl wouldn't want to take their kids to various denominations, but after you've laid the foundation I don't see why they shouldn't feel comfortable going into any Christian Church.
@@IAmTheSlink maybe talk to the Pastor afterwards & ask him about certain teachings; any legit Man of God will enjoy the questions & have no trouble explaining his teachings. --Kids are curious & we are responsible for teaching/guiding them on how & where to find the truth; encouraging independent study into the Scriptures. --My family's had some great Biblical discussions on the similarities & differences.
@@sharonodom6575 I agree that it's good to go to and understand various denominations. This was more about the need to go to a church that was actually teaching the Bible (like you say, sharing beliefs, values, and deferring to scripture), regardless of denomination. The issue is that as RZ and others try to "reconquer" liberal denominations, those same liberal churches are often not teaching the Bible, sharing beliefs, values and a deference to scripture. For example, I visited a mainline church a while back that openly said the Feeding of the Five Thousand was not a miracle, even though it clearly is a miracle int he Bible. That's the kind of thing it would be hard to explain to a kid: yes, the pastor said it wasn't a miracle, but, no, he's wrong, but, yes, we are going to go to this heretical church anyway.
@@penguinblanche Oh wow, now I'm curious how they could attempt to explain those events as anything other than miraculous, & why anyone especially a Christian who's read the Word want to try?! --My son's only 8yrs, so I'm still cautious & must attend 1st; talk to the congregation & Pastor. BUT I was definitely NOT thinking of these newer Churches as Christian denominations! --I'm surrounded by Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, & Catholic Churches(lower Alabama). I was skeptical about bringing my son to the Pentecostal Church. --I told him that Mass is the fullness; a "reverent worship", & this is more like "celebratory worship" where we give thanks & praise to God for our many blessings & reasons to worship. --Christ was all about personal relationships & prayed for Unity among His followers. But I understand what you meant now; protecting our kids from false teachers!!!
"The 👑GREATEST MAN in HISTORY" had no servants, yet they called Him Master. Had no degree, yet they called Him Teacher. Had no medicines, yet they called Him Healer. He had no army, yet kings feared Him. He won no military battles, yet He conquered the world. He did not live in a castle, yet they called Him Lord, He ruled no nations, yet they called Him King, He committed no crime, yet they crucified Him. He was buried in a tomb, yet He lives today! "His name is JESUS❤"
@@redeemedzoomer6053 What are your thoughts on free grace and lordship grace? BTW I have learned more about church from you then most others. Interesting and informative.
@@littlefishbigmountain The letter of the synod to the emperor and empress, Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VII, col. 577, "Now anathema is nothing less than complete separation from God."
@@DavidHite Don’t stop reading at that one sentence. “For if any are quarrelsome and will not obediently accept what has now been decreed, they but kick against the pricks, and injure their own souls in their fighting against Christ. And in taking pleasure at the insults which are offered to the Church, they clearly shew themselves to be of those who madly make war upon piety, and are therefore to be regarded as in the same category with the heretics of old times, and their companions and brethren in ungodliness.” Where does this say they are beyond repentance? It doesn’t. Are you suggesting it does? The Church was seen by all the fathers as the body of Christ, a visible body which you could know publicly and verify through apostolic succession, etc. To willingly separate yourself from the body of Christ is to make yourself anathema, and like it or not in the mind of the ancient Church you can’t both reject Jesus Christ and have God too. And they got that idea from the Lord Himself and the apostles who taught that unless you have the Son you do not have the Father. Once again, what I said was it doesn’t mean damned or beyond repentance. I’m failing to see the part where this shows otherwise?
@@DavidHite Don’t stop reading at that one sentence. “For if any are quarrelsome and will not obediently accept what has now been decreed, they but kick against the pricks, and injure their own souls in their fighting against Christ. And in taking pleasure at the insults which are offered to the Church, they clearly shew themselves to be of those who madly make war upon piety, and are therefore to be regarded as in the same category with the heretics of old times, and their companions and brethren in ungodliness.” Where does this say they are beyond repentance? It doesn’t. Are you suggesting it does? The Church was seen by all the fathers as the body of Christ, a visible body which you could know publicly and verify through apostolic succession, etc. To willingly separate yourself from the body of Christ is to make yourself anathema, and like it or not in the mind of the ancient Church you can’t both reject Jesus Christ and have God too. And they got that idea from the Lord Himself and the apostles who taught that unless you have the Son you do not have the Father. Once again, what I said was it doesn’t mean damned or beyond repentance. I’m failing to see the part where this shows otherwise?
Jesus founded and maintains His Holy Catholic Church. There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church because Jesus Christ is the head of the Catholic Church and there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ.
I think one major thing you forget about reconquista is that liberal areas are very expensive, and universities are very expensive, no one can really afford to live or learn there these days.
I'm sorry but not all of the Conservative Protestant influencers online are "retreatists" Conservative Lutherans online tend to be part of the WELS or LCMS both of which pre-date the mainline Lutheran denomination. Same for the SBC.
With all due respect Zoomer, I still think you're very wrong on this one. Conservatives are not "running away" to start their own breakout denominations. What is typically happening is that conservative presbyters and bishops are being dismissed from their positions by liberal leadership - and the churches and congregations they have helped to build and cherish, are being seized from them. The liberal leadership within these churches would rather see Christ's church wither and die than led by someone preaching a conservative and true gospel; and there is no "ousting" them because they pick and appoint their own. Conservatives are given two options by their peers - to either stay silent, or get out. What's incredible is that this is CURRENTLY happening to Reconquista; the liberal groups within these churches have discovered the movement, view it as a threat, and are already taking actions against it and the priests who support it.
How did the leadership become liberal (read: atheists with clerical collars) in the first place? At some point an actual Christian leader let them in, either because they were deceived, or more likely, because they'd gotten soft and thought allowing a little leeway on essentials would have no consequences. You have to be willing to defrock them, to fire them, to throw them out of seminaries and churches, unafraid of being called mean for it. The second you stop throwing out the rot, it festers and spreads. This is your daily reminder that you are Christian, or not. There is no such thing as a "liberal Christian" or a "conservative Christian". What we call "liberal Christians" are atheists so maliciously dishonest they work to destroy churches from within rather than railing against them honestly from the outside.
This reminds me of what C.S Lewis said in 'Mere Christianity's' preface. Somewhere around the lines of "the kingdom of God is like a house. Those who are in the house are in their own rooms, still in the same house" or something like that. I agree with what you are saying up to a point. There does come a point when you have to recognize that a certain group of people have been left to their sin by God, and excommunication becomes necessary. What the conservative PCUSA should have done is excommunicate the branches that were rotting rather than make a new Denomination sect.
They are your baby so to speak. They forget that the Reformation failed, resulting in a man made religion based on anger and resentment. They never stopped protesting and they never will. They also forget that Sola Scriptura meant authority over the magisterium. Everything got out of control and mutated and never stopped mutating. The Reformers were right to be upset over the RCC, but starting a whole new religion and calling it Christianity is straight out of Satan's playbook. RZ is far too immature in his faith to be teaching like this. Most Protestants are far too spiritually immature to be listening. Protestantism is spiritual delusion.
How can a faithful christain submit to the authority of heretics? It is one thing to worship with someone who belives a heresy. It is another to be led by a lesbian "married" to another woman.
Did Christ not submit to the authority of the Romans? He was not a revolutionary. And eventually by staying submissive to the empire yet continuing to preach, Christianity naturally took over. The exact process RZ is advocating for is exactly what the first Christians did. If they didn't, Christianity would have only existed in Judea.
Catholics and Orthodox have significanctly more in common than Protestant Denominations. We also have a shared history for the first 1,000 years of Christianity. It's way more likely that Catholic and Orthodox come back into communion than Protestantism.
All (theologically conservative) Evangelicals are and always have been ecumenical with each other, this is what differentiates Evangelicals from Fundamentalist within Theologically Conservative Protestant Christianity. On the topic of ecumenism, Evangelicals (Missional-Revivalist Evangelicals) more so than Mainline Protestants, have (almost always) had open communion with what most of them would describe as believing Christians across several denominations, denominational traditions, and independent non-denominational congregations (with very few exceptions within some Confessional Evangelical groups) even if they don’t have official full communion agreements on the books which most Mainline Protestants generally require because of their preferentially higher view of structural unity/church polity-governance over the concepts of “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love” and “Primary and Secondary issues in Christian theology.” In other words while Evangelicals (Evangelicals proper - Revivalists) from the get-go have been very interdenominational/ecumenical and well known for open communion even though they’re theologically conservative while the Mainline Protestants are/were mostly closed communion with recent allowances through some official full communion agreements - they also happen to be largely theologically liberal. Evangelical believe in “in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity” while Catholics, Orthodox, and Mormons (Mormons aren’t Christian but a separate Abrahamic religion like Islam or Rastafarianism) believe in the “one true church” doctrine. All Evangelicals, see themselves more as Christians first and their individual denominations second which especially makes sense when talking about Evangelicals because Evangelicals are an interdenominational/ecumenical community or movement who cooperate with each other and worship together due to largely similar theological beliefs but set boundaries because of distinctions or differences on issues of secondary and tertiary importance. --- Even though Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East have a lot of hierarchy, centralized structure, stricter rules and procedures, and believe in the “one true church” doctrine, many of them, even some of their priests are just overtly “Cafeteria Catholics”/Nominally Orthodox (who are very nominal or only culturally Catholic/Orthodox), or even Folk Catholic/Folk Orthodox, some aren’t really devout Christians even by their own Catholic/Orthodox standards thus creating a huge variation in beliefs and huge deviation from core Christian tenants of the faith among individuals that are supposed to be shared by all true (Mainstream-Nicene) Christians regardless of denomination even though on paper there are strict outlines of dogma & hierarchy. While Evangelicals are very decentralized, believe “in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity,” and put a higher emphasis on understanding and living out correct Christian teaching as opposed to obsessing over structure and hierarchy like Catholics do; so people who have wonky and unorthodox beliefs when it comes to primary issues tend to leave because in Evangelicalism there’s no point in staying (for the exception of non-Christian Republicans/political conservatives in the United States who don’t go to church & are stealing/co-opting the term for political reasons in collusion with secular media who want to fit their boogymen into neat boxes) because by definition you can’t be an Evangelical or a Christian if you no longer hold to those beliefs; Catholicism, Eastern/Oriental Orthodoxy, and Mainline Protestantism are the opposite, Catholics/Orthodox who don’t hold to Catholic/Orthodox beliefs or even basic Christian beliefs are guilt-tripped into staying and are encouraged to stay because a baptized Catholic/Orthodox is still a Catholic/Orthodox even if they no longer believe in the tenants of the faith - most stay because simply being in the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Churches is more important than upholding Catholic/Orthodox or even broadly Christian beliefs. … … A similar occurrence also happens in Mainline Protestant denominations not because they believe in the “one true church” doctrine (which they don’t), it’s because Mainline Protestant denominations are ready and willing to bend their core beliefs via theological liberalism/theological progressivism to maintain membership, plus (some also obsess over maintaining power/hierarchy as opposed to maintaining biblically orthodox theology and) many maintain membership and participate in church practices (like Baptism, Confirmation, etc.) solely for social and cultural reason even if they don’t believe in the tenets of the faith. --- The Christian Church (a.k.a. The Way, the Church, or Christanity) was founded in 30 AD by Jesus of Nazareth - the Christ, Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man - through the Holy Spirit at Pentecost - although Jesus also had disciples prior to the offical founding of the Church; the subdivisions known as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church were founded in 1054 AD, the subdivision known as the Oriental Orthodox Church was founded in 451 AD, the subdivision known as the Church of the East was founded in 431 AD, and the Protestant Reformation officially started in 1517 AD with several minor Proto-Protestant precursors forming prior to it and influencing others - all of these subdivisions are sui iuris braches within the true catholic, apoostolic, orthodox, Nicene, and Christian Church with further internal autocephalous organizational polity structures and distinctives in tradition.
There's a fourth unity model that's really common in Evangelical circles. It's based upon not understanding that theological differences among Protestants exist. They say all protestants are Christians because they think all Protestants are basically Baptist or Pentecostal.
@@withlessAsbestos I meant no offense brother. I didn't say that misconception was ubiquitous among evangelicals, merely that it was very common. Most people would call me an Evangelical, although I don't know if that title is entirely appropriate. It's possible that it was a psychological projection on my part because I used to be ignorant of doctrinal distinctions among Protestants at one point in my life, although I get the feeling that I was far from alone. Peace.
I'm 5 minutes in, and interestingly, I have found that the "Outer rim" conservative churches will often hold respect for other denominations on the outer rim, but will eschew the denominations that are even one step closer to the center. Their focus on Conservatism is what drives them.
Yes, in a way. Being conservative LCMS, I know where I stand and my church stands. We talk with WELS and ELS, and even ANCA. Teh conservative part, maybe traditional, is to take the Bible seriously and to trust it. With other conservative denoms, we speak the same language in that regard: we are digging for Biblical truth. The liberals tend to be worldly, emotional, and will abandon faithfulness for outward appearances of unity. Their language is non-committal, vague, ever evolving, non-sensical. Can talk to them when we cannot speak the same language. (Bill Clinton: depends on what your definition of "is" is) I ache for a reunification of conservative Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Liberal Protestants I shake their dust off my sandals.
@@jasonkiefer1894Exactly. All of the conservative organizations of every denomination are just trying to follow the scriptures the best we can. We have differences, sometimes many major differences, but it all comes down to different interpretations of what we all understand and accept as the inerrant word of God. All the conservative groups are united by our shared love and reverence to the word of God, and *THAT* is the glue that I hope will bind us together. All of this is in contract to the liberal mainline, which picks and chooses which parts of the scripture they like, openly rejecting the parts that do not align with their worldly wants and views. This is what I hope we will all stand united against.
The inner circle is finding unity in apostasy, the outer circle is finding unity in scripture and faithfulness. Hopefully RZ will find out that his idolatry for buildings is leading him into communion with apostates.
As a traditional Catholic, I wish we would unite with Orthodox and East Orthodox Churches to recreate Chalcedonian Christianity. We Catholics accept patriarchs as authorities above archbishops, but them accept Catholic Pope as the highest Patriarch. We accept your Saints, you accept our Saints. We accept receiving the body of Christ under two species, you acknowledge purgatory. Etc, etc...
To be honest in some churches in Catholic Church you can get Communion under two species (Bread and Wine). It depends on bishop's permission. Just discovered it some time ago and share. As a catholic tottaly agree with the idea of Catholic-Orthodox reunification. Greetings
As an Eastern Orthodox, I can only disagree with what you said, that's like dismembering Orthodoxy itself. Although Catholics are the ones that I respect the most of all branches of Christianity, I think that there's no reason to fight or argue, as well as there's no reason for unity.
@@Raxel501 Jesus will unite Christianity anyway, but it doesn't mean we can't try to find the truth together before he come. Of course not without his agree. We must pray, work and talk
It's not gonna happen as long as the RCC usurps God's authority and contradicts scripture by referring and titling someone as father(pope), worshipping"venerating" saints(making them patrons) worshipping"v" Mary(referring to her as The Mother of God) and stop modeling after the OT. Salvation is based on faith, and we can only receive faith by hearing the gospel, not by practicing traditions or rituals, that is the point of faith and belief and trusting in what Jesus came to do, and told us to do through the 12 disciples.
The only way to unite Christendom is for all Christians to return to the One True Church as it says in the Nicene Creed, "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church"
Yeah... Have you heard him talk about the Roman Catholic Church? You sound like them, anathemizing all others. There is one holy catholic apostolic church, you just cannot point at one single earthly entity in which it is contained.
@@SojournerDidimus The Nicene Creed was composed by Catholic bishops and about the Catholic Church. St. Cyprian of Carthage “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251] “There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253] St. Optatus of Milevus “In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]-of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367] St. Augustine of Hippo “There are many other things which most properly can keep me in her [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]
Confessional Lutherans reject "unionism," which is toleration of false doctrine for the sake of [superficial] visible unity on a congregational and denominational level. We will pray, distribute Bibles, pass out Gospel tracts, and serve the poor with Christians from other denominations, but require unity of doctrine for altar and pulpit fellowship (church membership).
IMO, the prerequisite to this strategy is to not go into a rainbow church alone. Find another friend or two, or family or two to go with you, that way you can keep each other in check. The risk is that if one hears a lie enough, they'll believe it, and it could easily happen in a church. I have known people, even within my own SBC church that eventually had their non-dispensationalist and non-rapture beliefs beaten out of them for lack of advocacy. Further, "We cannot continue to send our children to Caesar for their education and be surprised when they come home as Romans" and I think this is true. Especially when it comes to the mentoring of children.
RZ, I’ve been an avid RUclips consumer since its launch and this is my first ever comment on a video. Thank you for all that you do. God has gifted you with a great mission, and your boldness is truly an inspiration. I’m a 25 year old from Detroit, and a self-described ubermasculine, ultraconservative, meat eater, and raw milk drinker. I came to Christ in a conservative denomination but made the jump a few years back to a semi-liberal mainline church. Your videos renew my desire to make a difference in my community. Hope to see the baptists included in the Reconquista map someday! Last but certainly not least, congrats on marriage and becoming one!
I grew up in a family that hates the idea of denominations. My mother is Protestant, my dad was raised Catholic, and we attended Baptist churches most of my life, but my parents still refuse to identify with any denomination, because they believe that denominationalism only leads to more division.
@@spbeckman Refusing something is not the same as hating it. I sometimes refuse to open the door when my annoying neighbor rings. That doesn't mean I'm a "neighbor hater".
@@HorseloverFat1984he makes a point though. its hard not to ignore theological convictions on different topics. And to associate groups of congregants under a label who unite over said convictions seems impossible not to do. or else you would have to explain specific convictions by explaining the conviction and adding “those who adhere to”. Denominational association is just way easier, and useful.
In my family everyone is a different spice of protestant. We debate but don't fight. It our family motto that an extra plate is better than one taken away. We realize most is trivial squabbling anyway, like "I believe just singing psalms is enough" and "I believe gospel and a church band is okay".
The RC Church recognizes the EO Church as having valid holy orders and sacraments, not to mention there is over a millenia of shared history between the two. Perhaps I'm idealistic but I think there could be a path to reunion between the two given the right pressures. The Church is meant to be one body.
I think more dialogue needs to be made with the EO Church to be completely honest, I think mending the schism is closer than we and a lot of orthobros would like to believe.
@@CklertI have to disagree. The differences between Rome and Constantinople have only gotten sharper as the centuries have gone along. Even in a scenario where the two unite, the union would almost certainly create another large-scale schism in the Orthodox Church, with some churches accepting the union and others rejecting it. I also find it very distressing that people just want to stick to this vague idealistic "reunificationism" and not actually contemplate how this would be a catastrophic failure logistically speaking and canonically speaking, most especially on the Orthodox side (Catholics would probably be rejoicing). I can already imagine church leaders declaring entire sees to be defunct, whole synods to be considered deposed, missionary efforts in unionist areas, individual parishes switching jurisdictions like crazy, etc etc. I know reunion sounds like a swell idea but I think you guys are not seeing the bigger picture
@@david-al-sayyid "The differences between Rome and Constantinople have only gotten sharper as the centuries have gone along. " Not really. If anything they've stagnated. The same arguments made then are no different than now. If anything, there has been more dialogue between the two in past few decades than previously. "Even in a scenario where the two unite, the union would almost certainly create another large-scale schism in the Orthodox Church, with some churches accepting the union and others rejecting it. I also find it very distressing that people just want to stick to this vague idealistic "reunificationism" and not actually contemplate how this would be a catastrophic failure logistically speaking and canonically speaking, most especially on the Orthodox side (Catholics would probably be rejoicing). " Such is the nature of schism. Is it any different than with the Sedevacantists? The Melkites? Or any previous schismatic group? Laity holds no binding authority to Church. Should such attempts be avoided then? "I can already imagine church leaders declaring entire sees to be defunct, whole synods to be considered deposed, missionary efforts in unionist areas, individual parishes switching jurisdictions like crazy, etc etc. I know reunion sounds like a swell idea but I think you guys are not seeing the bigger picture" And so because the possibility that schismatics want to remain in schism, we should abandon hopes of reunification? No, I'm afraid not. No one said there wouldn't be growing pains or backlash. But to abandon those hopes it in fear of laity defiance, is foolish, and spits in the face of the decisions of the previous Ecumenical Councils. The bigger picture is that the Church, the pillar of Truth would be one. I don't think anything else supersedes that.
To any conservative Anglicans, Catholics, and Easterns, this is a non starter since apostolic succession is absolutely necessary for a valid church and Eucharist
They would see the apostolic succession as necessary to be valid and to be capable of bearing the marks of the church. They would quote Ignatius of Antioch to say without bishops there is no Church.
@@spaceman001e7Apostolic Succession is not Biblical and a fantasy early Church clearly went off rails into heretical spaces so enjoy. Any Christian can see this. The body of believers began to split apart around 500AD . Your check doesn't have all the Bishops since 1054
It's disappointing to see you doubling down on your blanket condemnation of all conservatives as "scaredy cats" after you walked this back in your comment on Matthew Everhard's video. Yes, conservatives deserve criticism for many different issues, being too afraid being one of them in many cases. However, being scared is NOT the predominant reason for denominational splits. The primary reason for that is pursuit of, and disagreement on, the Truth. Funny enough, you actually correctly identied this early on in this video, but then spiraled into a rant about how "scared" we all are. Choosing to be led by a sound council of men is not cowardice, it's wisdom. Choosing to be led by a band of liberal activists is not bravery, it's foolishness. Now, I agree conservatives' complacency with fully abandoning mainline institutions deserves criticism. However, the solution for retaking them cannot be to expect people to wholly jump right into them. They're too far gone for that. They need to be treated like any other mission field: approached with tact and anchored to a healthy institution filled with the Holy Spirit. Don't get me wrong, I have a ton of respect for what you are trying to do in the PCUSA and the mainline as a whole, but your insistance that everyone join in lockstep is short-sighted and wreckless. Unity must be pursued through the truth, not in spite of it.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 You didn't say that, and I know you don't believe that. My concern is that this strategy is too willing to compromise the Truth in pursuit of unity. I know you are all for hammering out complex theological issues through debate, and I would encourage you that this very thing is what will bring unity to the Church over time as we all become convicted by God's revealed word. In contrast, compromising with those who would wholly reject God's Word in pursuit of their earthly resources seems to indicate some level of doubt in Christ's promise to lead and guide His Church.
@@brucedewitt4994His strategy in Reconquista is to support existing minority conservative churches in the majorly liberal denominations to support them and make sure they are solid, not to jump into very liberal churches
A small point of clarification on conservative denominations always splitting from larger historical denominations as they become more liberal. The LCMS is the largest Confessional Lutheran denomination, and we never split from a larger denomination. In fact our liberal churches and pastors split from us during the 70s in what we call “Seminex”.
Protestanism less divided than the Apostolic churches? Dont make me laugh. Apostolic churches all agree on the sacraments, baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, Holy Tradition having importance, the marian dogmas, the Eucharist being the actual body of the Lord and the Holy Trinity. Ask a few Protestants and you will get vastly different answers on these important teachings.
All (theologically conservative) Evangelicals are and always have been ecumenical with each other, this is what differentiates Evangelicals from Fundamentalist within Theologically Conservative Protestant Christianity. On the topic of ecumenism, Evangelicals (Missional-Revivalist Evangelicals) more so than Mainline Protestants, have (almost always) had open communion with what most of them would describe as believing Christians across several denominations, denominational traditions, and independent non-denominational congregations (with very few exceptions within some Confessional Evangelical groups) even if they don’t have official full communion agreements on the books which most Mainline Protestants generally require because of their preferentially higher view of structural unity/church polity-governance over the concepts of “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love” and “Primary and Secondary issues in Christian theology.” In other words while Evangelicals (Evangelicals proper - Revivalists) from the get-go have been very interdenominational/ecumenical and well known for open communion even though they’re theologically conservative while the Mainline Protestants are/were mostly closed communion with recent allowances through some official full communion agreements - they also happen to be largely theologically liberal. Evangelical believe in “in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity” while Catholics, Orthodox, and Mormons (Mormons aren’t Christian but a separate Abrahamic religion like Islam or Rastafarianism) believe in the “one true church” doctrine. All Evangelicals, see themselves more as Christians first and their individual denominations second which especially makes sense when talking about Evangelicals because Evangelicals are an interdenominational/ecumenical community or movement who cooperate with each other and worship together due to largely similar theological beliefs but set boundaries because of distinctions or differences on issues of secondary and tertiary importance. --- Even though Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East have a lot of hierarchy, centralized structure, stricter rules and procedures, and believe in the “one true church” doctrine, many of them, even some of their priests are just overtly “Cafeteria Catholics”/Nominally Orthodox (who are very nominal or only culturally Catholic/Orthodox), or even Folk Catholic/Folk Orthodox, some aren’t really devout Christians even by their own Catholic/Orthodox standards thus creating a huge variation in beliefs and huge deviation from core Christian tenants of the faith among individuals that are supposed to be shared by all true (Mainstream-Nicene) Christians regardless of denomination even though on paper there are strict outlines of dogma & hierarchy. While Evangelicals are very decentralized, believe “in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity,” and put a higher emphasis on understanding and living out correct Christian teaching as opposed to obsessing over structure and hierarchy like Catholics do; so people who have wonky and unorthodox beliefs when it comes to primary issues tend to leave because in Evangelicalism there’s no point in staying (for the exception of non-Christian Republicans/political conservatives in the United States who don’t go to church & are stealing/co-opting the term for political reasons in collusion with secular media who want to fit their boogymen into neat boxes) because by definition you can’t be an Evangelical or a Christian if you no longer hold to those beliefs; Catholicism, Eastern/Oriental Orthodoxy, and Mainline Protestantism are the opposite, Catholics/Orthodox who don’t hold to Catholic/Orthodox beliefs or even basic Christian beliefs are guilt-tripped into staying and are encouraged to stay because a baptized Catholic/Orthodox is still a Catholic/Orthodox even if they no longer believe in the tenants of the faith - most stay because simply being in the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Churches is more important than upholding Catholic/Orthodox or even broadly Christian beliefs. … … A similar occurrence also happens in Mainline Protestant denominations not because they believe in the “one true church” doctrine (which they don’t), it’s because Mainline Protestant denominations are ready and willing to bend their core beliefs via theological liberalism/theological progressivism to maintain membership, plus (some also obsess over maintaining power/hierarchy as opposed to maintaining biblically orthodox theology and) many maintain membership and participate in church practices (like Baptism, Confirmation, etc.) solely for social and cultural reason even if they don’t believe in the tenets of the faith. --- The Christian Church (a.k.a. The Way, the Church, or Christanity) was founded in 30 AD by Jesus of Nazareth - the Christ, Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man - through the Holy Spirit at Pentecost - although Jesus also had disciples prior to the offical founding of the Church; the subdivisions known as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church were founded in 1054 AD, the subdivision known as the Oriental Orthodox Church was founded in 451 AD, the subdivision known as the Church of the East was founded in 431 AD, and the Protestant Reformation officially started in 1517 AD with several minor Proto-Protestant precursors forming prior to it and influencing others - all of these subdivisions are sui iuris braches within the true catholic, apoostolic, orthodox, Nicene, and Christian Church with further internal autocephalous organizational polity structures and distinctives in tradition.
@@iamdigory The whole "one true church" claims and that we anathemized each other in the past? Well he makes it sound like we dont recognize each others sacraments, recognize the apostolic successions and are on pretty good speaking terms RIGHT NOW. Also yes, salvation outside the church doesnt exist, this however doesnt mean that people outside can never be saved (this isnt the position of either church).
There is an obvious way to unite all the denominations - a return to the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and True Church; and inclusion in the visible, hierarchical institution of the same. Only by rejecting nominalism and embracing external authority will the objective moral obligations that come with following Christ become clear enough to unite. We want you guys to come back, too! Viva Christo Rey!
Im not worshipping idols and you can't make me. Inb4 five page dissertation on why the gold statue of Mary at the altar of your church (which is named after Mary) is totally not an idol.
What one? Roman? Old Roman? Sedevacantist? Or Byzantine? Or Moscovite? Or Assirian? Or Coptic? Or the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil? There are many "One Catholic Church"s
How do you view the "unity with diversity" that the Catholic Church has with its 24 Rites? This unity is less conformed than the mainline unity you mentioned since very few Priests are able to minister at different rites. Bishops do have to be able to minister in every rite in their diocese in case of an emergency, but they cannot just be swapped out when the feeling hits. Each rite is very distinct and has their own Patriarch which very rarely has the Roman Patriach involved. I think your "unity with diversity" would be better served with the Rite structure rather than the Orders under the Roman Rite structure. I am sure you know that the "Roman Catholic Church" is just one of the 24 rites of the Catholic Church but I assume you said Roman Catholic Church since many don't notice the difference, but the phrase "No salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church" is wrong since "Roman" is just one of their rites. Not saying that the historical phrase "No salvation outside the Catholic Church" is less divisive with Protestants, but it does paint a picture of a diverse unity that still places individuals inside the Catholic Church without strict conformity by requiring the specific Roman Rite.
This is a really insightful, informed, and pragmatic approach to church unity. You should seriously consider sharing this content in some mediums which are more likely to be reached by "upper-level church leadership", to use overly managerial terms. Bishops and regional ministers would really benefit from this (and everyone else would benefit from their benefitting of this) but they're far less likely to see it than "lay" Christians.
@@redeemedzoomer6053you’ve got a map of a bunch of different churches innit? Sending out emails or making phone calls using that info could be a start. Could be some sort of group effort with your subscribers.
Ok, but WHY DOES THE PIE CHART HAVE GAPS IN IT? You can't just have missing chucks of it on the screen for the whole video and never explain why there's random wedges removed
Pretty sure it’s supposed to be traditional vs conventional liturgy, the range of style found in each group, like how the ACNA isn’t really contemporary at all, so it is missing the bit that represents that. Meanwhile the PCA is often contemporary, and rarely super traditional, so it is missing the left bit.
@@RatIsForRatthew I don't think so, since there doesn't seem to be any particular ordering around the circle. What about from Baptist to Presby? Or Congregational to Lutheran? It doesn't seem like there's enough info for it to be that. Also, he said that basically all the denoms are basically OK with each other communion wise.
I think it’s supposed to represent his point of the more liberal churches (the ones in the center) having already achieved a form of unity, while the more conservative (outer rings) haven’t, so there’s gaps in the outside.
As a Catholic in nyc, your rhetoric against liberalism is very inspiring for me 😌🙏 I’m praying for your reconquista movement, it’s definitely bringing more people closer to God
I think it's very short sighted to say "the Catholics are prideful and won't give up their 'fake infallibility' and 'one true Church' idea". You have to understand we believe the Church is led by Christ and the Holy Spirit, and that the magisterium is infallible and instituted by Christ. The minute that the Church rejects this is the minute that the Church falls. However, of course that is impossible to happen because Christ said "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" and "I will be with you till the end days". I would say the only reason the Church has a "good structure" as you said is because of the fact that its instituted by Christ. I would definitely love to see all the protestants unite and then talk about getting into a "protestant rite" within Catholicism, like what we did with Anglicans and a lot of Orthodox Churches. Reading about the Counter Reformation movement within the Church is what really sold me on Catholicism, the fact that they did take into account Luthers concerns, at least the ones that weren't heretical, and did actually reform the Church. Anyways, this is coming from a former PCUSA member, and I love your videos!
Little nitpick here, the Franciscans, Jesuits and Dominican religious orders do share the same theology (which is why they’re all Catholic), what they differ in is charisms. A charism is basically an emphasis on a certain fruit of the Holy Spirit, or an emphasis on a certain kind of evangelization. The Franciscans tend to focus on ministering to the poor and marginalized, and the Jesuits and Dominicans evangelize through teaching, preaching, and scholarship. The difference between these two being their spiritualities, which stem from their founders and other major saints. The Dominicans have a Thomistic spirituality, and the Jesuits have an Ignatian spirituality. Describing differences in spiritualities brings up more nuance that I am not eloquent nor educated enough to speak on. But it is very different that having different theologies. All Catholic religious orders agree on soteriology, christology, and sacrament theology, etc. I find it a tad naive or presumptuous to believe that all Protestants are willing to set aside their differences in theology if it will cause their denomination’s theologies to become mixed or diluted. But this video is an interesting thought experiment nonetheless.
I am not Protestant, I am Orthodox, but I have a question for you. What would a conservative Protestant do if he or she were to get kicked out of a liberal Church they would want to attend. Maybe not literally kicked out instantly, but ignored, then removed. Their questions not answered, them not being given any position within the Church because of their conservatism, etc. What if there is a really determined liberal pastor that would simply not accept them for anything more than just a simple attendee, and at the first opportunity, find a way to ban them from coming.
Also, I am pretty sure the LCMS is not in alter communion with anyone else in that chart. LCMS churches typically won't allow just anyone to take communion when they are new to the church. Usually we have them talk to a pastor before service to make sure we subscribe to the same beliefs.
Nevermind, you said the smaller groups in the branches are in pulpit and alter communion. Though I would not sure how well that works in Lutheran churches.
Not really. Back when, the ALC, LCA and LCMS where about equal in size. The AELC splinter that left/was kicked out of the Missouri Synod was dangerously small and badly needed the great Lutheran unification to happen. They were the catalyst for ALC, LCA and AELC to merge into the ELCA. That Seminex crowd was also radical, and set the trajectory of what the ELCA became. ELCA isn't exactly a splinter from the LCMS, but they have our splinter.
I hope you realize that the ELCA is a larger institution by size and numbers than the LCMS? Even if they were the "split-off", the sheer size of their denomination makes their existence intolerable to any serious Lutherans.
We're also going to need pro-unity people in the conservative offshoots if we ever want them to return. I'm in the OPC and my goal is to actively promote uniting with the PCA. It's ridiculous that they never united and voted it down twice
RZ is protestant and rather focus on protestant denominations. However he said in 4:04 minute that in his opinion it's hard to reunite with catholics and orthodoxies because of ecclesialism (claiming that they are one true church). Greetings from catholic
@@Shnitzel_AffeExactly lol. Protestantism is a waste of time on a civilizational level, we don't need it moving forward and when the Orthodox and Catholics eventually reunite by God's grace it will create a bigger incentive for Anglicans and Lutherans to join.
Without the Catholic Church, there would be no biblical canon (73 books, btw). Without the Catholic Church, Protestants wouldn't be protesting anything because Martin Luther (a Catholic monk) wouldn't have been a monk. Btw Luther believed in transubstantiation. I believe in one holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Modern Lutherans believe in the Real Presence. They believe Christ’s body and blood are present “in, with, and under” the signs of consecrated bread and wine. I’m pretty sure this doctrine of “sacramental union” was Luther’s position since at least the 1530s.
@Thatoneguy-pu8ty oh please tell me which article I got it from. I've known these facts long before I ever heard of Catholic Answers. I was very much agnostic for most of my life. I began looking into all these different things because each one builds off the last. Funny, it's almost like that's how history works.
RC taking credit for everything, when the Bible was compiled before RC Split off from Orthodoxy. Regarding Lutherans, we are also Catholics, but we reject the Papacy and any of it's innovations and decrees which contradict the Bible. Put the Bible back above the Pope, and we can have some sort of unity again, potentially.
Yeah, Protestants definitely did not recognize each other. Try telling that one to an Anabaptist or a Quaker. And the Irish could tell you that the Protestants had a funny way of recognizing that Catholics could be Christians too.
All (theologically conservative) Evangelicals are and always have been ecumenical with each other, this is what differentiates Evangelicals from Fundamentalist within Theologically Conservative Protestant Christianity. On the topic of ecumenism, Evangelicals (Missional-Revivalist Evangelicals) more so than Mainline Protestants, have (almost always) had open communion with what most of them would describe as believing Christians across several denominations, denominational traditions, and independent non-denominational congregations (with very few exceptions within some Confessional Evangelical groups) even if they don’t have official full communion agreements on the books which most Mainline Protestants generally require because of their preferentially higher view of structural unity/church polity-governance over the concepts of “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love” and “Primary and Secondary issues in Christian theology.” In other words while Evangelicals (Evangelicals proper - Revivalists) from the get-go have been very interdenominational/ecumenical and well known for open communion even though they’re theologically conservative while the Mainline Protestants are/were mostly closed communion with recent allowances through some official full communion agreements - they also happen to be largely theologically liberal. Evangelical believe in “in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity” while Catholics, Orthodox, and Mormons (Mormons aren’t Christian but a separate Abrahamic religion like Islam or Rastafarianism) believe in the “one true church” doctrine. All Evangelicals, see themselves more as Christians first and their individual denominations second which especially makes sense when talking about Evangelicals because Evangelicals are an interdenominational/ecumenical community or movement who cooperate with each other and worship together due to largely similar theological beliefs but set boundaries because of distinctions or differences on issues of secondary and tertiary importance. --- Even though Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East have a lot of hierarchy, centralized structure, stricter rules and procedures, and believe in the “one true church” doctrine, many of them, even some of their priests are just overtly “Cafeteria Catholics”/Nominally Orthodox (who are very nominal or only culturally Catholic/Orthodox), or even Folk Catholic/Folk Orthodox, some aren’t really devout Christians even by their own Catholic/Orthodox standards thus creating a huge variation in beliefs and huge deviation from core Christian tenants of the faith among individuals that are supposed to be shared by all true (Mainstream-Nicene) Christians regardless of denomination even though on paper there are strict outlines of dogma & hierarchy. While Evangelicals are very decentralized, believe “in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity,” and put a higher emphasis on understanding and living out correct Christian teaching as opposed to obsessing over structure and hierarchy like Catholics do; so people who have wonky and unorthodox beliefs when it comes to primary issues tend to leave because in Evangelicalism there’s no point in staying (for the exception of non-Christian Republicans/political conservatives in the United States who don’t go to church & are stealing/co-opting the term for political reasons in collusion with secular media who want to fit their boogymen into neat boxes) because by definition you can’t be an Evangelical or a Christian if you no longer hold to those beliefs; Catholicism, Eastern/Oriental Orthodoxy, and Mainline Protestantism are the opposite, Catholics/Orthodox who don’t hold to Catholic/Orthodox beliefs or even basic Christian beliefs are guilt-tripped into staying and are encouraged to stay because a baptized Catholic/Orthodox is still a Catholic/Orthodox even if they no longer believe in the tenants of the faith - most stay because simply being in the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Churches is more important than upholding Catholic/Orthodox or even broadly Christian beliefs. … … A similar occurrence also happens in Mainline Protestant denominations not because they believe in the “one true church” doctrine (which they don’t), it’s because Mainline Protestant denominations are ready and willing to bend their core beliefs via theological liberalism/theological progressivism to maintain membership, plus (some also obsess over maintaining power/hierarchy as opposed to maintaining biblically orthodox theology and) many maintain membership and participate in church practices (like Baptism, Confirmation, etc.) solely for social and cultural reason even if they don’t believe in the tenets of the faith. --- The Christian Church (a.k.a. The Way, the Church, or Christanity) was founded in 30 AD by Jesus of Nazareth - the Christ, Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man - through the Holy Spirit at Pentecost - although Jesus also had disciples prior to the offical founding of the Church; the subdivisions known as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church were founded in 1054 AD, the subdivision known as the Oriental Orthodox Church was founded in 451 AD, the subdivision known as the Church of the East was founded in 431 AD, and the Protestant Reformation officially started in 1517 AD with several minor Proto-Protestant precursors forming prior to it and influencing others - all of these subdivisions are sui iuris braches within the true catholic, apoostolic, orthodox, Nicene, and Christian Church with further internal autocephalous organizational polity structures and distinctives in tradition.
Ironically, I have heard Zoomer himself say they are cases to be made that LCMS and the SBC are more mainline. Not sure why he is switching here, other than he wants to lump all liberal denominations together for the sake of narrative.
Disbelief in the supernatural. Pentecostalism and Charismaticism has rescued much of the Church from that fate by enabling them to experience God in a real and tangible way.
The Orthodox and Catholic Church claiming to be the One True Church has been one of the main criticisms against it and is one of the main things I disagree about with them, but you have to admit that it's also been one of their greatest strength. By making that claim, their followers have been forced to stand their ground and trust that God won't let their church become corrupted, even when it seems like they're going that way, and so they don't run away like Protestants do and form their own separate churches.
I think a more reasonable form of Unity model #2 is that everyone agrees with each other, rather than everyone agrees with one particular Christian. This inevitably means that every Christian needs to be open-minded enough to change their minds, and that all theological debates need to be resolved. Let me tell you something: you can change my mind about a particular theological position, as long as it makes more biblical and logical sense than the position that I already hold. I pray that there are other Christians that have the same mindset that I do.
Soooo muuuch respect from Asia 😭😭😭😭 I am pastor's kis in a Chinese Methodist Church, and ur video rlly inspire me. Thx God n I am gonna share this with my PK friend. May God unite His own church ❤
If you could edit this down into a short I think it could go viral along conservative media. Brilliant presentation. If you do this I will try to help distribute. It is worthy.
@@YehudaHalevi247I've never heard him say that. He's Reformed so he has theological issues with those of us who aren't but he's been pretty firm that he sees anyone who holds to the contents of the Nicene Creed as Christian, whether they be Catholic, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc.
@@Hunter-lt2sb He called Baptists stupid, non-denominational are pointless, and Pentecostals are heretics. I like and have learned from his videos, but at times he can be condescending to low churches.
@@Hunter-lt2sb Anathema doesn’t mean “go to hell”. It means “This puts you outside the Church. Repent and be reconciled.” This is exactly what Paul did. 1 Timothy 1:20 and 1 Corinthians 5:5 being extremely explicit about this, but there any many other places too. Anathema is in the Bible. Literally, the Greek work ανάθεμα.
The question of denomination ultimately comes down to what is truth? Everyone may have their different opinions, but there can only be one truth. If you believe in objective truth, then the idea of tolerating the lutharens treating the holy eucharist as the actual body of God is not something you cant just be like "oh those lutharens, they're just so silly how they treat the eucharist, our one church is so diverse!" This is a huge deal that needs to be agreed on universally.
After getting Protestant cooperation in order I’m sure the Catholics are game to cooperate too, it’s just that the Protestant community needs to get its head on straight before we can have vastly productive cooperation with Rome.
Amen brother! This is excellent! I have had a passion for Church unity for a long time and this is almost exactly how I envisioned it. Different orders all of whom come under geographically based authorities. So you would have an Episcopal church, a Presbyterian church, a Baptist church all in the same diocese or presbytery, or whatever you want to call it to handle issues and work in common at the local level. Then, in addition to that, they would also have their ordinal authority they could go to for things specific to their order. My visions includes the step of bringing together the conservative denominations to then rejoin/retake the liberal ones, or in the event that the Reconquista is successful (something I pray for regularly) then the mainline can welcome the off-shoots back with open arms. I think it will take this two-pronged approach. I agree that the conservatives who fled were acting often out of fear, but now that they exist I believe it is equally important to steer those denominations toward unity as well. If all the conservative Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc. came together and supported this idearather than in-fighting we unite rather easily. The difficulty lies in that we splinter based on principle but fail to unite on principle. I really do think that as the millennials and zoomers continue to fill the ranks of both mainline and off-shoot denominations and society continues to become more and more secular, this concept will flourish and become the only reasonable way forward.
12:07 So you are going to bring an unbeliever to the Lord and they go to Church and find out that they really don't have to believe the stuff that they were told they have to believe to be a Christian. Before I was a Christian I was an agnostic. Becoming a Christian meant believing something. I left the Episcopal Church because I didn't need their liberal unbelief, I could unbelieve just fine as an agnostic.
An example of a conservative denomination refusing to retreat which you forgot about: SBC conservatives kicked the "modernists" out of the convention in the 70s, and continue to do so today (see Rick Warren).
Here's how early Christianity understood unity. St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251] “There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253] St. Optatus, bishop of Milevus “In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]-of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367])
That is absolutely not what anathema means. The word means to "lift up" and when we say "anathema to all heretics" we are basically asking God to help you see the truth and stop being heretical. Also, compromising the Truth of the Church and apostatizing to appease modern ideals of "unity" is not "laying down your pride".
You may want to look up a technical definition for that word. What you're describing is what should be hoped for when someone is anathema, not what anathema is. Different animals.
@@kev-la-kill9673 Not really. While that is the root in Greek, in Scripture it is used to signify something regarded as accursed, off limits for the people of God. RZ is wrong that it was ever a guaranteed condemnation to Hell, even if never lifted, but in Christianity it was always a formal, public removal of the person from the community. This has two purposes: make it as clear as possible to the person that his action was unacceptable, alerting him to the need to repent, and to let the rest of the community know not to follow his example.
Sure, that's what it means. That's why the old Catholic bishops and popes declared someone anathema right before the state considered the "heretic" to be an enemy of the state. The Catholics were just trying to "lift them up" and "ask God to help them see the truth". Oh please. It was an open command to the state to murder whoever didn't fall in line with their dogma. Nobody who truly understands Catholic history would ever believe such a disprovable lie.
SBC baptist here. Interesting how you acknowledge we need to have diversity of beliefs without being completely liberal or fundamentalist. Interesting how you seem to think the best way to do that is through the mainline denominations. Part of me still wonders if you have ever truly looked into the SBC as a whole... We have diversity of beliefs, and also have united efforts to run missions and seminaries. We fight the liberal takeover, and we also don't force everyone to hold extreme fundamentalist views (even tho a lot of us do hold those views). We don't 'retreat to a safe space' and run from the libs to our own denomination. We stand our ground and choose men who will run our conferences and seminaries in a godly and truthful way (it is groups like the cbf that have to split off from us for their own little snowflake safe space). If you need an organization without the problems in catholic doctrine that knows how to have agreement in diversity of beliefs, the SBC is where it is at. For crying out loud, the ancestor of the modern baptist denominations (the triennial convention) was formed from the calvinist baptists, the arminian baptists, and the seperate baptists. We realized what we had in common in the gospel was much more important than our views on things like predestination. Each group believed their view was correct and very important. We also believe that unity in Christ is more important. And also u told me to believe in the autonomy of the local church, believers baptism, and a personal salvation experience. No take-backs. 10:24 Anyway, thanks for continuing to fight for the body of Christ and against the leftists who want to turn the church into an organization that believes everything (ie nothing). Looking forward to the next videos.
I usually like Redeemed Zoomer's videos, but on this subject I strongly disagree. I think it would be a sin to become a member of a liberal church or denomination. Also, it would be spiritually harmful to attend a seminary like Princeton Seminary or Harvard Divinity School. To become a member of an (apostate) mainline church requires compromise which a faithful Christian cannot commit.
Let's just all pray for the Catholics and Orthodox reunite and then we can all just join that church! If they worked out their differences to the point they could reunite then that would pretty much heal all the issues that caused the protestant split in the first place.
Real. Their "one true church" claims conflict with each other and makes it much more difficult for the layman to determine which one is the real church. It also disregards the protestant evangelism, which seems to be much more common than catholic or orthodox evangelism.
Hey RZ I have a very genuine question. What if OR doesn’t work? What if, say five years from now, little to no churches have been retaken? What then? Do you just keep at it or is there plan to cut your losses?
I don't think your solution is practical. At least I don't see it being practical from my standpoint. I was raised Roman Catholic, and God called me out of there and into Assemblies of God for a while, then non-denoms for many years, and now for the past 5 years He's planted me in an ACNA Anglican parish. As a member of this local ACNA parish I've tried to encourage change in the direction of greater evangelistic activity. But in 5 years I've made little or no headway. Individuals don't have any real influence. The rector and the vestry are the influencers, and it's backstopped by the bishop. In a congregational type church it's the pastor and the board of elders, often backstopped by some sort of higher-up overseers. So let's say someone is raising a family. Are they supposed to stay in (or join) a mainline, liberalized group and expose themselves and their children to a weekly drumbeat of bad doctrine and wobbly theology, for the sake of hoping to instigate change from within? I don't think so. Someone like me, an older guy who is solid in his beliefs, could devote himself to such a task. But the odds of actually having a positive influence against the "establishment" are about as good as a fish swimming straight up the Niagara Falls to spawn. It could work in a small congregation that's independent and non-denominational. Anywhere else is an extreme long shot IMO. But I do feel like pretty much all of us under the Protestant umbrella already regard one another as brethren, so we are substantially united despite our little differences. Much more so than we could ever be united with the Catholics or the Orthodox. Our attitude toward other Protestants is, we love you and we can get along, for we are all the Body of Christ. The Catholics are more like, you need to "come home" because it's "our way or the highway" (60 years ago they would have said, "it's our way or the highway to hell," but they softened the message because we were whupping them so badly.)
The Oriental Orthodox Church model is actually pretty good to follow. They're all in Union with another despite having different ecclesiastical structures, liturgy, culture and even canons.
@@TheMacDonald22 No it's not. The Oriental Orthodox churches are all independent from each other, they just recognize each other as having valid sacraments and are in communion. Also, internally, none of them has an institution like the Papacy.
So you are suggesting that the 12.9 million SBC members should move into the 1.2 million ABCUSA? Do you think the ABCUSA would except conservative SBC churches into it's fellowship? Should the SBC abandon it's institutions to have a historic connection to Yale?
Brother Richard, I’d exhort you to show a little more respect for those of us who aren’t comfortable being part of a liberal church. It’s not necessarily a matter of immaturity and cowardice. For various people, it could relate to interpretation of passages about church discipline, the purity of the church, spiritual warfare, etc. I currently don’t feel right about attending a church that affirms sinful lifestyles, and I don’t think that’s due to cowardice and probably not intellectual immaturity either. Consider how arrogant it could be when you boldly accuse almost all your mature brothers and sisters of being immature and cowardly. Or at least explain from Scripture why you think your reconquista approach is better in light of passages like 1 Cor. 5.
Leaves half of all Christianity behind. Actually, it leaves all Protestants that are not from those six or seven traditions and that are not from the USA/Europe behind as well.
@@Shnitzel_Affe I'm really not talking about that. He mentions in the video that a fundamental claim Catholics make is much more difficult to reconcile, which is why they are not on the chart.
Brother. It seems to me (OPINION HERE, TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT) that you have a borderline unhealthy obsession with church denominations. You seem to view everything through this lens. Take some time for yourself to spend time in the Word and really ponder what is the duty of man, and what discipleship of Jesus means. You have a powerful online ministry that you can use to direct teen's eyes towards Jesus Christ. Seek out how to do that.
The funny thing is that you always crap on non denominational or “Bible churches” as I’ve seen them called… But this is basically the stance of those churches. We are traditional, we are Protestant (but accept all to communion) and we don’t go hard on trying to reform you from whatever denomination you came from before showing up. Aka, we have open doors for all Christians and you’re allowed to keep whatever “regional / personal” ideals you want. We are here to come together as a body for Christ and work on his kingdom first and foremost. The nuance is secondary to the hardline. And for a bonus, we are the most conservative types of Christians you’ll find
I like your use of the chart, but you didn't really give a concrete definition of unity. If you mean altar and pulpit fellowship, then you need unity in (not abandonment of) sacramental theology and exegetic principles. If you mean institutional unity like the catholics and orthodox, you'd basically just need one legal or financial entity organizing all of the churches while leaving doctrine on the back burner. Not saying both of these things can't be done, just that priorities need to be set.
There wont be a reunification of the Protestant Church because the very nature of it is individual interpretation, which will essentially split it into a million pieces. The Protestants would need to adopt multiple similar stances as the three Orthodox denominations for this ever become feasible.
I think the original idea of church unification is dumb anyways because only one doctrine is right anyways I dont believe in catholic and orthodox unification its impossible their is no common sense in that we can only support each other as Christian's and cheer when someone joins any christian denomination that's it many people do that no need to try unite when it's not possible catholic and orthodox unification is killing one doctrine and keeping the other I mean come on now
I could just say all the other Protestants should just become Lutheran, but I don't want all those people to come into my church unless they adopt our practices. If they are going to bring their different customs and practices, and in some cases wrong beliefs, with them, then it's better for us all if we all stay in our own lanes.
Calling out shots, ouch! You’re right though I agree. The only tricky part is by going to those more liberal zones I definitely wouldn’t want my young child to learn anything from their Sunday school as children are more susceptible to deceitful teachings. But that’s my issue, maybe I’ll find a babysitter while the wife and I are there putting in work. I appreciate the video, the message (and gospel) must be delivered
"..MY WIFE AND I..." did I miss the memo? Congratulations, RZ!
yeah he posted it on his instagram and discord
And his wedding stream got leaked and everyone on discord was watching it 💀
lol right ? I was very happy to hear that
@@ChristosisCardinalis💀💀💀
Congrats RZ!!!!
People say Southern Baptists have no cultural institutions, then explain Chickfila.
Or the hearts of just about every small rural Southern town’s community.
@@hismajesty6272 Until the fried chicken clogs said hearts
@@LTDLimiTeD1995 it teaches us to number our days. 💁
@@jonathanspeicher5298 yes, but also the ingredients in the chicken are made to be additive. That’s my problem with chick Fil A being a Christian company that puts harmful additives in its ingredients. I eat there, because of the quality and kindness, and possibly because of the addictive nature. If another Christian competitor came out without the addictive ingredients that cause more harm than addiction, I'd go their
As a Baptist, I claim Chick-fil-A. It is now ours.
I'm a Southern Baptist. My brothers and I attended a dialogue with a liberal UMC church last night on Christian Nationalism. Your reconquista efforts inspired us to do that and share Biblical truth with them. Praying that their denomination is reclaimed for Christ!
That’s awesome brother!!
@@eian_ Thank you!
We’re also part of the SBC as well in the church I go to call Pathway Church
As a conservative Methodist in liberal denomination, thank you for your prayers!!!
I doubt the UM will be reclaimed - too many conservatives left - as the Bible says - "Come out"
"Some 17-year-old will send me his 90-page essay. Okay, buddy." Says the 22-year-old with hundreds of hours of content on this exact topic in a video on this very topic. Zoomer, it's you. You're the really passionate 17-year-old sending the DMs.
Linking intelligence to institutional teaching is such a fallacy. I'd rather be governed by random people from the phone book than by Harvard grads.
I mean you certainly are not wrong here. :)
I quite love Zoomer, especially when he talks about different denominations and such. But he's a bit of an ideologue on this issue, Children, and new converts to Christianity really should find a proper bible believing church, and would not be well served engaging in a fight to save broken churches.
@@colmortimer1066 I totally agree with you. I love RZ's content but he definitely has some major blind spots.
You might have that opinion but it’s foolish to say Harvard does not have significant cultural impact.
@@colmortimer1066 Yes, but he's pretty clear who the audience for this video is. It's the fervent believers, not the "what's a bibble?" crowd.
Those of us who have children will have a harder time taking our children to a liberal church. Singles, empty nesters, and newlyweds are going to have to do all the work before you’d see conservative young fathers raising their kids there. Right now conservative denominations are a safe haven for families with small children trying to have community with other families committed to godly households. Saving a mainline denominations is great, but saving the kids is more urgent, and the command to train up a child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord presses heavily on parents of young kids. They need a supportive community at church to help with that very difficult job.
This right here, all day. You can't take your kids to church, then spend the ride home talking about all the ways the pastor is wrong, and expect that child to develop a healthy relationship with Christ. Reconquering is definitely a task for those who are not raising children.
I'm Catholic. I was raised in Catholic Church School, till the age of reason(10-11yrs).
--Then, my mom encouraged us to accept all invites to Christian denominations. To gain more understanding; caused me to reflect/look to the Word & appreciate the Mass.
--We're all reading the same book, just highlighting & placing more emphasis on some teachings as a way to build our own personal relationships with God through Christ.
--My husband's "non-denominational"(pentacostal); we share the same beliefs, values, & always defer to the scripture. Still some disagreements over the methods.
--Our son attends Catholic School & take we take Mass, bcuz I think it provides a more structured environment to help build his foundation on. BUT we also attend Grace Assembly(dad plays Bass there & we're close to the Pastor).
--I can see why some ppl wouldn't want to take their kids to various denominations, but after you've laid the foundation I don't see why they shouldn't feel comfortable going into any Christian Church.
@@IAmTheSlink maybe talk to the Pastor afterwards & ask him about certain teachings; any legit Man of God will enjoy the questions & have no trouble explaining his teachings.
--Kids are curious & we are responsible for teaching/guiding them on how & where to find the truth; encouraging independent study into the Scriptures.
--My family's had some great Biblical discussions on the similarities & differences.
@@sharonodom6575 I agree that it's good to go to and understand various denominations. This was more about the need to go to a church that was actually teaching the Bible (like you say, sharing beliefs, values, and deferring to scripture), regardless of denomination. The issue is that as RZ and others try to "reconquer" liberal denominations, those same liberal churches are often not teaching the Bible, sharing beliefs, values and a deference to scripture. For example, I visited a mainline church a while back that openly said the Feeding of the Five Thousand was not a miracle, even though it clearly is a miracle int he Bible. That's the kind of thing it would be hard to explain to a kid: yes, the pastor said it wasn't a miracle, but, no, he's wrong, but, yes, we are going to go to this heretical church anyway.
@@penguinblanche Oh wow, now I'm curious how they could attempt to explain those events as anything other than miraculous, & why anyone especially a Christian who's read the Word want to try?!
--My son's only 8yrs, so I'm still cautious & must attend 1st; talk to the congregation & Pastor. BUT I was definitely NOT thinking of these newer Churches as Christian denominations!
--I'm surrounded by Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, & Catholic Churches(lower Alabama). I was skeptical about bringing my son to the Pentecostal Church.
--I told him that Mass is the fullness; a "reverent worship", & this is more like "celebratory worship" where we give thanks & praise to God for our many blessings & reasons to worship.
--Christ was all about personal relationships & prayed for Unity among His followers. But I understand what you meant now; protecting our kids from false teachers!!!
"The 👑GREATEST MAN in HISTORY"
had no servants, yet they called Him Master. Had no degree, yet they called Him Teacher. Had no medicines, yet they called Him Healer. He had no army, yet kings feared Him. He won no military battles, yet He conquered the world. He did not live in a castle, yet they called Him Lord, He ruled no nations, yet they called Him King, He committed no crime, yet they crucified Him. He was buried in a tomb, yet He lives today!
"His name is JESUS❤"
@@john-xp4em yes
AMEN AND HALLELUJAH 🔥🙏✝️❤️🔥
Amen! 🙏
Amen Brother
Indeed
I think you mean "How to unite all Protestant denominations"
The only ones I care about
@@redeemedzoomer6053 What are your thoughts on free grace and lordship grace? BTW I have learned more about church from you then most others. Interesting and informative.
Agreed
The Catholic / orthodox groups need to solve there issues among them
@@dallasbrat81 you right, I've been praying for that. It's near impossible but I know that with God all things are possible
Anathema does not mean damned. It means outside the Church, repent. Just like Paul put people out of the Church and hoped they’d repent.
Anathema is defined by the Nicea II as "complete separation from God" which is practically damnation.
@@KenjiStandlee
Where are you getting that quote from exactly? Please cite your source more specifically.
@@littlefishbigmountain The letter of the synod to the emperor and empress, Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VII, col. 577, "Now anathema is nothing less than complete separation from God."
@@DavidHite
Don’t stop reading at that one sentence.
“For if any are quarrelsome and will not obediently accept what has now been decreed, they but kick against the pricks, and injure their own souls in their fighting against Christ. And in taking pleasure at the insults which are offered to the Church, they clearly shew themselves to be of those who madly make war upon piety, and are therefore to be regarded as in the same category with the heretics of old times, and their companions and brethren in ungodliness.”
Where does this say they are beyond repentance? It doesn’t. Are you suggesting it does?
The Church was seen by all the fathers as the body of Christ, a visible body which you could know publicly and verify through apostolic succession, etc. To willingly separate yourself from the body of Christ is to make yourself anathema, and like it or not in the mind of the ancient Church you can’t both reject Jesus Christ and have God too. And they got that idea from the Lord Himself and the apostles who taught that unless you have the Son you do not have the Father.
Once again, what I said was it doesn’t mean damned or beyond repentance. I’m failing to see the part where this shows otherwise?
@@DavidHite
Don’t stop reading at that one sentence.
“For if any are quarrelsome and will not obediently accept what has now been decreed, they but kick against the pricks, and injure their own souls in their fighting against Christ. And in taking pleasure at the insults which are offered to the Church, they clearly shew themselves to be of those who madly make war upon piety, and are therefore to be regarded as in the same category with the heretics of old times, and their companions and brethren in ungodliness.”
Where does this say they are beyond repentance? It doesn’t. Are you suggesting it does?
The Church was seen by all the fathers as the body of Christ, a visible body which you could know publicly and verify through apostolic succession, etc. To willingly separate yourself from the body of Christ is to make yourself anathema, and like it or not in the mind of the ancient Church you can’t both reject Jesus Christ and have God too. And they got that idea from the Lord Himself and the apostles who taught that unless you have the Son you do not have the Father.
Once again, what I said was it doesn’t mean damned or beyond repentance. I’m failing to see the part where this shows otherwise?
Only Jesus' return can reunite all Christian denominations.
False!
Jesus founded and maintains His Holy Catholic Church.
There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church because Jesus Christ is the head of the Catholic Church and there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ.
@@classicalteacher The Orthodox say the exact same thing.
@@ThatchyThroneand what is the problem?
@@ThatchyThrone Presbyterians also say this. 👍
I think one major thing you forget about reconquista is that liberal areas are very expensive, and universities are very expensive, no one can really afford to live or learn there these days.
But the point is to just start attending the liberal churches that are already there, and then turning them more bible-based
That's not entirely true.
@@danielboelnielsen4605 that's the church reconquesta, that's only one half of his plan
"My wife and I". Let's Goooooooooo!!! Treat her like a Real Christian husband bro! Give God and her your best everyday!
I'm sorry but not all of the Conservative Protestant influencers online are "retreatists" Conservative Lutherans online tend to be part of the WELS or LCMS both of which pre-date the mainline Lutheran denomination. Same for the SBC.
With all due respect Zoomer, I still think you're very wrong on this one. Conservatives are not "running away" to start their own breakout denominations. What is typically happening is that conservative presbyters and bishops are being dismissed from their positions by liberal leadership - and the churches and congregations they have helped to build and cherish, are being seized from them. The liberal leadership within these churches would rather see Christ's church wither and die than led by someone preaching a conservative and true gospel; and there is no "ousting" them because they pick and appoint their own.
Conservatives are given two options by their peers - to either stay silent, or get out.
What's incredible is that this is CURRENTLY happening to Reconquista; the liberal groups within these churches have discovered the movement, view it as a threat, and are already taking actions against it and the priests who support it.
How did the leadership become liberal (read: atheists with clerical collars) in the first place? At some point an actual Christian leader let them in, either because they were deceived, or more likely, because they'd gotten soft and thought allowing a little leeway on essentials would have no consequences. You have to be willing to defrock them, to fire them, to throw them out of seminaries and churches, unafraid of being called mean for it. The second you stop throwing out the rot, it festers and spreads.
This is your daily reminder that you are Christian, or not. There is no such thing as a "liberal Christian" or a "conservative Christian". What we call "liberal Christians" are atheists so maliciously dishonest they work to destroy churches from within rather than railing against them honestly from the outside.
This reminds me of what C.S Lewis said in 'Mere Christianity's' preface. Somewhere around the lines of "the kingdom of God is like a house. Those who are in the house are in their own rooms, still in the same house" or something like that.
I agree with what you are saying up to a point. There does come a point when you have to recognize that a certain group of people have been left to their sin by God, and excommunication becomes necessary. What the conservative PCUSA should have done is excommunicate the branches that were rotting rather than make a new Denomination sect.
The denoms in the middle aren't even Church's anymore.
That word is one letter swap away from being DEMONS - which is how I read it at first. 😁
They're a church for somebody, but certainly not for Jesus.
@@LTDLimiTeD1995 *cough* Satan
@@LTDLimiTeD1995Imma use your line from now on, hope you don’t mind.
@@lohi172 Please do. I'm a writer by trade so being quoted is a high honor xD
Redeemed Zoomer is making tutorials now?
How to unite the church in only 30 minutes DIY
@vinex1755 "How to reclaim classical protestantism in 15 minutes."
Calvin and Luther didn’t even agree. What hope do churches 500 years down the road have?
They never even met
@@EliB207 I know they didn’t. But they are the two most important figures in early Protestantism and they had very different views.
@@centurysince4312it's because of Zwingli
Under sola scriptura there is no hope
@@haydentrent101 take a shower
As a Catholic, good luck Zoomer.
They are your baby so to speak. They forget that the Reformation failed, resulting in a man made religion based on anger and resentment. They never stopped protesting and they never will. They also forget that Sola Scriptura meant authority over the magisterium. Everything got out of control and mutated and never stopped mutating. The Reformers were right to be upset over the RCC, but starting a whole new religion and calling it Christianity is straight out of Satan's playbook. RZ is far too immature in his faith to be teaching like this. Most Protestants are far too spiritually immature to be listening. Protestantism is spiritual delusion.
As a Protestant, I admire many things about Catholics and hope we can be friends.
How can a faithful christain submit to the authority of heretics? It is one thing to worship with someone who belives a heresy. It is another to be led by a lesbian "married" to another woman.
The PSA rainbow church in my town recently outed the purple-haired lesbian "pastor" there, I'm watching with curiosity to see who she's replaced with.
Did Christ not submit to the authority of the Romans? He was not a revolutionary. And eventually by staying submissive to the empire yet continuing to preach, Christianity naturally took over. The exact process RZ is advocating for is exactly what the first Christians did. If they didn't, Christianity would have only existed in Judea.
@Bible43 please tell me this is satire. The NT specifically addresses both. There is no unclean food.
@Bible43 Lol, only if you deny the entire New Testament. This issue was definitely addressed.
@Bible43 Acts 10:9-16, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11
Catholics and Orthodox have significanctly more in common than Protestant Denominations. We also have a shared history for the first 1,000 years of Christianity. It's way more likely that Catholic and Orthodox come back into communion than Protestantism.
For real.
All (theologically conservative) Evangelicals are and always have been ecumenical with each other, this is what differentiates Evangelicals from Fundamentalist within Theologically Conservative Protestant Christianity. On the topic of ecumenism, Evangelicals (Missional-Revivalist Evangelicals) more so than Mainline Protestants, have (almost always) had open communion with what most of them would describe as believing Christians across several denominations, denominational traditions, and independent non-denominational congregations (with very few exceptions within some Confessional Evangelical groups) even if they don’t have official full communion agreements on the books which most Mainline Protestants generally require because of their preferentially higher view of structural unity/church polity-governance over the concepts of “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love” and “Primary and Secondary issues in Christian theology.” In other words while Evangelicals (Evangelicals proper - Revivalists) from the get-go have been very interdenominational/ecumenical and well known for open communion even though they’re theologically conservative while the Mainline Protestants are/were mostly closed communion with recent allowances through some official full communion agreements - they also happen to be largely theologically liberal. Evangelical believe in “in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity” while Catholics, Orthodox, and Mormons (Mormons aren’t Christian but a separate Abrahamic religion like Islam or Rastafarianism) believe in the “one true church” doctrine. All Evangelicals, see themselves more as Christians first and their individual denominations second which especially makes sense when talking about Evangelicals because Evangelicals are an interdenominational/ecumenical community or movement who cooperate with each other and worship together due to largely similar theological beliefs but set boundaries because of distinctions or differences on issues of secondary and tertiary importance.
---
Even though Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East have a lot of hierarchy, centralized structure, stricter rules and procedures, and believe in the “one true church” doctrine, many of them, even some of their priests are just overtly “Cafeteria Catholics”/Nominally Orthodox (who are very nominal or only culturally Catholic/Orthodox), or even Folk Catholic/Folk Orthodox, some aren’t really devout Christians even by their own Catholic/Orthodox standards thus creating a huge variation in beliefs and huge deviation from core Christian tenants of the faith among individuals that are supposed to be shared by all true (Mainstream-Nicene) Christians regardless of denomination even though on paper there are strict outlines of dogma & hierarchy. While Evangelicals are very decentralized, believe “in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity,” and put a higher emphasis on understanding and living out correct Christian teaching as opposed to obsessing over structure and hierarchy like Catholics do; so people who have wonky and unorthodox beliefs when it comes to primary issues tend to leave because in Evangelicalism there’s no point in staying (for the exception of non-Christian Republicans/political conservatives in the United States who don’t go to church & are stealing/co-opting the term for political reasons in collusion with secular media who want to fit their boogymen into neat boxes) because by definition you can’t be an Evangelical or a Christian if you no longer hold to those beliefs; Catholicism, Eastern/Oriental Orthodoxy, and Mainline Protestantism are the opposite, Catholics/Orthodox who don’t hold to Catholic/Orthodox beliefs or even basic Christian beliefs are guilt-tripped into staying and are encouraged to stay because a baptized Catholic/Orthodox is still a Catholic/Orthodox even if they no longer believe in the tenants of the faith - most stay because simply being in the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Churches is more important than upholding Catholic/Orthodox or even broadly Christian beliefs. …
… A similar occurrence also happens in Mainline Protestant denominations not because they believe in the “one true church” doctrine (which they don’t), it’s because Mainline Protestant denominations are ready and willing to bend their core beliefs via theological liberalism/theological progressivism to maintain membership, plus (some also obsess over maintaining power/hierarchy as opposed to maintaining biblically orthodox theology and) many maintain membership and participate in church practices (like Baptism, Confirmation, etc.) solely for social and cultural reason even if they don’t believe in the tenets of the faith.
---
The Christian Church (a.k.a. The Way, the Church, or Christanity) was founded in 30 AD by Jesus of Nazareth - the Christ, Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man - through the Holy Spirit at Pentecost - although Jesus also had disciples prior to the offical founding of the Church; the subdivisions known as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church were founded in 1054 AD, the subdivision known as the Oriental Orthodox Church was founded in 451 AD, the subdivision known as the Church of the East was founded in 431 AD, and the Protestant Reformation officially started in 1517 AD with several minor Proto-Protestant precursors forming prior to it and influencing others - all of these subdivisions are sui iuris braches within the true catholic, apoostolic, orthodox, Nicene, and Christian Church with further internal autocephalous organizational polity structures and distinctives in tradition.
@@leullakew9579why is that so long bro
Congratulations to you and Mrs. Zoomer on the wedding! Can’t wait to hear about you baptizing your covenant babies.
Grab a giant boombox and put Sabaton's Last stand on Max volume.
There's a fourth unity model that's really common in Evangelical circles. It's based upon not understanding that theological differences among Protestants exist. They say all protestants are Christians because they think all Protestants are basically Baptist or Pentecostal.
Bad idea lol
@@joshuas1834 Yeah, or just not talking about secondary issues. Great for unity, not great for maturity
Unlike yourself who doesn’t realize that evangelicals aren’t a monolith.
@@auggieeasteregg2150 totally! My church does exactly that haha.
@@withlessAsbestos I meant no offense brother. I didn't say that misconception was ubiquitous among evangelicals, merely that it was very common. Most people would call me an Evangelical, although I don't know if that title is entirely appropriate. It's possible that it was a psychological projection on my part because I used to be ignorant of doctrinal distinctions among Protestants at one point in my life, although I get the feeling that I was far from alone. Peace.
I'm 5 minutes in, and interestingly, I have found that the "Outer rim" conservative churches will often hold respect for other denominations on the outer rim, but will eschew the denominations that are even one step closer to the center. Their focus on Conservatism is what drives them.
Yes, in a way. Being conservative LCMS, I know where I stand and my church stands. We talk with WELS and ELS, and even ANCA. Teh conservative part, maybe traditional, is to take the Bible seriously and to trust it. With other conservative denoms, we speak the same language in that regard: we are digging for Biblical truth. The liberals tend to be worldly, emotional, and will abandon faithfulness for outward appearances of unity. Their language is non-committal, vague, ever evolving, non-sensical. Can talk to them when we cannot speak the same language. (Bill Clinton: depends on what your definition of "is" is) I ache for a reunification of conservative Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Liberal Protestants I shake their dust off my sandals.
@@jasonkiefer1894Exactly. All of the conservative organizations of every denomination are just trying to follow the scriptures the best we can. We have differences, sometimes many major differences, but it all comes down to different interpretations of what we all understand and accept as the inerrant word of God.
All the conservative groups are united by our shared love and reverence to the word of God, and *THAT* is the glue that I hope will bind us together. All of this is in contract to the liberal mainline, which picks and chooses which parts of the scripture they like, openly rejecting the parts that do not align with their worldly wants and views. This is what I hope we will all stand united against.
The inner circle is finding unity in apostasy, the outer circle is finding unity in scripture and faithfulness. Hopefully RZ will find out that his idolatry for buildings is leading him into communion with apostates.
As a traditional Catholic, I wish we would unite with Orthodox and East Orthodox Churches to recreate Chalcedonian Christianity. We Catholics accept patriarchs as authorities above archbishops, but them accept Catholic Pope as the highest Patriarch. We accept your Saints, you accept our Saints. We accept receiving the body of Christ under two species, you acknowledge purgatory. Etc, etc...
To be honest in some churches in Catholic Church you can get Communion under two species (Bread and Wine). It depends on bishop's permission. Just discovered it some time ago and share. As a catholic tottaly agree with the idea of Catholic-Orthodox reunification. Greetings
I wholeheartedly agree. I believe that the Schism can be mended one day but it will take a lot of time and interfaith dialogue.
As an Eastern Orthodox, I can only disagree with what you said, that's like dismembering Orthodoxy itself. Although Catholics are the ones that I respect the most of all branches of Christianity, I think that there's no reason to fight or argue, as well as there's no reason for unity.
@@Raxel501 Jesus will unite Christianity anyway, but it doesn't mean we can't try to find the truth together before he come. Of course not without his agree. We must pray, work and talk
It's not gonna happen as long as the RCC usurps God's authority and contradicts scripture by referring and titling someone as father(pope), worshipping"venerating" saints(making them patrons) worshipping"v" Mary(referring to her as The Mother of God) and stop modeling after the OT. Salvation is based on faith, and we can only receive faith by hearing the gospel, not by practicing traditions or rituals, that is the point of faith and belief and trusting in what Jesus came to do, and told us to do through the 12 disciples.
The only way to unite Christendom is for all Christians to return to the One True Church as it says in the Nicene Creed, "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church"
Yeah... Have you heard him talk about the Roman Catholic Church? You sound like them, anathemizing all others.
There is one holy catholic apostolic church, you just cannot point at one single earthly entity in which it is contained.
@@SojournerDidimus The Nicene Creed was composed by Catholic bishops and about the Catholic Church.
St. Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]
“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]
St. Optatus of Milevus
“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]-of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367]
St. Augustine of Hippo
“There are many other things which most properly can keep me in her [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]
@@SojournerDidimus I sure can, watch this: 👉 Catholic Church
@@komnennos Catholic yes, Roman no.
In the Nicene Creed, “catholic” is lower case c, meaning universal. It doesn’t mean and has never meant the physical Roman Catholic Church
Confessional Lutherans reject "unionism," which is toleration of false doctrine for the sake of [superficial] visible unity on a congregational and denominational level. We will pray, distribute Bibles, pass out Gospel tracts, and serve the poor with Christians from other denominations, but require unity of doctrine for altar and pulpit fellowship (church membership).
Congrats on the marriage Z! Happy to hear God blessed you with a wife to be with forever! God Bless, -SBC Christian
IMO, the prerequisite to this strategy is to not go into a rainbow church alone. Find another friend or two, or family or two to go with you, that way you can keep each other in check. The risk is that if one hears a lie enough, they'll believe it, and it could easily happen in a church. I have known people, even within my own SBC church that eventually had their non-dispensationalist and non-rapture beliefs beaten out of them for lack of advocacy. Further, "We cannot continue to send our children to Caesar for their education and be surprised when they come home as Romans" and I think this is true. Especially when it comes to the mentoring of children.
HONEY WAKE UP WE NEED TO UNITE THE CHURCHHHHHH
RZ,
I’ve been an avid RUclips consumer since its launch and this is my first ever comment on a video.
Thank you for all that you do. God has gifted you with a great mission, and your boldness is truly an inspiration.
I’m a 25 year old from Detroit, and a self-described ubermasculine, ultraconservative, meat eater, and raw milk drinker. I came to Christ in a conservative denomination but made the jump a few years back to a semi-liberal mainline church. Your videos renew my desire to make a difference in my community. Hope to see the baptists included in the Reconquista map someday!
Last but certainly not least, congrats on marriage and becoming one!
I'll thank you on zoomers behalf
Get after it, brother. 👊
Hey man, I made RZ read this in discord
I grew up in a family that hates the idea of denominations. My mother is Protestant, my dad was raised Catholic, and we attended Baptist churches most of my life, but my parents still refuse to identify with any denomination, because they believe that denominationalism only leads to more division.
Hating denominations is a denomination...
Your parents are great Christians.
@@spbeckman Refusing something is not the same as hating it. I sometimes refuse to open the door when my annoying neighbor rings. That doesn't mean I'm a "neighbor hater".
@@HorseloverFat1984he makes a point though. its hard not to ignore theological convictions on different topics. And to associate groups of congregants under a label who unite over said convictions seems impossible not to do. or else you would have to explain specific convictions by explaining the conviction and adding “those who adhere to”. Denominational association is just way easier, and useful.
In my family everyone is a different spice of protestant. We debate but don't fight. It our family motto that an extra plate is better than one taken away. We realize most is trivial squabbling anyway, like "I believe just singing psalms is enough" and "I believe gospel and a church band is okay".
The RC Church recognizes the EO Church as having valid holy orders and sacraments, not to mention there is over a millenia of shared history between the two. Perhaps I'm idealistic but I think there could be a path to reunion between the two given the right pressures. The Church is meant to be one body.
I think more dialogue needs to be made with the EO Church to be completely honest, I think mending the schism is closer than we and a lot of orthobros would like to believe.
@@CklertI have to disagree. The differences between Rome and Constantinople have only gotten sharper as the centuries have gone along. Even in a scenario where the two unite, the union would almost certainly create another large-scale schism in the Orthodox Church, with some churches accepting the union and others rejecting it. I also find it very distressing that people just want to stick to this vague idealistic "reunificationism" and not actually contemplate how this would be a catastrophic failure logistically speaking and canonically speaking, most especially on the Orthodox side (Catholics would probably be rejoicing). I can already imagine church leaders declaring entire sees to be defunct, whole synods to be considered deposed, missionary efforts in unionist areas, individual parishes switching jurisdictions like crazy, etc etc. I know reunion sounds like a swell idea but I think you guys are not seeing the bigger picture
There is also 1000 years of disunity between them.
But the EO doesn't recognize the RC.
@@david-al-sayyid "The differences between Rome and Constantinople have only gotten sharper as the centuries have gone along. "
Not really. If anything they've stagnated. The same arguments made then are no different than now. If anything, there has been more dialogue between the two in past few decades than previously.
"Even in a scenario where the two unite, the union would almost certainly create another large-scale schism in the Orthodox Church, with some churches accepting the union and others rejecting it. I also find it very distressing that people just want to stick to this vague idealistic "reunificationism" and not actually contemplate how this would be a catastrophic failure logistically speaking and canonically speaking, most especially on the Orthodox side (Catholics would probably be rejoicing). "
Such is the nature of schism. Is it any different than with the Sedevacantists? The Melkites? Or any previous schismatic group? Laity holds no binding authority to Church. Should such attempts be avoided then?
"I can already imagine church leaders declaring entire sees to be defunct, whole synods to be considered deposed, missionary efforts in unionist areas, individual parishes switching jurisdictions like crazy, etc etc. I know reunion sounds like a swell idea but I think you guys are not seeing the bigger picture"
And so because the possibility that schismatics want to remain in schism, we should abandon hopes of reunification?
No, I'm afraid not.
No one said there wouldn't be growing pains or backlash. But to abandon those hopes it in fear of laity defiance, is foolish, and spits in the face of the decisions of the previous Ecumenical Councils. The bigger picture is that the Church, the pillar of Truth would be one. I don't think anything else supersedes that.
“I would rather drink pure blood with the Pope then mere wine with a fanatic”
-Martin Luther
To any conservative Anglicans, Catholics, and Easterns, this is a non starter since apostolic succession is absolutely necessary for a valid church and Eucharist
What’s a non starter
They would see the apostolic succession as necessary to be valid and to be capable of bearing the marks of the church. They would quote Ignatius of Antioch to say without bishops there is no Church.
@@spaceman001e7 ok
@@spaceman001e7 Anglicans don't have apostolic succession but about the rest you're right
@@spaceman001e7Apostolic Succession is not Biblical and a fantasy early Church clearly went off rails into heretical spaces so enjoy. Any Christian can see this. The body of believers began to split apart around 500AD . Your check doesn't have all the Bishops since 1054
The true way:
(1) Love the One True (Triune) God.
(2) Love your neighbor as yourself.
Keep the essentials essential and the non-essentials essential.
Agree, but the problem is that everybody disagrees on what those are.
Agree in sentiment but I would raise you the Apostles Creed as the essentials.
It's disappointing to see you doubling down on your blanket condemnation of all conservatives as "scaredy cats" after you walked this back in your comment on Matthew Everhard's video. Yes, conservatives deserve criticism for many different issues, being too afraid being one of them in many cases. However, being scared is NOT the predominant reason for denominational splits. The primary reason for that is pursuit of, and disagreement on, the Truth. Funny enough, you actually correctly identied this early on in this video, but then spiraled into a rant about how "scared" we all are. Choosing to be led by a sound council of men is not cowardice, it's wisdom. Choosing to be led by a band of liberal activists is not bravery, it's foolishness.
Now, I agree conservatives' complacency with fully abandoning mainline institutions deserves criticism. However, the solution for retaking them cannot be to expect people to wholly jump right into them. They're too far gone for that. They need to be treated like any other mission field: approached with tact and anchored to a healthy institution filled with the Holy Spirit. Don't get me wrong, I have a ton of respect for what you are trying to do in the PCUSA and the mainline as a whole, but your insistance that everyone join in lockstep is short-sighted and wreckless. Unity must be pursued through the truth, not in spite of it.
when did I say we should abandon truth?
I agree. I find this failure to keep his promise to lay off conservatives is unfortunate.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 You didn't say that, and I know you don't believe that. My concern is that this strategy is too willing to compromise the Truth in pursuit of unity. I know you are all for hammering out complex theological issues through debate, and I would encourage you that this very thing is what will bring unity to the Church over time as we all become convicted by God's revealed word. In contrast, compromising with those who would wholly reject God's Word in pursuit of their earthly resources seems to indicate some level of doubt in Christ's promise to lead and guide His Church.
@@brucedewitt4994His strategy in Reconquista is to support existing minority conservative churches in the majorly liberal denominations to support them and make sure they are solid, not to jump into very liberal churches
@noahwhite6062 as long as he keeps being nicer to Baptists, I am OK with it.
Whoo! Didn't know Zoomer tied the knot, good for him
A small point of clarification on conservative denominations always splitting from larger historical denominations as they become more liberal. The LCMS is the largest Confessional Lutheran denomination, and we never split from a larger denomination. In fact our liberal churches and pastors split from us during the 70s in what we call “Seminex”.
And our online presences are not retreatist, thankfully.
@@jonathanhamilton2504Unless you consider our tendency toward isolationist siloing
@@vngelicath1580 I think we tend to silo is because of our view of doctrine before unity. We would love unity but not at the expense of doctrine.
New converts should be discipled and trained in conservative denominations first, then help Reconquista?
Protestanism less divided than the Apostolic churches? Dont make me laugh. Apostolic churches all agree on the sacraments, baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, Holy Tradition having importance, the marian dogmas, the Eucharist being the actual body of the Lord and the Holy Trinity. Ask a few Protestants and you will get vastly different answers on these important teachings.
All (theologically conservative) Evangelicals are and always have been ecumenical with each other, this is what differentiates Evangelicals from Fundamentalist within Theologically Conservative Protestant Christianity. On the topic of ecumenism, Evangelicals (Missional-Revivalist Evangelicals) more so than Mainline Protestants, have (almost always) had open communion with what most of them would describe as believing Christians across several denominations, denominational traditions, and independent non-denominational congregations (with very few exceptions within some Confessional Evangelical groups) even if they don’t have official full communion agreements on the books which most Mainline Protestants generally require because of their preferentially higher view of structural unity/church polity-governance over the concepts of “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love” and “Primary and Secondary issues in Christian theology.” In other words while Evangelicals (Evangelicals proper - Revivalists) from the get-go have been very interdenominational/ecumenical and well known for open communion even though they’re theologically conservative while the Mainline Protestants are/were mostly closed communion with recent allowances through some official full communion agreements - they also happen to be largely theologically liberal. Evangelical believe in “in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity” while Catholics, Orthodox, and Mormons (Mormons aren’t Christian but a separate Abrahamic religion like Islam or Rastafarianism) believe in the “one true church” doctrine. All Evangelicals, see themselves more as Christians first and their individual denominations second which especially makes sense when talking about Evangelicals because Evangelicals are an interdenominational/ecumenical community or movement who cooperate with each other and worship together due to largely similar theological beliefs but set boundaries because of distinctions or differences on issues of secondary and tertiary importance.
---
Even though Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East have a lot of hierarchy, centralized structure, stricter rules and procedures, and believe in the “one true church” doctrine, many of them, even some of their priests are just overtly “Cafeteria Catholics”/Nominally Orthodox (who are very nominal or only culturally Catholic/Orthodox), or even Folk Catholic/Folk Orthodox, some aren’t really devout Christians even by their own Catholic/Orthodox standards thus creating a huge variation in beliefs and huge deviation from core Christian tenants of the faith among individuals that are supposed to be shared by all true (Mainstream-Nicene) Christians regardless of denomination even though on paper there are strict outlines of dogma & hierarchy. While Evangelicals are very decentralized, believe “in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity,” and put a higher emphasis on understanding and living out correct Christian teaching as opposed to obsessing over structure and hierarchy like Catholics do; so people who have wonky and unorthodox beliefs when it comes to primary issues tend to leave because in Evangelicalism there’s no point in staying (for the exception of non-Christian Republicans/political conservatives in the United States who don’t go to church & are stealing/co-opting the term for political reasons in collusion with secular media who want to fit their boogymen into neat boxes) because by definition you can’t be an Evangelical or a Christian if you no longer hold to those beliefs; Catholicism, Eastern/Oriental Orthodoxy, and Mainline Protestantism are the opposite, Catholics/Orthodox who don’t hold to Catholic/Orthodox beliefs or even basic Christian beliefs are guilt-tripped into staying and are encouraged to stay because a baptized Catholic/Orthodox is still a Catholic/Orthodox even if they no longer believe in the tenants of the faith - most stay because simply being in the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Churches is more important than upholding Catholic/Orthodox or even broadly Christian beliefs. …
… A similar occurrence also happens in Mainline Protestant denominations not because they believe in the “one true church” doctrine (which they don’t), it’s because Mainline Protestant denominations are ready and willing to bend their core beliefs via theological liberalism/theological progressivism to maintain membership, plus (some also obsess over maintaining power/hierarchy as opposed to maintaining biblically orthodox theology and) many maintain membership and participate in church practices (like Baptism, Confirmation, etc.) solely for social and cultural reason even if they don’t believe in the tenets of the faith.
---
The Christian Church (a.k.a. The Way, the Church, or Christanity) was founded in 30 AD by Jesus of Nazareth - the Christ, Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man - through the Holy Spirit at Pentecost - although Jesus also had disciples prior to the offical founding of the Church; the subdivisions known as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church were founded in 1054 AD, the subdivision known as the Oriental Orthodox Church was founded in 451 AD, the subdivision known as the Church of the East was founded in 431 AD, and the Protestant Reformation officially started in 1517 AD with several minor Proto-Protestant precursors forming prior to it and influencing others - all of these subdivisions are sui iuris braches within the true catholic, apoostolic, orthodox, Nicene, and Christian Church with further internal autocephalous organizational polity structures and distinctives in tradition.
@@leullakew9579 Stop spammin this everywhere. And you think I will read this novel?
He gave an argument that you did not respond to.
@@Kostas_Dikefalaios he's also ignoring the fact that our younger Priests are coming out of seminaries more Orthodox than previous decades
@@iamdigory The whole "one true church" claims and that we anathemized each other in the past? Well he makes it sound like we dont recognize each others sacraments, recognize the apostolic successions and are on pretty good speaking terms RIGHT NOW. Also yes, salvation outside the church doesnt exist, this however doesnt mean that people outside can never be saved (this isnt the position of either church).
There is an obvious way to unite all the denominations - a return to the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and True Church; and inclusion in the visible, hierarchical institution of the same. Only by rejecting nominalism and embracing external authority will the objective moral obligations that come with following Christ become clear enough to unite.
We want you guys to come back, too! Viva Christo Rey!
Im not worshipping idols and you can't make me.
Inb4 five page dissertation on why the gold statue of Mary at the altar of your church (which is named after Mary) is totally not an idol.
@@BigSneed404Moses made the Ark of the Covenant with Gold statues of Cherubim, but I don’t see y’all accusing him of idol worshipping.
Bingo
What one? Roman? Old Roman? Sedevacantist? Or Byzantine? Or Moscovite? Or Assirian? Or Coptic? Or the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil?
There are many "One Catholic Church"s
@@Segregacionista it's easy to tell. Those that are in communion with Peter's successor.
How do you view the "unity with diversity" that the Catholic Church has with its 24 Rites? This unity is less conformed than the mainline unity you mentioned since very few Priests are able to minister at different rites. Bishops do have to be able to minister in every rite in their diocese in case of an emergency, but they cannot just be swapped out when the feeling hits. Each rite is very distinct and has their own Patriarch which very rarely has the Roman Patriach involved. I think your "unity with diversity" would be better served with the Rite structure rather than the Orders under the Roman Rite structure.
I am sure you know that the "Roman Catholic Church" is just one of the 24 rites of the Catholic Church but I assume you said Roman Catholic Church since many don't notice the difference, but the phrase "No salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church" is wrong since "Roman" is just one of their rites. Not saying that the historical phrase "No salvation outside the Catholic Church" is less divisive with Protestants, but it does paint a picture of a diverse unity that still places individuals inside the Catholic Church without strict conformity by requiring the specific Roman Rite.
"my wife and I" - WOAH! Congratulations! I missed it!
God bless you both and guide you through life!
This is a really insightful, informed, and pragmatic approach to church unity. You should seriously consider sharing this content in some mediums which are more likely to be reached by "upper-level church leadership", to use overly managerial terms. Bishops and regional ministers would really benefit from this (and everyone else would benefit from their benefitting of this) but they're far less likely to see it than "lay" Christians.
any recommendations for how to share this?
@@redeemedzoomer6053you’ve got a map of a bunch of different churches innit? Sending out emails or making phone calls using that info could be a start. Could be some sort of group effort with your subscribers.
Ok, but WHY DOES THE PIE CHART HAVE GAPS IN IT? You can't just have missing chucks of it on the screen for the whole video and never explain why there's random wedges removed
Pretty sure it’s supposed to be traditional vs conventional liturgy, the range of style found in each group, like how the ACNA isn’t really contemporary at all, so it is missing the bit that represents that. Meanwhile the PCA is often contemporary, and rarely super traditional, so it is missing the left bit.
I think it might be referring to being in communion with groups they are touching to the left and right? Idk
@@RatIsForRatthew I don't think so, since there doesn't seem to be any particular ordering around the circle. What about from Baptist to Presby? Or Congregational to Lutheran? It doesn't seem like there's enough info for it to be that.
Also, he said that basically all the denoms are basically OK with each other communion wise.
Perhaps it's size?
I think it’s supposed to represent his point of the more liberal churches (the ones in the center) having already achieved a form of unity, while the more conservative (outer rings) haven’t, so there’s gaps in the outside.
As a Catholic in nyc, your rhetoric against liberalism is very inspiring for me 😌🙏
I’m praying for your reconquista movement, it’s definitely bringing more people closer to God
Let the heretics fight amongst each othet
I think it's very short sighted to say "the Catholics are prideful and won't give up their 'fake infallibility' and 'one true Church' idea". You have to understand we believe the Church is led by Christ and the Holy Spirit, and that the magisterium is infallible and instituted by Christ. The minute that the Church rejects this is the minute that the Church falls. However, of course that is impossible to happen because Christ said "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" and "I will be with you till the end days". I would say the only reason the Church has a "good structure" as you said is because of the fact that its instituted by Christ.
I would definitely love to see all the protestants unite and then talk about getting into a "protestant rite" within Catholicism, like what we did with Anglicans and a lot of Orthodox Churches. Reading about the Counter Reformation movement within the Church is what really sold me on Catholicism, the fact that they did take into account Luthers concerns, at least the ones that weren't heretical, and did actually reform the Church. Anyways, this is coming from a former PCUSA member, and I love your videos!
Little nitpick here, the Franciscans, Jesuits and Dominican religious orders do share the same theology (which is why they’re all Catholic), what they differ in is charisms.
A charism is basically an emphasis on a certain fruit of the Holy Spirit, or an emphasis on a certain kind of evangelization. The Franciscans tend to focus on ministering to the poor and marginalized, and the Jesuits and Dominicans evangelize through teaching, preaching, and scholarship. The difference between these two being their spiritualities, which stem from their founders and other major saints. The Dominicans have a Thomistic spirituality, and the Jesuits have an Ignatian spirituality.
Describing differences in spiritualities brings up more nuance that I am not eloquent nor educated enough to speak on. But it is very different that having different theologies. All Catholic religious orders agree on soteriology, christology, and sacrament theology, etc. I find it a tad naive or presumptuous to believe that all Protestants are willing to set aside their differences in theology if it will cause their denomination’s theologies to become mixed or diluted. But this video is an interesting thought experiment nonetheless.
I am not Protestant, I am Orthodox, but I have a question for you. What would a conservative Protestant do if he or she were to get kicked out of a liberal Church they would want to attend. Maybe not literally kicked out instantly, but ignored, then removed. Their questions not answered, them not being given any position within the Church because of their conservatism, etc. What if there is a really determined liberal pastor that would simply not accept them for anything more than just a simple attendee, and at the first opportunity, find a way to ban them from coming.
I have a hard time with you saying ELCA is the main stream Lutheran Church because the ELCA was a spliter from the LCMS.
Also, I am pretty sure the LCMS is not in alter communion with anyone else in that chart. LCMS churches typically won't allow just anyone to take communion when they are new to the church. Usually we have them talk to a pastor before service to make sure we subscribe to the same beliefs.
Nevermind, you said the smaller groups in the branches are in pulpit and alter communion. Though I would not sure how well that works in Lutheran churches.
Not really. Back when, the ALC, LCA and LCMS where about equal in size. The AELC splinter that left/was kicked out of the Missouri Synod was dangerously small and badly needed the great Lutheran unification to happen. They were the catalyst for ALC, LCA and AELC to merge into the ELCA. That Seminex crowd was also radical, and set the trajectory of what the ELCA became. ELCA isn't exactly a splinter from the LCMS, but they have our splinter.
I hope you realize that the ELCA is a larger institution by size and numbers than the LCMS? Even if they were the "split-off", the sheer size of their denomination makes their existence intolerable to any serious Lutherans.
No it wasn’t, a SMALL portion of the LCMS left during seminex and joined them
We're also going to need pro-unity people in the conservative offshoots if we ever want them to return. I'm in the OPC and my goal is to actively promote uniting with the PCA. It's ridiculous that they never united and voted it down twice
Where's my Christian denomination, how is this all if it doesn't also have Catholic and Orthodox
RZ is protestant and rather focus on protestant denominations. However he said in 4:04 minute that in his opinion it's hard to reunite with catholics and orthodoxies because of ecclesialism (claiming that they are one true church). Greetings from catholic
@@jakubkosz1009 my prayer is that Catholics and Orthodox reunite, to reform the real TRUE CHURCH pre-schism
@@jakubkosz1009maybe if they just joined us then the church would be reunited lol 🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦
@@Shnitzel_AffeExactly lol. Protestantism is a waste of time on a civilizational level, we don't need it moving forward and when the Orthodox and Catholics eventually reunite by God's grace it will create a bigger incentive for Anglicans and Lutherans to join.
Total Catholic Victory!
AVE CHRISTUS REX
AETERNA VICTRIX!
We won the War of the Keys, with the Templars on our side, then the seething pope declared they to burn 😂😂😂😂
Without the Catholic Church, there would be no biblical canon (73 books, btw).
Without the Catholic Church, Protestants wouldn't be protesting anything because Martin Luther (a Catholic monk) wouldn't have been a monk.
Btw Luther believed in transubstantiation.
I believe in one holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Modern Lutherans believe in the Real Presence. They believe Christ’s body and blood are present “in, with, and under” the signs of consecrated bread and wine. I’m pretty sure this doctrine of “sacramental union” was Luther’s position since at least the 1530s.
a Catholic Answers article is not history
@Thatoneguy-pu8ty oh please tell me which article I got it from.
I've known these facts long before I ever heard of Catholic Answers.
I was very much agnostic for most of my life. I began looking into all these different things because each one builds off the last. Funny, it's almost like that's how history works.
RC taking credit for everything, when the Bible was compiled before RC Split off from Orthodoxy. Regarding Lutherans, we are also Catholics, but we reject the Papacy and any of it's innovations and decrees which contradict the Bible. Put the Bible back above the Pope, and we can have some sort of unity again, potentially.
The Answer is Catholicism
This entire video could have just been
“Submit to the Roman Pontiff.”
Become Catholic
Yeah, Protestants definitely did not recognize each other. Try telling that one to an Anabaptist or a Quaker. And the Irish could tell you that the Protestants had a funny way of recognizing that Catholics could be Christians too.
As a Northern Irishman, yes
All (theologically conservative) Evangelicals are and always have been ecumenical with each other, this is what differentiates Evangelicals from Fundamentalist within Theologically Conservative Protestant Christianity. On the topic of ecumenism, Evangelicals (Missional-Revivalist Evangelicals) more so than Mainline Protestants, have (almost always) had open communion with what most of them would describe as believing Christians across several denominations, denominational traditions, and independent non-denominational congregations (with very few exceptions within some Confessional Evangelical groups) even if they don’t have official full communion agreements on the books which most Mainline Protestants generally require because of their preferentially higher view of structural unity/church polity-governance over the concepts of “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love” and “Primary and Secondary issues in Christian theology.” In other words while Evangelicals (Evangelicals proper - Revivalists) from the get-go have been very interdenominational/ecumenical and well known for open communion even though they’re theologically conservative while the Mainline Protestants are/were mostly closed communion with recent allowances through some official full communion agreements - they also happen to be largely theologically liberal. Evangelical believe in “in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity” while Catholics, Orthodox, and Mormons (Mormons aren’t Christian but a separate Abrahamic religion like Islam or Rastafarianism) believe in the “one true church” doctrine. All Evangelicals, see themselves more as Christians first and their individual denominations second which especially makes sense when talking about Evangelicals because Evangelicals are an interdenominational/ecumenical community or movement who cooperate with each other and worship together due to largely similar theological beliefs but set boundaries because of distinctions or differences on issues of secondary and tertiary importance.
---
Even though Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East have a lot of hierarchy, centralized structure, stricter rules and procedures, and believe in the “one true church” doctrine, many of them, even some of their priests are just overtly “Cafeteria Catholics”/Nominally Orthodox (who are very nominal or only culturally Catholic/Orthodox), or even Folk Catholic/Folk Orthodox, some aren’t really devout Christians even by their own Catholic/Orthodox standards thus creating a huge variation in beliefs and huge deviation from core Christian tenants of the faith among individuals that are supposed to be shared by all true (Mainstream-Nicene) Christians regardless of denomination even though on paper there are strict outlines of dogma & hierarchy. While Evangelicals are very decentralized, believe “in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity,” and put a higher emphasis on understanding and living out correct Christian teaching as opposed to obsessing over structure and hierarchy like Catholics do; so people who have wonky and unorthodox beliefs when it comes to primary issues tend to leave because in Evangelicalism there’s no point in staying (for the exception of non-Christian Republicans/political conservatives in the United States who don’t go to church & are stealing/co-opting the term for political reasons in collusion with secular media who want to fit their boogymen into neat boxes) because by definition you can’t be an Evangelical or a Christian if you no longer hold to those beliefs; Catholicism, Eastern/Oriental Orthodoxy, and Mainline Protestantism are the opposite, Catholics/Orthodox who don’t hold to Catholic/Orthodox beliefs or even basic Christian beliefs are guilt-tripped into staying and are encouraged to stay because a baptized Catholic/Orthodox is still a Catholic/Orthodox even if they no longer believe in the tenants of the faith - most stay because simply being in the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Churches is more important than upholding Catholic/Orthodox or even broadly Christian beliefs. …
… A similar occurrence also happens in Mainline Protestant denominations not because they believe in the “one true church” doctrine (which they don’t), it’s because Mainline Protestant denominations are ready and willing to bend their core beliefs via theological liberalism/theological progressivism to maintain membership, plus (some also obsess over maintaining power/hierarchy as opposed to maintaining biblically orthodox theology and) many maintain membership and participate in church practices (like Baptism, Confirmation, etc.) solely for social and cultural reason even if they don’t believe in the tenets of the faith.
---
The Christian Church (a.k.a. The Way, the Church, or Christanity) was founded in 30 AD by Jesus of Nazareth - the Christ, Messiah, Son of God, and Son of Man - through the Holy Spirit at Pentecost - although Jesus also had disciples prior to the offical founding of the Church; the subdivisions known as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church were founded in 1054 AD, the subdivision known as the Oriental Orthodox Church was founded in 451 AD, the subdivision known as the Church of the East was founded in 431 AD, and the Protestant Reformation officially started in 1517 AD with several minor Proto-Protestant precursors forming prior to it and influencing others - all of these subdivisions are sui iuris braches within the true catholic, apoostolic, orthodox, Nicene, and Christian Church with further internal autocephalous organizational polity structures and distinctives in tradition.
I thank the Lord that I have been able to enjoy exactly what you are talking about with other believers for almost 50 years.
ELCA isn't the mainline it's like 30 years old. Lcms is the mainline
Also, SBC is older than ABCUSA
Ironically, I have heard Zoomer himself say they are cases to be made that LCMS and the SBC are more mainline. Not sure why he is switching here, other than he wants to lump all liberal denominations together for the sake of narrative.
They both are. Elca = LCA + ALC + AELC (all of which had historical pedigrees as old if not older than the Missouri Synod)
@@vngelicath1580 so the lca was about 60 years old at the time
@vngelicath1580 I don't know about the AELC but my assumption is they were all about 60 years old
How did all the mainline churches become liberal if they are supposed to from inception adhere to solo scriptura. Makes no sense.
Disbelief in the supernatural. Pentecostalism and Charismaticism has rescued much of the Church from that fate by enabling them to experience God in a real and tangible way.
LOVED the "drop the larping" line. 😂
The Orthodox and Catholic Church claiming to be the One True Church has been one of the main criticisms against it and is one of the main things I disagree about with them, but you have to admit that it's also been one of their greatest strength. By making that claim, their followers have been forced to stand their ground and trust that God won't let their church become corrupted, even when it seems like they're going that way, and so they don't run away like Protestants do and form their own separate churches.
Zoomers' New Yorker accent really came out in this vid.
There was so much I agreed with in this video Zoomer... God bless you for what you are doing 🙏
I think a more reasonable form of Unity model #2 is that everyone agrees with each other, rather than everyone agrees with one particular Christian. This inevitably means that every Christian needs to be open-minded enough to change their minds, and that all theological debates need to be resolved. Let me tell you something: you can change my mind about a particular theological position, as long as it makes more biblical and logical sense than the position that I already hold. I pray that there are other Christians that have the same mindset that I do.
Soooo muuuch respect from Asia 😭😭😭😭 I am pastor's kis in a Chinese Methodist Church, and ur video rlly inspire me. Thx God n I am gonna share this with my PK friend. May God unite His own church ❤
I beamed when I heard “my wife and I” congrats Mr and Mrs Zoomer.
If you could edit this down into a short I think it could go viral along conservative media. Brilliant presentation. If you do this I will try to help distribute. It is worthy.
Condemning each other to hell is more anti-Christian than Christian
This guy promotes that. To him, anyone that’s not reformed is heretical.
@@YehudaHalevi247 if he does, I pray for his repentance
@@YehudaHalevi247I've never heard him say that. He's Reformed so he has theological issues with those of us who aren't but he's been pretty firm that he sees anyone who holds to the contents of the Nicene Creed as Christian, whether they be Catholic, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc.
@@Hunter-lt2sb He called Baptists stupid, non-denominational are pointless, and Pentecostals are heretics. I like and have learned from his videos, but at times he can be condescending to low churches.
@@Hunter-lt2sb
Anathema doesn’t mean “go to hell”. It means “This puts you outside the Church. Repent and be reconciled.” This is exactly what Paul did. 1 Timothy 1:20 and 1 Corinthians 5:5 being extremely explicit about this, but there any many other places too.
Anathema is in the Bible. Literally, the Greek work ανάθεμα.
The question of denomination ultimately comes down to what is truth? Everyone may have their different opinions, but there can only be one truth. If you believe in objective truth, then the idea of tolerating the lutharens treating the holy eucharist as the actual body of God is not something you cant just be like "oh those lutharens, they're just so silly how they treat the eucharist, our one church is so diverse!" This is a huge deal that needs to be agreed on universally.
You forgot Catholicism, the largest Christian denomination by far
*most arrogant and obnoxious one*
@@alfieingrouille1528No that's EO, but they're definitely pretty close
@@auggieeasteregg2150OK?
@@alfieingrouille1528why do you say that?
After getting Protestant cooperation in order I’m sure the Catholics are game to cooperate too, it’s just that the Protestant community needs to get its head on straight before we can have vastly productive cooperation with Rome.
Amen brother! This is excellent! I have had a passion for Church unity for a long time and this is almost exactly how I envisioned it. Different orders all of whom come under geographically based authorities. So you would have an Episcopal church, a Presbyterian church, a Baptist church all in the same diocese or presbytery, or whatever you want to call it to handle issues and work in common at the local level. Then, in addition to that, they would also have their ordinal authority they could go to for things specific to their order.
My visions includes the step of bringing together the conservative denominations to then rejoin/retake the liberal ones, or in the event that the Reconquista is successful (something I pray for regularly) then the mainline can welcome the off-shoots back with open arms. I think it will take this two-pronged approach. I agree that the conservatives who fled were acting often out of fear, but now that they exist I believe it is equally important to steer those denominations toward unity as well.
If all the conservative Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc. came together and supported this idearather than in-fighting we unite rather easily. The difficulty lies in that we splinter based on principle but fail to unite on principle. I really do think that as the millennials and zoomers continue to fill the ranks of both mainline and off-shoot denominations and society continues to become more and more secular, this concept will flourish and become the only reasonable way forward.
12:07 So you are going to bring an unbeliever to the Lord and they go to Church and find out that they really don't have to believe the stuff that they were told they have to believe to be a Christian. Before I was a Christian I was an agnostic. Becoming a Christian meant believing something. I left the Episcopal Church because I didn't need their liberal unbelief, I could unbelieve just fine as an agnostic.
An example of a conservative denomination refusing to retreat which you forgot about: SBC conservatives kicked the "modernists" out of the convention in the 70s, and continue to do so today (see Rick Warren).
Get back to us when you’ve had your kids in one of these mainline liberal churches for a few years.
Here's how early Christianity understood unity.
St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]
“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]
St. Optatus, bishop of Milevus
“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]-of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367])
That is absolutely not what anathema means. The word means to "lift up" and when we say "anathema to all heretics" we are basically asking God to help you see the truth and stop being heretical. Also, compromising the Truth of the Church and apostatizing to appease modern ideals of "unity" is not "laying down your pride".
You may want to look up a technical definition for that word. What you're describing is what should be hoped for when someone is anathema, not what anathema is. Different animals.
@@kev-la-kill9673 Not really. While that is the root in Greek, in Scripture it is used to signify something regarded as accursed, off limits for the people of God.
RZ is wrong that it was ever a guaranteed condemnation to Hell, even if never lifted, but in Christianity it was always a formal, public removal of the person from the community. This has two purposes: make it as clear as possible to the person that his action was unacceptable, alerting him to the need to repent, and to let the rest of the community know not to follow his example.
Sure, that's what it means. That's why the old Catholic bishops and popes declared someone anathema right before the state considered the "heretic" to be an enemy of the state. The Catholics were just trying to "lift them up" and "ask God to help them see the truth". Oh please. It was an open command to the state to murder whoever didn't fall in line with their dogma. Nobody who truly understands Catholic history would ever believe such a disprovable lie.
SBC baptist here.
Interesting how you acknowledge we need to have diversity of beliefs without being completely liberal or fundamentalist.
Interesting how you seem to think the best way to do that is through the mainline denominations.
Part of me still wonders if you have ever truly looked into the SBC as a whole...
We have diversity of beliefs, and also have united efforts to run missions and seminaries.
We fight the liberal takeover, and we also don't force everyone to hold extreme fundamentalist views (even tho a lot of us do hold those views).
We don't 'retreat to a safe space' and run from the libs to our own denomination. We stand our ground and choose men who will run our conferences and seminaries in a godly and truthful way (it is groups like the cbf that have to split off from us for their own little snowflake safe space).
If you need an organization without the problems in catholic doctrine that knows how to have agreement in diversity of beliefs, the SBC is where it is at.
For crying out loud, the ancestor of the modern baptist denominations (the triennial convention) was formed from the calvinist baptists, the arminian baptists, and the seperate baptists. We realized what we had in common in the gospel was much more important than our views on things like predestination. Each group believed their view was correct and very important. We also believe that unity in Christ is more important.
And also u told me to believe in the autonomy of the local church, believers baptism, and a personal salvation experience. No take-backs. 10:24
Anyway, thanks for continuing to fight for the body of Christ and against the leftists who want to turn the church into an organization that believes everything (ie nothing).
Looking forward to the next videos.
I usually like Redeemed Zoomer's videos, but on this subject I strongly disagree. I think it would be a sin to become a member of a liberal church or denomination. Also, it would be spiritually harmful to attend a seminary like Princeton Seminary or Harvard Divinity School. To become a member of an (apostate) mainline church requires compromise which a faithful Christian cannot commit.
You missed the whole point of Reconquista then..
@@DZDW1 I don't miss the point of Reconquista. I simply disagree with it.
@@Steadfast-Lutheran then the statement "I usually like Redeemed Zoomer's videos" makes no sense, since this is his personal mission
@@DZDW1 I like his overview videos on Christian denominations and agree with his preference for traditional worship and aesthetics.
Why would it be a sin to attend a faithful conservative church in a mainline denomination?
Let's just all pray for the Catholics and Orthodox reunite and then we can all just join that church! If they worked out their differences to the point they could reunite then that would pretty much heal all the issues that caused the protestant split in the first place.
Real. Their "one true church" claims conflict with each other and makes it much more difficult for the layman to determine which one is the real church. It also disregards the protestant evangelism, which seems to be much more common than catholic or orthodox evangelism.
Hey RZ I have a very genuine question. What if OR doesn’t work? What if, say five years from now, little to no churches have been retaken? What then? Do you just keep at it or is there plan to cut your losses?
I don't think your solution is practical. At least I don't see it being practical from my standpoint. I was raised Roman Catholic, and God called me out of there and into Assemblies of God for a while, then non-denoms for many years, and now for the past 5 years He's planted me in an ACNA Anglican parish. As a member of this local ACNA parish I've tried to encourage change in the direction of greater evangelistic activity. But in 5 years I've made little or no headway. Individuals don't have any real influence. The rector and the vestry are the influencers, and it's backstopped by the bishop. In a congregational type church it's the pastor and the board of elders, often backstopped by some sort of higher-up overseers.
So let's say someone is raising a family. Are they supposed to stay in (or join) a mainline, liberalized group and expose themselves and their children to a weekly drumbeat of bad doctrine and wobbly theology, for the sake of hoping to instigate change from within? I don't think so.
Someone like me, an older guy who is solid in his beliefs, could devote himself to such a task. But the odds of actually having a positive influence against the "establishment" are about as good as a fish swimming straight up the Niagara Falls to spawn.
It could work in a small congregation that's independent and non-denominational. Anywhere else is an extreme long shot IMO.
But I do feel like pretty much all of us under the Protestant umbrella already regard one another as brethren, so we are substantially united despite our little differences. Much more so than we could ever be united with the Catholics or the Orthodox. Our attitude toward other Protestants is, we love you and we can get along, for we are all the Body of Christ. The Catholics are more like, you need to "come home" because it's "our way or the highway" (60 years ago they would have said, "it's our way or the highway to hell," but they softened the message because we were whupping them so badly.)
Lutheran ✝️🌹
The Oriental Orthodox Church model is actually pretty good to follow. They're all in Union with another despite having different ecclesiastical structures, liturgy, culture and even canons.
yeah but they are mostly united on Theological grounds.
Thats how the Catholic Church works as well.
@@TheMacDonald22 No it's not. The Oriental Orthodox churches are all independent from each other, they just recognize each other as having valid sacraments and are in communion. Also, internally, none of them has an institution like the Papacy.
Everyone can unite in the universal Church
Which one? Roman catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox?
So you are suggesting that the 12.9 million SBC members should move into the 1.2 million ABCUSA? Do you think the ABCUSA would except conservative SBC churches into it's fellowship? Should the SBC abandon it's institutions to have a historic connection to Yale?
Person on youtube attempts to solve problem theologians have been tackling for centuries.
And fails.
The situation was different centuries ago.
Brother Richard, I’d exhort you to show a little more respect for those of us who aren’t comfortable being part of a liberal church. It’s not necessarily a matter of immaturity and cowardice. For various people, it could relate to interpretation of passages about church discipline, the purity of the church, spiritual warfare, etc. I currently don’t feel right about attending a church that affirms sinful lifestyles, and I don’t think that’s due to cowardice and probably not intellectual immaturity either. Consider how arrogant it could be when you boldly accuse almost all your mature brothers and sisters of being immature and cowardly. Or at least explain from Scripture why you think your reconquista approach is better in light of passages like 1 Cor. 5.
>How to unite all Christian denominations
>Leaves catholics behind
Genius
Leaves half of all Christianity behind. Actually, it leaves all Protestants that are not from those six or seven traditions and that are not from the USA/Europe behind as well.
He touched on the Catholics in the video and mentions that they would need to compromise more substantially.
@@Shnitzel_Affe I'm really not talking about that. He mentions in the video that a fundamental claim Catholics make is much more difficult to reconcile, which is why they are not on the chart.
I so Agree with this notion of yours.....makes perfect sense to me, keep up the good work
Brother. It seems to me (OPINION HERE, TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT) that you have a borderline unhealthy obsession with church denominations. You seem to view everything through this lens. Take some time for yourself to spend time in the Word and really ponder what is the duty of man, and what discipleship of Jesus means. You have a powerful online ministry that you can use to direct teen's eyes towards Jesus Christ. Seek out how to do that.
The funny thing is that you always crap on non denominational or “Bible churches” as I’ve seen them called…
But this is basically the stance of those churches.
We are traditional, we are Protestant (but accept all to communion) and we don’t go hard on trying to reform you from whatever denomination you came from before showing up.
Aka, we have open doors for all Christians and you’re allowed to keep whatever “regional / personal” ideals you want.
We are here to come together as a body for Christ and work on his kingdom first and foremost. The nuance is secondary to the hardline.
And for a bonus, we are the most conservative types of Christians you’ll find
RZ must not think we're christians or something...
The Episcopal Church is only in altar and pulpit fellowship with the ELCA, not any other mainline denomination.
"How to unite all Christian denominations?" Easy: under the ROMAN PONTIFF!
The only way to truly unite denominations is to eliminate sin in Christians.
Not gonna happen.
I like your use of the chart, but you didn't really give a concrete definition of unity. If you mean altar and pulpit fellowship, then you need unity in (not abandonment of) sacramental theology and exegetic principles. If you mean institutional unity like the catholics and orthodox, you'd basically just need one legal or financial entity organizing all of the churches while leaving doctrine on the back burner. Not saying both of these things can't be done, just that priorities need to be set.
There wont be a reunification of the Protestant Church because the very nature of it is individual interpretation, which will essentially split it into a million pieces. The Protestants would need to adopt multiple similar stances as the three Orthodox denominations for this ever become feasible.
I think the original idea of church unification is dumb anyways because only one doctrine is right anyways I dont believe in catholic and orthodox unification its impossible their is no common sense in that we can only support each other as Christian's and cheer when someone joins any christian denomination that's it many people do that no need to try unite when it's not possible catholic and orthodox unification is killing one doctrine and keeping the other I mean come on now
Okay, talk to me one doctrinal schism of Lutheranism that have not died or reunited with the Lutheran Church later.
I could just say all the other Protestants should just become Lutheran, but I don't want all those people to come into my church unless they adopt our practices. If they are going to bring their different customs and practices, and in some cases wrong beliefs, with them, then it's better for us all if we all stay in our own lanes.
Calling out shots, ouch! You’re right though I agree. The only tricky part is by going to those more liberal zones I definitely wouldn’t want my young child to learn anything from their Sunday school as children are more susceptible to deceitful teachings. But that’s my issue, maybe I’ll find a babysitter while the wife and I are there putting in work. I appreciate the video, the message (and gospel) must be delivered