Would you say that Aquinas was also more of a philosopher as opposed to a theologian? Or would you say he was a weapon at both? I'm not as familiar as Aquinas but have definitely heard people use some of his Philosophical thoughts. Perhaps I should do some reading.
Placing Calvin above and Luther in the same level as Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Cyril and Saint Thomas Aquinas is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen
That's actually crazy. I skipped through the video, saw that, then said: "Yup!" and went straight to the end to see the final ranking and end this foolishness.
Just started learning more about John Calvin. He was one hundred percent satisfied with people being burned at the stake for disagreeing with him theologically. Love your enemy as yourself is hard to hear over the screams of your enemy burning to death for 30 mins. Read some of his comments he made on the two people killed during his influential time in Geneva which he even admits to having a hand in and he was all about it. His views also seemed to be akin to a proto-prosperity gospel and it was one of the reasons Geneva grew in power and wealth. He seemed to promote the idea that a real Christian is blessed and therefore has wealth. In all honesty the history of the man is extremely hard to reconcile with and while Martin Luther certainly had troubles that came about from his choice to separate from the Catholic church, I have no idea what John Calvin was doing.
@@OneForChrist177 Servetus had been warned numerous times by the civil authorities not to return to Geneva as his teachings were inciting internal insurrection and external invasion against them. Also, the idea that God provides for his people in the face of adversity on account of their faith is hardly prosperity gospel. Calvin himself said: “Following our Savior, we endure the cross in this life in order to reign with Christ in glory. God does not call his people to triumph before he has exercised them in the warfare of suffering.”
Cus as RZ says Jan Hus is protestant before it was cool. If this tier list were exclusively protestant theologists he would be ABOVE the tier list itself
He was however theologically completely irrelevant. His trial and execution was completely based on rumors. He held on to Catholic theology of any average Bohemian parish priest all the way until a month before he went onto the scaffold when he adopted ultraquism, which wasn't even condemned, only not practiced as impractical, and which was definitely not his idea but something someone had to write a hundred letters to him in prison about before he said he supported it. Basically the medieval equivalent of Alert Fatigue. He died as a Catholic in good standing, executed by civil authorities. All he did from the start was criticize church opulence. This was not a crime but still upset all the right people. All other talk of him is rumours.
@@JacobJohnsen-nu7nlApparently Nestorius got a bit straw manned and isn't as Nestorian as let's say Baptists. The Assyrian church of the east also clarified saying that they aren't Nestorian, but they still prefer calling Mary Christotokos instead of Theotokos. Though I'm not that familiar with the situation and only telling what I've heard
@@daxamgh6126 You know who was? John Calvin. “For we know that in Christ the two natures were united into one person in such a manner that each retained its own properties; and more especially the Divine nature was in a state of repose, and did not at all exert itself, whenever it was necessary that the human nature should act separately, according to what was peculiar to itself, in discharging the office of Mediator.”
As an ex mormon now an Orthodox catechumen, I can say that Gregory Palamas' Essence energies distinction is actually a great bulwark work against Mormonism. Because the Mormon theology is not simply that man is turned into a god equal to God the father. But rather "as God now is man may be. As man now is God once was." (Common saying in Mormonism) So really Mormonism believe's that God's nature and his essence is really no different from ours. Where's Palamas' theology makes the strongest distinction between our essence and the divine essence. So to put it simply, Mormonism believes that God and man aren't different at all. That they are the same sort of creature. Orthodoxy and Palamas on the Other hand, believe that the difference between human essence and God in his essence is so great that even in Heaven we will not be able to see god in his essence. Let alone become what he is.
Wrong on so many principles you are, lol. I'm Mormon and have studied my religion a lot and everything you said is wrong. We do not believe we're on the same level as God the Father. We believe God the Father is the ultimate intelligence that nothing can surpass His intelligence. That is plainly promulgated in our Church. It is also propagated that man cannot behold God unless God wants man to behold his Godliness. We believe we can be joint heirs in Christ and that is so prevalent in the Bible that even Paul spoke about it in Romans. We do not believe that man is equal to God the Father nor Jesus Christ, but may be joint heirs in Christ through His Atonement. Why do you think God does not love His children enough to give them everything He has?
Probably due to the influence of Luther on society. Thomas Aquinas had a huge influence on philosophy and what would become the scientific method, but I would say that his influence was more "intellectual/academic", while Luther had a bigger social/cultural influence than Aquinas (whether you consider it "positive" or not...as protestant, Zoomer considered it positive).
I've actually heard modern sermons condemning men having beards saying it's a form of pride and vanity. Technically, you can take pride to the extreme with anything, and Ironically, the pastor in the sermon seemed to be proud that he was clean shaven unlike the bearded sinners around him. Also, Jesus had a beard...nuff said.
@billytheconqueror5803 I am pretty sure you're being sarcastic, but I will make a rebuttal for people who may take the comment seriously. Unfortunately, people are out there who will. I fail to see how pointing out that Jesus had a beard to be heretical because I'm "comparing myself to Jesus." Did I call myself sinless and proclaim myself savior just like Christ?(something that would be)No, I did not. Seems a huge leap in logic to say someone is a heretic for pointing out a historical fact. If something is true, it can't be heretical. Furthermore, I never claimed that people are wrong for not having a beard and think them less Christ-like because of it. I didn't even say I had a beard, I didn't mention if I had one or not because it's irrelevant, the conclusion was just jumped to even though we were talking about old reformed pastors who did and that some modern pastors would see them as sinful because of it. I was just making a point about people who think themselves holier than thou for arbitrary reasons such as being clean shaven and that beards in of themselves aren't sinful because it would make Jesus a sinner if they were. It puzzles me that someone can think I'm trying to put myself in the same league as Christ for a comment about beards not inherently being sinful. Lastly, the premise in itself is flawed to begin with. Was it heretical for the Bible to compare Jesus to certain OT people and events that were meant to symbolize the coming messiah? It would, of course, be heretical to say they WERE the messiah but not be heretical to compare certain attributes they had in common... just like the Bible does.
@@landonlawson2676 genuine question, is there any actual proof of Christ having a beard? or is it just because that is what is most probable do to old paintings and such
@Reformed_Thinker In Isaiah, chapter 50, it describes the future suffering of the messiah and mentioned that his beard would be plucked out. Not to mention, the ceremonial laws in Liviticus specifically said NOT to mar the edges of their beard. Jesus kept the law, including ceremonial laws. Furthermore, if beards were sinful, I highly doubt that God would command his people not to mar their beards. Also, this has nothing to do with your question, but many prophets were also described as having beards, which adds to my point of beards not being a sin.
Luther x Calvin: Calvin in fact systematized his theology, Luther did not. Although Luther began the reform, the theology that ended up most influencing the countries that joined the reform was Calvin's, while in the end Luther's influence was smaller. Aquinas x Calvin: Calvin knew Hebrew, Greek and Latin, Aquinas knew Greek and Latin, but had a limited knowledge of Hebrew, which made Calvin a more complete exegete. Calvin followed a more biblical approach to his systematic theology, having made extensive commentaries on 36 books of the Bible from the New and Old Testaments in order to systematize his theology, while Aquinas preferred to follow a philosophical line, trying to harmonize Artistotelic philosophy with the Bible (without mastering Hebrew, which is the language that the Old Testament was written). Aquinas's impact on philosophy and science was great, but I would say that it was more an "intellectual/academic impact", but Calvin had a greater cultural/social impact.
Aquinas should be in C tier. What he did was an equivalent of plagiarism (to Aristotle). Not only his theology full of bulls**t. He even plagiarize it from a pagan philosopher who most likely would have been the greatest enemy of Christianity had he lived during the early church.
Always interesting when Orthodox/Catholics talk so good about Cyril of Alexandria when he had the Scripture in such a higher view than they have: "We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures...Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if anything be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Be those things therefore spoken, which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say." (Catechetical Lectures, 4.17ff)
16:21 Saint Thomas should be totally S tier literally he wrote the best of metaphysic philosophy by adapting Aristotle, harmonize faith and reason, give fundamentals to the self-defense in ethics and the list goes on and on
None of that saves you though nor brings you closer to God. Dude was influenced by Greek philosophers which doesn’t help in exegeting the Bible. Smart dude, but overrated.
Aquinas should be in C tier. What he did was an equivalent of plagiarism (to Aristotle). Not only his theology full of bulls**t. He even plagiarize it from a pagan philosopher who most likely would have been the greatest enemy of Christianity had he lived during the early church.
St. Gregory Palamas did not teach that we BECOME uncreated, some people may misunderstand it as such but that doesn't mean it is what he truly taught. Rather he taught through Theosis we may partake in the uncreated energies NOT the divine essence. Though analogies aren't always perfect representations I'll use one here, when we stand in the sun we partake of it's rays but by partaking in them we don't ourselves become part of the rays of the sun in the same way we can partake in God's energies without fusing with them.
I'm sorry, but placing Calvin, Vermigli, Knox, Nevin, and Kuyper in the same S tier as Sts. Athanasius, Augustine, and Anselm, while putting Sts. Cyril, Chrysostom, and Aquinas in the same category as Luther, Bullinger, Cranmer, Wesley, Owen, Edwards, and Lewis, is like believing there is a year 0.
Hey, former Catholic and now LCMS confessional Lutheran here. I see that a lot of your videos are influenced by your desire to reform existing traditions that are falling into theological liberalism, which seems to be mostly influenced by your desire to do this yourself in your own Presbyterian denomination. A noble cause indeed. Couple things I would love to get your opinion on. Number one, I am sure you are familiar with the "seminex" split within the Lutheran church in the 1970s. This was an example of a church (the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) recognizing theological "creep" in the wrong direction and taking action. This split is, in essence and in part, why we have a strong conservative presence in the USA as the LCMS rebounded and continued on in their confessional ways, whereas the "seminex" continued to follow their liberal ways and eventually merged it what we know now as the ELCA (which as you know has taken large unfortunate steps into the the world of secularism and liberal theology). Seems right up your alley. I do (unsurprisingly) disagree with your tier list, but understand your biases and respect your opinions. Mike Winger has a good video on the predestination arguments of Calvinism, which I agree with for the most part as he uses biblical arguments to refute these points. He goes back and forth with James white often. Thanks for the great videos brother!
@nathanjstoic In short, I saw that Lutheranism at large was part of the magisterial reformation, which in itself was the original cutting edge of the movement that began the process of reforming what was a severely corrupted and erring church body (the Roman Catholic Church). As I was growing in my understanding of theology (something I still have much to do) I realized that just as any other movement, the reformation had the potential to swing too far in the other direction, which it indeed did in many respects (in my opinion). There are certain aspects of Catholicism that I enjoyed that don't seem to be in conflict with the bible, that being a liturgical or traditional service. Lutheranism offers a connection to (what I see) as the traditions of certain liturgical services and practices, while attempting to remain true to the gospel. I was never convinced by the (general) double predestination arguments of the calvinists, much as I respect their tradition also being part of the magisterial reformation. Within Lutheranism itself, I could never get on board with churches (like the ELCA) who denied sola scrptura or biblical inerrancy due to the fact that I felt that I would be a hypocrite for leaving Catholicism because I disagreed with their doctrine, only to join a church in which I also disagreed with their doctrine. Thus the confessional Lutheran churches were what appealed most as to me it seems that they (in my opinion) have the perfect amount of traditional practices mixed with proper biblical interpretation or adherance.
@@nodroj31 Welcome to the family then! I appreciate your testimony brother, it’s very encouraging to find people who have encountered similar issues when researching church history. Ave Christus Rex!
Calvin is a objectively a superior exegete to Aquinas. While Aquinas only mastered biblical Greek, Calvin mastered Hebrew and Greek (he also mastered Latin). Calvin followed a more biblical approach to his systematic theology, having made extensive commentaries on 36 books of the Bible from the New and Old Testaments in order to systematize his theology. Aquinas preferred to follow a philosophical line, trying to harmonize Artistotelic philosophy with the Bible (without mastering Hebrew, which is the language that the Old Testament was written). Talking about social impact, Aquinas's impact on philosophy and science was great, but i would say that it was more an "intellectual/academical impact", but Calvin influenced the culture and society of much of Europe, as evidenced by the confessions of faith that were produced in Scotland, France, England, Belgium and Switzerland, all from Calvinist orientation. It also greatly influenced American culture, so that the only minister to sign the Declaration of the Independence was Presbyterian and during the Revolution, 2/3 of the colonists were reformed in theology.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 hat's your opinion lol. I gave my arguments, you do what you want with it. Thomas Aquinas is not known for having a biblical theology nor for been a great exegete and I don't think that was even his main objective. The problem is that you Catholics and Orthodox close yourself in a theological box, in which you only study the thinkers of your church. We Protestants don't usually limit ourselves like this or have this "intellectual anxiety" (having to think that our thinkers are the best in everything because "we are the only true church"). This is why RZ can consider the main Catholic thinker and Lutheran as A-Tier without feeling like he are compromising his own faith because of it.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 That’s not my opinion, that’s objective. He did teach falsely, as no Christians prior to him believed as he did. Especially with the doctrines of limited atonement and perseverance of the saints, which are doctrines entirely novel and alien to Christian history. Having mastered Greek, Hebrew, and Latin doesn’t make your “exegesis” correct.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 Your criteria for saying that it is false: "no one in Church history (that i know) have said that before". It should be "it is Biblical or not?", because If It is Biblical, someone did say something, right? I would say that If something is Biblical, than God said it Himself. I believe it is biblical, and so did a lot of people (some of them Catholic ministers) who sided with Calvin during the Reformation and after it. Whatsmore, It is a silly argument because it implies that in order to do theology someone must have said the same thing before you, this is not how theology is done and is is a self-defeating argument tbh, because then there could be no development in theology. Augustine developed the idea of original sin, Aquinas and Anselm developed several ideas that cannot necessarily be traced to a previous theologian, but you guys love to use this argument against Calvin lol.
Great video Zoomer, always great to hear your personal views and your explanations. I must say that I always get a chuckle when you made comments to the spirit of "it is important for us to re-take our existing institutions instead of starting something new" due to your being in a denomination that is built on the structure of leaving the existing institution to make something new. I hope that we get a chance to have a collab and discuss points like this together in future video's!
Two notes on the title: 1) there was no year zero. It went from 1 BC to AD 1 2) AD goes before the numerals of the year. AD 2000 is correct, 2000 AD is not
Dude, some advice from one Religion Scholar to another... You need to start adding 'in my opinion' to a lot of your sentences; otherwise, you sound ridiculously arrogant. You also need to acknowledge that you are approaching this from a devout Calvinist point of view.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Gregory Palamas is a canonised Saint in the Eastern Catholic tradition and they’re in communion with Rome. So they’d probably mention him.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 It does in regards to the fact that Gregory Palamas was mainly known for his theology. In regards to someone like Saint Mary of Egypt who’s known more for her journey and repentance. Palamas is a theologian. So yes, you’d be right that someone merely being a canonised saint wouldn’t get them on the tier list, but someone being a canonised saint because of their theology should. God bless.
You forgot a huge list: Bonaventure, Bernard of Claraval, Edith Stein, Alvin Plantinga, Ratzinger, Congar, Boff , Cappadocians, Albert the great, De Lubac, Von Balthasar, Guardini, Jan Hus and other catholics, protestans and eastern orthodox theologians
John Bunyan (one of the greatest preachers to ever live) didn't make it onto the list somewhere, but John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul did? Are you forgetting that John Owen said to King Charles II about Bunyan's preaching that “Could I possess the tinker’s abilities, please your majesty, I would gladly relinquish all my learning.”
@@pedroguimaraes6094 I'd say he was far more of a theologian that MacArthur is. He is the author of the Pilgrims Progress and many other theological works.
I enjoy the channel and am too firmly a Catholic. The above video is flawed in that obviously he’s putting up heresy as good theology from a Catholic perspective, but the content and context is spot on. He’s giving a good explanation of Protestant thought from his denominational view.
I think to be a calvinist and logically consistent you have to agree on some level with Supralapsarianism. Because if God chooses some people to be saved, it means others are not saved on purpose and therefore are damned by God to hell at birth.
Is different.To Infralapsarianism, God's decree of election and reprobation logically followed the decree of the fall. According to this scheme, God first saw his people as fallen and then determined to save them, choosing only a few to be saved. In this way, God is simply exercising His justice with those He does not choose to save (that is what they deserved), but He exercises His mercy and His justice with those He does not choose (He gives more than the person deserves for saving them and punishes sin in Jesus). There is no contradiction in the character of God. In Supralapsiarianism God's decrees of election and reprobation logically preceded the decree of the fall. That is, supralapsarism orders divine decrees in such a way that God's decree, regarding the predestination of men to salvation or reprobation, precedes his decrees to create men and to allow their fall. In this way, as God determined the condemnation before the reason that generated the condemnation, His justice is compromised. That said, there are many Calvinists who do not engage in this type of speculation. For them, predestination is simply a biblical truth, where God's Sovereignty and Human Freedom go hand in hand but in theological tension, but this somehow harmonizes in the unfathomable mind of God.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 I have been trying to think of a rebuttal, but this has given me pause for thought. The explanation you gave has been alot clearer than Redeemed Zoomer has given and other explanations of Calvinistic predestination I have heard. However I think what still trips me up here is that even though God decreed to save some people after the fall, God is still choosing who to be saved. You argue that isn’t God choosing to be saved but rather a way to distribute divine punishment and I see this as an issue. If I grant you that is true and we all deserve hell, like many Calvinists would agree, and God is choosing to punish the many and not the few, then God isn’t being fair in his divine justice and is therefore not a fair just and good God. Why are some punished for the fall of humanity and go on into sin, while others are the few that are chosen and are granted the beauty and sanctity of heaven? They deserve hell even though they are in heaven. Their souls are better and they are no longer sinners once they arrive in heaven, but there were thousands of sins they weren’t not punished for because they were chosen to be saved. This doesn’t seem like divine justice by a good and loving God. God has infinite amount of love to give to us, but is only giving this infinite amount to some and not others. This would be like I have an infinite supply for the cure of cancer, but I only choose to give it some people. The other people were going to die of cancer regardless, but there was no reason for me not to save them even if they were mean to me or mean to others. And if they would become a way better person after I gave it to them as well, its all the more reason to give away my infinite amount of the cure to cancer I have to them rather than withholding it from them.
Hey bro just read your last comment and thought I'd respond. God can justly pardon sinners because of the cross. Jesus literally was punished in the place of sinners that's what the cross is all about. That is why 1 John says that if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us of our sins. God is just to pass over those whom He wishes that does not negate the just punishment for sinners. They deserve punishment not only because of Adam but because the wilfully love their sin. Romans is a wonderful book that truly explains these things and the abundance of God's mercy. It it important that we distinguish the difference in how God elects and how God passes over the reprobate. Grace is not deserved but given freely. God does not inject evil into people to make them sin. Are you familiar with the westminster confession and the Heidelberg catechism? They are wonderful summaries on the doctrine of salvation. God bless
I didn’t read the other comments on this cause they are way too long. But I totally agree. I think RZ did a disservice to the view by saying that “it believes God took good humanity and selected some to fall and not be saved” when in reality, God predestining everything, meant he selected those to be vessels of grace and those to be objects of wrath. Whatever inner workings of God by which that comes about is fine, God is right to do that to display his nature for His glory.
That's because we are not God, thus we have no idea who is elect and not elect. We preach the gospel so the Gods elect may come to faith, remember that this election is unconditional, so there is no check list of the type of person we should be proclaiming the word of God to.
@@user-pw8cc7kb2c Why should we care? Sure we don't know who God elect, that doesn't matter. if they are elected by God, they would still be Saved regardless of whether we preach the Gospel.
Because God is sovereign over everything and he ordered his disciples to preach the gospel to everyone, We preach the gospel because God uses us to bring his children to him. Just like John 17: 11- 13 says: 11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. So none of HIS children will be lost, but he wants us to preach to them, so they can believe, and his eternal decree can thus be fulfilled
"Lutherans don't believe in Covenant Theology" It's not that we disagree with it, it's just not a framework we use. It just isn't part of our heritage and we don't feel a need to adopt it. Also, for that war you mentioned. Lutherans absolutely believe predestination is confusing and mysterious. We simply believe what God said about it and nothing more or less. We argue that Calvin had to add things God doesn't say in order to arrive at a doctrine that fit with his Enlightenment-style thinking of needing God's work to add up mathematically. Lutherans hold to a mystery which God saw fit to not fully explain in a way that satisfies our rational minds.
Yeah I was like “Wait…what? We don’t? I didn’t get that message.” I argue our “covenant theology” is stronger than many modern Reformed in one sense: we believe baptism actually saves our sons. God made a promise which he revealed through Peter: “Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” Acts 2:38-39
@@patrickfitzgerald6601 I agree that we can't really separate the Sacraments from the Covenants and we definitely have a higher view of the Sacraments. Also, if you know Covenant Theology, you know the Law/Gospel distinction. You may not use those terms so much, but it's a necessary part of it. It's built on the theological foundation of rightly dividing Law and Gospel.
@@patrickfitzgerald6601 I don't know it well enough to explain it, but it's pretty cool. Not nearly as valuable as Law and Gospel, which is why we tend to stick to Law and Gospel as Lutherans and let the Presbyterians nerd out on all the Covenant Theology stuff. Still, I enjoyed hearing about it, since I'm kind of a nerd about that stuff, myself.
@@carlh7714 i’m a nerd too. I’ve been to St. Andrews in Sanford several times (founded by R.C. Sproul) so I’ve heard of the theology. And I have a Sproul study Bible so I’m sure there’s plenty in it to find more. My biggest turn off regarding Reformed theology is in my experience they tend to fall into a quasi-Zwinglian view of the sacraments.
Solid list. Should definitely do a Part 2, think you missed some other big-name theologians like Bernard of Clairvaux, Ambrose of Milan, Desiderius Erasmus, and Cyril Lukaris to name a few.
Yeah, I think it would be cool if he also review Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, William of Ockham, Gregory the Great, and The Cappadocian Fathers. Heck he even forgot to add Jan Hus into the list.
@@northumbria7393 Some people also don't belong on here either like CS Lewis, MacArthur, and NT Wright. It's too early to see the impact these guys had, and my guess is that in 100 years, no one will even remember them.
@@kevinyao0615 MacArthur and N.T. Wright, I will probably agree, even though the latter is not by any means a bad theologian. C.S. Lewis? I don't think so. Even if his other works might have been forgotten, my guess is that Narnia would probably be remembered. Especially considering his close friendship and fellowship with Tolkien (who was a devout Catholic though not necessarily a theologian, though one might argue that LOTR is technically a form of Christian "evangelism" in some of its outlook on life, immortality, and death).
@@northumbria7393 Fair enough, but think he's rated far too high. Lewis would probably even say he was just a lay theologian, and was more interested in Literature. Mere Christianity and Narnia really aren't great theological works, they're meant for lay people.
@@kevinyao0615 That's probably a fair assesment. The thing is with Lewis and even Tolkien is that both men believe in the power of ancient myths and literature. That even though those myths and literature have pagan origins that does not necessarily mean that Christians should abandon it, but that some of the messages can be used in a way that promotes a Christian message or at least foreshadows the need for Christianity. Catholics, and Christians who follow the tradition of Aquinas and Anselm, have long understood that different kinds of truth found in the universe though corrupted in some sense are ultimately God's truth, regardless if the pagans believe it or not, hence probably why Tolkien and Lewis were more interested in literature than "technical" theology.
@@Kauahdhdhd I say this because they often discuss the gospel between themselves and kyle is strong in his views for the orthodox church. I will like to see his response.
In my opinion, the view you represented as Beza is the logical outcome of Calvin’s theology. Calvin said “God arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals who are born are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by certain destruction.” How is this different than Beza’s view? Also, if God does meticulously control everything then he did indeed cause the fall. On top of that, if that TULIP is true and pre faith regeneration is true, God does choose some for hell and some for salvation. Lastly I don’t understand how damning people brings God glory in light of texts such as ”The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9 What is he being patient about if He is the one that regenerates people to choose him? And if He’s not willing for any to pariah why does He doom some from the womb? What makes most sense with this scripture and all those who direct us to humble ourselves and to repent, is that we indeed can choose Him in light of our God given free will, His revelation through nature, scripture, conscious, and the power of the Holy Spirit.
General rule: when debating a calvinist, your allowed to state his opinions in a way that he would. You're not allowed to follow it to it's conclusion and make him look bad
@@billytheconqueror5803 Not at all. This is an in house debate and I just wish to represent God well and I believe that Calvinism, particularly double predestination where God damns in the same way he elects, is questionable.
Please pray for my girlfriend and me. We are deeply in love and want to be married, but she remembers things from a week long psychotic break that cause her to distrust me. She won't get help and her family won't help her. We need God's help! I thank everyone who is praying for us from the bottom of my heart!
There's no problem with saying Mary is "the mother of God" with regards to indicating that Jesus is God and Mary is the mother of Jesus. The problem I have (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) with that phrase is that it implies that God didn't preexist Mary. I don't think any Christian believes that, but when we think of "the mother of so-and-so" we think of the person who exists prior to the person who she is the mother of.
One more thing to credit Dr. Sproul with is a resurgence in classical apologetics. I was a student at Reformation Bible College and Classical apologetics is the defining apologetic method used there. I think Dr. Stephen Nichols did an excellent job of teaching the concept and how metaphysics is superior to presupposition.
St Gregory Palamas taught that through Theosis we unite with God’s energies which are uncreated. The essence energy distinction is probably the most important theology of the Eastern Church.
Why did Augustine believe babies are sinful? The example he cites comes from watching nursemaids feeding babies. (Yeah, that's Augustine for you.) They would feed each little one to the point that if they had any more, they'd just spit it back up again. These well-fed babies, when they witnessed another baby getting fed instead of them, would fuss, despite that they were entirely satiated, and the other baby had as yet had none at all. To Augustine, that clearly indicated that the sin of envy (at least a lack of care for the needs of others) is present even in nursing infants. It's a pretty solid argument.
Can you say "the prosperity gospel is a heresy" a little louder so the people in the back can hear you? I know way too many people that got sucked into MLMs and support those teachings. I try my best to be patient and correct them while still maintaining a good relationship with them. Luckily, some people in my family, are starting to come around. I pointed out quotes from people like Joel Olstene when he prayed thanking God that he's not like other people is a nearly exact quote from a condemned person in the Bible from one of Jesus's parables.
Because he obviously hasn't actually read Zwingli and rather beliefs in a Lutheran strawman of Zwinglis view. Both Cranmer and Bullinger which he placed much higher praised Zwingli and adopted his view on the sacraments.
Zoomer has certain...OCD level obsessions. One is church buildings and the other is sacraments. If those do not align, then they are all bad theologians.
@@thomasc9036 Yeah but my problem is that he is obviously misinformed here since he put people with the same or at least an extremely similar sacramentology (Cranmer, Bullinger, Barth) much higher
Great watch, thanks. As an RC Aquinas is definitely S tier, but beyond that I have no real issues among the minority I'm even competent to have an opinion on. The list clearly reflects your Calvinist reform bias, which is fine because it's yours and you're entitled to it. And thanks for mentioning Pelagius (an insanely popular heresy today dressed in modern cultural garb) and the prosperity snake oil salesmen for the F tier. That stuff needs to be called out more vigorously. I'd probably throw MacArthur down there too... Everyone loves Athanasius and everyone loves Lewis!
Aquinas should be in S. He is one of the greatest theologians of all times. I would like that you explain your criteria for placing theologians like Nevin Kuyper Knox or Vermigli above greater figures like Aquinas. This seems a lack of intellectual seriousness. On the other hand, your tier list ignores the huge list of Catholic theologians that should be counted
You all may disagree with his placements, and I do too. The only thing we all should agree is that this list is completely expected from Redeemed Zoomer.
Just as long as this wasnt supposed to be like an impartial, unbiased list, and be totally biased towards the calvinistic, reformed bias, then i guess it's fine. And yet even with it being fine, St. Thomas Aquinas bring A-tier is just... So wrong, no matter what ehat bias you have.
Ok my biggest problem with Calvinism is that from what I understand, I can be baptized and have faith and do everything I can to walk with the lord and obey his commands and love him, but in the end what it sound like is god would just be like nah sorry bro I didn’t choose you so you go to hell, can someone help clarify this to me.
For some Calvinists that would be the view, but I think the more educated Calvinist view would say that if you are doing all those things then it is proof of your regenerated heart and thus your salvation. Otherwise, you would never even desire such things
I agree with origen on the possibility of pre-existing elect souls. I also think there is a possibility of salvation for unbelievers at the great white throne judgment, but is only possible through the atonement of Christ. As for the demons getting saved, that is patently absurd.
I truly believe the claim that the baptist take on the Sacraments is that they "basically do nothing" is an awful misrepresentation. To believe that the Sacraments are a physical demonstration of God's truth and power is not to believe that they "basically do nothing". The baptist's take is consistent with Scripture. The Sacraments are beautiful and powerful demonstrations of saving faith. That is not nothing, that is doing what St Paul and St James taught about what faith looks like.
Origen is tier A, reading Origen is an encounter with early Christian theology with Neoplatonic philosophy, in addition to being important for the theological school of Alexandria
Calvin may not have been killing EVERYONE who disagreed with him, but he had the hypocrisy to argue against the Catholic church and start a reformation, then burn a guy alive for doing the exact same thing. "Its only cool when I try to return to scripture!" Now, Servatus wasn't totally right, but he WAS just following in Calvin's footsteps.
@@user-pw8cc7kb2c Not just for the good, either. Theological liberalism came out of Protestantism and has tainted the Catholic church too. In the end, throughout history we see that politics corrupts Christianity, since churches will twist what they believe to suit political end. What has Jerusalem to do with Athens? What has light to do with darkness? What has God's kingdom to do with Ceaser's? We must reject Ceaser, while rendering unto him what is his, to embrace Christ.
I'm glad it was this long thank you RZ! I really enjoyed this and my brain was absorbing this information like a black hole sucks in a solar system! I know the Holy Bible can teach me alot if not all i need (i mean it is the word of God) but all of this what you teach in your video helps a ton too. I think it's really important to learn about heresies etc. I'm so glad you do all this for us to learn from i value it truly.
Man, I gotta say I was shocked and disappointed Arminius didn't make S tier...lol Still all love and prayers from your friendly neighborhood Reformed Arminian 😎
I'm a socialist, an agnostic, and a cultural liberal, but I like your videos because I'm fascinated by theology, comparative religion, and Church history and you don't rant and rave and antagonize or try to huck self-serving snake oil like Prosperity Gospel, rapturism, neo-confederate stupidity, Christian Zionism, or YCE and other pseudo-science.
you know you're not doing a great job as a christian when atheists applaud you. redeemed zoomer conforms himself to this world for the praise of heathen.
Great and interesting video, but on occasion it is apparent you haven't actually studied or read many of these theologians' defining works, but have instead sought a second-hand overview of their separate theological frameworks.
You have accomplished a lot this month. And you have done it with amazing excellence. You are truly fortunate. I appreciate your dedication to serving the Lord with your talents. Keep it up! ✝
