Visit our website: www.kingdompresbyterians.com/ Make a donation: donorbox.org/presbyterians-fo... Theology Matters: www.theologymatters.com/ Find a church: www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edi...
Same. A return to scripture and a return to Christ. But we non denominational folk shouldn’t retreat from our churches to do so, they need reconquista as much as other churches do (maybe less, maybe more, depends on the church)
Its a nice idea but unfortunately it wont work out. Theological liberalism is the logical consequence of sola scripture. Once you get rid of the authority of the church to interpret scripture, you will end up with progressively more and more heretical views, as we can see. If you want tradition and a guarantee that dogma will never change, Catholicism is your only answer
Good video, made me think and reconsider some aspects of my faith I do have to voice disagreement though with regards to the things you said about evangelical congregations, in that I think some of these things are a bit naive or narrow-sighted. Not so much speaking from a theological or doctrinal point of view of whether churches (or 'temples') should look traditional or try to recreate what we have been told by the Bible to be Heaven, but rather that many places simply don't *have* those buildings available to them, and not because of some schism within the church but simply because they do not exist. I can speak about my own experiences and the experiences of those I know, that the only 'traditional' buildings around in my city (founded in 1870) are catholic churches, even then those are few and far between, as most chapels are very simple and 'pragmatic' square buildings with white walls and some imagery. As for traditional protestant buildings, in many towns there simply aren't any, what to do then? We can't deem them (edit: pragmatic, modern looking churches) to not be good enough, people *must* have a place of worship for the Kingdom to spread and the word must be preached, there simply aren't enough resources or cause enough to build traditional looking buildings. As for the form of worship, I am not familiar with the music used in the US or English-Speaking countries, but the music that I've heard (and that we play in our congregation) most definitely falls into the 'Glorifying God' category. Just because it's a different genre doesn't mean it doesn't praise God or glorify Him. Then again, my experience might just be entirely different since I speak another language, it's entirely possible that Hispanic worship songs are different from English ones, so we might just be arguing about different things altogether in this regard. No hard feelings though! God bless you, and I hope that I can learn from whichever answer you give me (if you were thinking of answering), I'm always open to different ideas regarding our faith.
Wellllll, I mean he does quite often blatantly ignore scripture. Good communication doesn't always equal being correct. Take this scripture for example: 2 Peter 3:7 - "But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly." Meaning the world will be destroyed. Or this one, comparing the end time to a flood you need to escape (like Noah's Ark): Luke 17:26-27
@@Jackoooloop9456 This is a fundy fallacy on your part. That passage is not saying the earth will be destroyed, it’s saying it will be purified. You have a lot of studying to do.
@@justchilling704 Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away" Revelation 21:1 "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more." 2 Peter 3:10-11 - "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be" But the most compelling in my eschatology exegesis... 2 Peter 3:13 - "But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells." We clearly see that the Earth is going to be purified of all sin, and you need to escape the wrath that is coming upon the earth, as this earth is passing away. We are waiting for new heavens and a new earth. You've got a lot of studying to do mate.
I’m a panmillenial Whatever happens it will pan out, Jesus wins. we should fight to further Christs kingdom because it’s the right thing to do. What happens in the future will pan out. God is in control.
Matthew 24:42-44 CSB ”Therefore be alert, since you don’t know what day your Lord is coming. But know this: If the homeowner had known what time the thief was coming, he would have stayed alert and not let his house be broken into. This is why you are also to be ready, because the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”
So I'm premillennial and I just want to clarify something (before I start, I'm not trying to convince anyone nor do I wish to get into an argument. When it comes to the end of this world, it's not a hill I'm willing to die on because there's far more important things to deal with). We don't believe that the ultimate goal is to go to heaven (well some do, but not most). We believe, like post and a that the job of the Church is to proclaim the gospel to the lost. We do believe the world will continue getting worse (there's several reasons why we believe that but that's too long to get into in this comment) but we don't see that as a bad thing. We see it as meaning that the return of Jesus is imminent. Because we believe He can return at any time, we are compelled to spread the gospel far and wide. We believe the tribulation will be God pouring out His wrath and removing the seeds of rebellion. Then the judgement and then the reign. And I do know I'm not explaining it well, comments don't make a good medium. There's 3 main views of the world and all 3 are convinced they are right. We won't know whose right until it happens and I don't really care who is right. Here's what matters, regardless of what the future holds, the Church's mission now is to spread the gospel. We can do that in our own little provinces or, we can do it as a united kingdom.
The one big problem I see is that *the church is not the kingdom.* The church can (and should) participate in the kingdom, but the church can fail from time to time, whereas God's Kingdom cannot fail. We should be biblical when talking about the Kingdom, and while the Church can and should be in lock step with God's kingdom, the Church is not the Kingdom, proper.
@@timothyvenable3336Think of it like this: We have to spread the gospel. If people acept the gospel and gain faith in Jesus Christ, they are saved, in other words, God's kingdom here on earth incresed in population. If you build churches and communities, you are fighting for God's kingdom, not phisicly fighting with weapons, but for the spriritual world. From there you can expand the analogy like you saw in the video. ✌
I'm still premillenial, even after watching your channel thoroughly. BUT You have changed my pessimistic, escapist attitude to one of active participation. I do not know when the end is coming, so I strive to bring the light and Gospel to as many as I can until either that day comes or I am called home. The physical world was not made evil, but it was broken by sin. So while there is physical beauty and pleasure to enjoy, it is a mixed bag. I don't see your view of heaven coming to earth as incompatible with premillennialism, but simply a different timeline. You devise ways to overtake the world for Christ, while I devise ways to share His Good News with others. Both are needed at different times. Your stance is valid within Biblical interpretations, and I see no reason to really argue against you. I think what you're doing is a wonderful thing, RZ. Keep it up. You are clearly motivated by a desire to serve God, as am I. God bless you, brother!
This is an encouraging comment to read. While RZ is right about the bulk of premillennials, he's wrong about it being *fundamental* to premillennial theology. Even if we predict the world is going to get worse, the command to be a light to the world is still there. Even if we give up the world as irredeemably corrupt, we still must follow God's leading, and be shepherds to the nations.
@@Draezeth Glad I could encourage you, brother. I think RZ has a deeper understanding of that than he lets on. I'm sure if he does a deep dive of premillenialism in a video he would name those exceptions. Nonetheless, know that you are not alone in your nuanced position. :)
The view which most post-mils say about us is that we're pessimistic, just doing our thing and trying to die before things get too bad... I mean WHAT!? That would be lazy! Now the Bible does clearly compare the end times to Noah's Ark, (Luke 17:26-27) where we will escape what is coming upon the world (2 Peter 3:7), but it doesn't mean we don't try and bring as many people as we can with us! We are also building the kingdom too!
Besides that, what do you think about Niebuhr's idea of being conservationist? I love that idea, I think it's balanced between our "separation from this world" and "God's gift of this life". But I still have doubt that it can be compatible with premillenialism. What do you think about that?
As a reformed Baptist Premil who goes to a traditional Presb church (inside a school's basketball court), this helps me understand their Amil eschatology better. I got a lot out of your point that the church is here to bring a heavenly influence, instead of waiting for the ticket out of here. Rather than Gnosticism, however, it's more about the saying of Paul that to go and be with the Lord is better than staying here on Earth. "Christianity is about heaven coming down to earth and transforming it via the church, and I can be involved in that." Thank you so much for this! And although my church is made up of very quiet, socially awkward people, but I love how you explained the hymns are royal, for a king. I don't find your "babies are baptised at birth because they're like citizens ... etc", in the Bible, when we're told to *believe* and be baptised. Spurgeon brings in verses aptly, on this. Still, I'm happy at the Pressy church.
It helps to know that premillenism was rejected by the Church in its first centuries to favor an amillennial escathology and only resurfaced less than 200 years ago. Tribulationism is very new. These eschatological ideas come from the restourationist movement of the Church and are not found in the Protestant Reformation. When it comes to infant baptism, the analogy with citizenship in the Kingdom of God works in the context of Kingdom Theology, but it is not the way to defend infant baptism theologically. His video about Sacraments goes into more detail. But, also, credobaptism came from the radical Anabaptist reform, was rejected early in the history of the Church and was widely opposed by the reformers.
They own a little old church in town, but the frail find it too difficult to use the bathroom, because it's down a flight of stairs. A state-run school lets us use their indoor sports' hall (with kitchen) for free, so long as we put the chairs away again and clean up.
6:04 depends on the context and even how the music is played. Some people glorify God in the manner of passionate and energetic contemporary music. And then, there is the other way where people play contemporary music in a lofty manner so it can better reflect the nature of traditional music (Check out Southern Gospel Music that has contemporary elements). My stance on contemporary worship is that there are two sides when it comes to worshiping God. Glorifying God or Glorifying something else( idolatry, spouse, children, yourself, money, etc). If someone is glorifying God (not just by singing songs to God but also by putting their faith in Christ and living their life for God by following his word and commandments) then that is true worship. Worship isn’t ancient, traditional, contemporary, or futuristic. It is a person giving praise and glory to our eternal God. When someone is glorifying God and not something else, IT WILL SHOW ITSELF in one form or another.
People who think that contemporary Christian music is not glorifying God usually argue that it's bad because it's too much focused on sentimental feeling and such emotional experience. But are those people really never think about "emotional feelings" at all? In fact, they admire traditional hymns and chants so much because they think that it's give a "sacred feeling" which is different than the contemporary ones who give "secular feelings". Therefore, because it sounds more "sacred", it's more glorifying to God (it's like saying "It's not glorifying God because it doesn't give the right vibes and feelings"). But the fact is that the Bible *never* command us about what kind of music that give glory to God. It just says "worship Him in Spirit and in truth". So, as long as the song can drive you worship in Spirit and in truth, it's appropriate and respectable.
For me, I love listening to hymns and chants too. Of course I agree that they sound more "Angelic". I have to admit that on many things, they do sounds better than CCM. Not because "God loves choirs and hates pop style bands". But because they are more able to drive us to focus more on God and the lyrics, therefore drive us to worship in Spirit and in truth in a better way. But ofc that doesn't mean that we can't worship in Spirit and in truth with CCM.
@@pearcejayw I am a classical musician who has 12 years of violin experience and am going to Blair School of Music for a violin performance degree in the fall (I have a separate channel for my violin stuff). As a person who has worshiped and served with the violin in both traditional and contemporary music, I think it is up to subjective preference on which sounds better. However, I will admit that there is more you can potentially do with traditional/classical music than what someone can do with contemporary music. In classical music, there are more chords, modulations, secondary dominants, melodic fragmentations, phrase forms, part writing tactics, passing tones, fugues, imitations, and melodic ideas that can be worked with than just the four chords and the complicated drumming patterns (the only thing I think is special about contemporary music) in contemporary music. My AP Music Theory exam is in just a few days and the amount of craft that goes into composing classical music is just more mind-blowing than that of contemporary music. Another concession I have to make is that the hymns are more truthful to the scripture than contemporary music. The scriptural language of the hymns are more biblical and they represent the gospel better (specifically focusing more on the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ). Also, there are less politics and bad theology at play in traditional music. Contemporary music making megachurches like Bethel, Hillsong, and Elevation have major theological pitfalls in their institutions and their songs have allowed them to bend people's worship to God into a heretical money grab (Some of their songs are good and can be used for worship ex: Goodness of God by CeCe Winans, but many other songs go into a man centered gospel and what makes these institutions get extremely big is their worship songs). Honestly, if there is one major thing against contemporary music that is reasonable to discourage people from worshiping in this medium, it's theological pitfalls and politics at play in modern worship and not because the music "sucks".
My dad brought me into kingdom theology and it makes the Bible make so much more sense now. With your video it makes even more sense so thank you and God bless you!!!
The premillenial arrival of Christ is supported by Revelations (not saying you can't interpret that for the post- and a- versions) and Paul, who also announces that there will be a rapture. It's not a rapture to heaven, it's a rapture to come back to the earth with Christ. The other two millennialisms put off Christ's return to who-knows-probably-not-in-my-lifetime, removing it as a matter of practical desire from the faith. And yes, premill does lead to a pessimistic outlook on the world, but all the evidence points that way as well as Revelations, so we're on fairly solid ground. It also however has a huge advantage of keeping the hope alive of Christ's return as a real thing that can happen in the next minute, which is such a comfort. Gnosticism does not underlying premillennialism, it sprang out of it to an extent - your argument is from effect to cause. Assuming that the Kingdom is already here in anything other than an embryonic form leads to 2 errors or traps: 1) assuming that everything that is actually happening in the church and world must have been the result of God's will and is therefore good; 2) assuming that by our own efforts here we will actually make things fit for Christ's return, rather than being witnesses a kingdom which is not of this world. It is clear that the church as a whole is no longer the shining city on the hill, although it should be and will be again when Christ comes again, and in any case one shining city does not make everything else into shining cities; and salt is there to preserve what it can, not transform as you suggest.
Totally agreed. To add two things: 1. The pre-trib rapture *is* in the Bible, "But be watchful at every time, beseeching that you would prevail to escape all these things which are about to happen and stand before the Son of Man." (Luke 21:36) And Revelation 14's two reapings. 2. The earth beig destroyed then restored, with the church being spared, is based on *Noah,* not on anything gnostic. RZ is absolutely right that we will spend eternity on earth, not in heaven, which is something most pre-mils don't understand, but earth absolutely will be judged. Even Peter makes the connection to Noah: "For this escapes them by their own choosing, that by the word of God the heavens were of old and the earth was compacted out of water and through water, Through which the world then, being flooded with water, perished. But the heavens and the earth now, by the same word, have been stored up for fire, being kept unto the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." (2 Peter 3:5-7)
Love your work, Zoomer! I'm an Assemblies of God Premillenial and a thoroughly convinced Dispensationalist, but I wholeheartedly support and admire your Prorestant Reconquista. You, and the movement you champion, are in my prayers.
@@tombo3425he's stated that Christian metal is an oxymoron. Definitely something I (and most people) disagree with him on. He's admitted to having a very pretentious and self righteous/biased view on everything cultural. Even if it's not explicitly sinful or against God, zoomer will have no issue telling you that according to his personal preference, you're wrong
I think it is a bit of a stretch to connect Dispensationalism to Gnosticism. It is much more helpful to talk about differences between the two views on Israel
Not really. It's impossible to deny the damage Rapture theology has done to Christianity as a whole. People grow up scared thinking at any moment the Rapture will happen and they will be left behind. I was told growing up I wouldn't even finish high school before the Rapture. It's honestly heretical how it is influenced in Christianity to the point people would rather preach Rapture theology than the gospel. It really is very similar to the gnostic idea of escaping this world for all the weirdo Christians saying they can't wait until the Rapture. It's sickening and destructive.
The idea of escaping the material world to Heaven is literally the central Dogma of gnosticism. It's literally their "good news", their pseudo-gospel, and that exact message is the central tenet of rapture theology
@@igorlopes7589 Yes, but no dispensationalist or premillennialist would deny the renewal of the physical world through Heaven coming down to earth. The idea that the physical is bad is not the only belief of Gnosticism and actually just a simplification of it.
Denominations are not just different provinces if they have different beliefs, even “secondary beliefs” (which are often still extremely important). Within the Catholic Church we have different dioceses and different rites like the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches but we all have the same beliefs. These are legitimate provinces
"but we all have the same beliefs". Is the current pope a true pope? Some say yes others say no (sedevacantist). Is original sin an inherit of Adam's sin? More traditional Catholics (especially medieval Catholics) would say yes, but most modern Catholics would say no. Is Purgatory a place with a true purifying fire and whose time passes in a similar way to the time here? More traditional Catholics (especially medieval Catholics) would say yes, but most modern Catholics would say no. Is predestination, in the sense that God chose some for eternal life and others not, based on His will, true? Some say yes (Thomists and Scoutists) and others say no (Molinists). Is there salvation for non-Catholics and Protestants? Some say yes, others say no (TradCatholics and those who do not accept the second Vatican council).
@@pedroguimaraes6094 not all issues have been defined by the church, although everything essential and then some has. Of those things which are defined, any Catholic who denies them is guilty of formal or material heresy.
Too funny! I just used the word eschatology whilst referring to the dogma of Jehovah's Witnesses and 1914 on a different YT channel; and now I see your post and get the feeling I'm going to seeing it a lot today! :D
First time commenting, I am 23 years old and live in England, I attend a baptist church and hold reformed theology to a high degree because it is the theology that holds Christ to the highest degree. I completely agree with what you said about 'reclaiming' the main line churches and I would definitely love to because they are beautiful to be in but how exactly would you propose we do that? By buying the church? Simply attending and saying what needs to change? The reason I ask is because I couldn't even consider the idea of going to a church of England service and seeing a woman with purple hair lead the service whilst committing the most atrocious blasphemies. I just cant and will not tolerate it. Would love to hear your views. God bless, persevering saints.
Hi, I will have a look now. I don't think it answered my question though. Do we endure the rot and with time chip away at the rot? I pray you're doing well and having a nice day.
@@nathandebney591 Yes, he says something like that. You can listen to other videos in the channel about that topic. There are non liberal churches in most mainline denominations. People should preserve those, because there is a trend that as liberal churches becoming more and more liberal, people just stop going there as they cannot receive anything more than what the modern society offers anyways. So he thinks in the long run victory is possible.
Hey I was looking at your map for good churches and noticed my church wasn’t on there. It’s a conservative Lutheran church that looks pretty cool and idk why jt isn’t on there. Idk the address but it’s called Bethlehem Lutheran Church, it’s in sun prairie Wisconsin, and it’s on broadway drive. Can you add it or consider adding it to the map?
Benedict XVI wrote that "Thx will be done on earth as it is in heaven" means first and foremost that Heaven is where the will of the father is done and earth can be that place if we do the will of the father.
Love the video and the series! You are quickly becoming my favorite RU-vidr :) I am curious though, what does 1 Thessalonians 4:7 have to do with the rapture? 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 seems more in line with what could be perceived as a rapture.
I always thought the rapture was after the second coming of Christ, and we would come back for the 1,000 year reign, so we would face judgement day. To be honest I still don't really know, I just trust what God is going to do, I don't need to worry about my eschatology.
Believe me when I say we need more traditionalism. This is one of the main reason why I’m considering leaving Protestant to Orthodox. I just can’t get over the fact that we detached ourselves from everything just to “start over”, especially when this wasn’t what Martin Luther wanted in the first place.
You hold the wrong mentality, your mindset is the one Jesus himself refuted and criticized. We ought to continually reform and conform to the teachings of scripture and the primitive church, not simply repeating everything from the past and assuming it’s right bc it’s old (tradition). We should cautiously embrace sound traditions, not tradition whole sell blindly. The Orthodox are the most guilty of this. They cling to their traditions extremely tightly even the disputed or wrong ones. Edit: And you yourself acknowledged Luther didn’t want a restart so why claim that’s what Protestantism is? It isn’t only the radical reformation fits that (Amish for example) Protestants don’t believe the church was dead or none existent for most of the time since Christ.
What does it profit a man if the traditions he keeps are not from God, scripture or the apostles? Traditions that are against God’s truth are worthless and will be burnt up. Many of the traditions of the EO and RC have no proof of being taught by the apostles. Many of them run contrary to God’s word revealed in scripture. Don’t lose your memory of God’s truth revealed in scripture in your attempt to rebel against modernity. “Old” does not always mean trustworthy and good.
@@ogloc6308We did not. The Magisterial Reformation were Catholics reforming the medieval Catholic Church. When you start learning that out Theology is the closest one to the Theology of the Old Catholic Church and the Apostolic Fathers, you can't just unsee it. Listen to Jordan Cooper and other traditional Protestants and join a mainline Protestants Church which is still Orthodox by using RZ map. Or you can leave and join RC or EO, but you would move far away from the Word of God and you will noticed soon that they also have their problems. A lot of them just repeat what they have been taught and don't even understand what their churces historically believe.
Nothing they say could persuade me either. I tried to stay protestant with all my might. I went to the churches on their map, I went from low low protestant all the way up to reformed and even traditional Anglican, (and eventually even Roman Catholic),but when I went to an Eastern Orthodox Church my life was never the same. I didn't accept the theology at first, but I found God becoming real right before me. I certainly had faith beforehand, but this experience of mine couldn't be documented or written down; words can't do it justice. The theology never convinced me, but with time, prayer, a season of lent, and pilgrimages, my heart just accepted it. Since inquiring in January of 2024, I have been catechized by Fr Josiah Trenham and now fully immerse myself in the teachings and the lives of the saints. My life will never be the same and I want everyone to experience what I have, even if they end up remaining the same denomination as before. With respect, Christ is risen☦️
On the topic of this world being destroyed 2 Peter 3:7 - "But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly."
You left me with a couple eschatology questions.....what's your view on the tribulation? Don't you agree that it only fits with a premillenial view? What do you make of end time prophecies in books like Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation, do you think they are literal?
Hey Zoomer! It would be really nice if you would have Biblical verses on each little "slide" of the video to always show a reference for what you're talking about! God Bless!
I have a pastor friend who is post trib (he believes the rapture will happen either mid or post) and he and i were talking to about the various theories and a comment that all can be backed up by Scripture and all can be refuted by Scripture and why that is when just about everything else is pretty plainly explained. My pastor friend's theory as to why that is is because God wanted be clear that He is coming back, but vague enough so that we don't know for sure when it will happen or how it will look because our focus needs to be on fulfilling the mission God gave rather than being so heavenly minded that we are no earthly good.
This makes so much more sense than Calvery Chapel Bible bro sermons “isn’t this half sentence of Greek interesting my mind has it been an hour already?”
I have no solid stance other than it will happen, praise God. But my question for Post Mil is how do you explain when John penned Revelation? They believe a lot of major events came to pass in 70 AD with the temple destruction but most scholars date John's revelation writing not until 90 or 100 AD. Thanks for your explanation of Kingdom Theology.
Hey Redeemed Zoomer, could you please share the hymns and music you use in the background of your videos? They're very beautiful, and I'd like to listen to them 😄
This is probably the area of reformed theology that I love the most. Not sacrificing a literal heaven or afterlife (as some overly liberal places do), but also not moping around expecting the world to get worse and then just end. I love the encouragement to improve the world, as well as the high view of the church that it brings with it. Not even entirely sure where I fall on the topic, but I reject the rapture and all of that that comes with it, and I think the reformed stance is the most consistently appealing and reasonable.
So you love it because it makes you feel good? That's not a good reason to believe something. You should believe the truth, not what makes you feel good.
@@CCI320 I love it because it makes me feel good and because I think it is the most reasonable... per my last sentence. Chocolate makes me feel good, that doesn't mean that it is somehow a falsehood. Nothing against other end times traditions, but this is the one that makes the most sense of how Christians should act; as if we don't know the day and have a job to do. I prefer that to the moping, and I think it is more consistent with Jesus' teachings. Don't false dichotomy me on a Saturday, it's a little tasteless.
Love and really appreciate all your videos. This one did show massive human bias and conditioning to prove what you believe instead of striving to be a 100% pure vessel for God's truth. Sharing all of the following with love, humility and with hopes of unity... For the beginning of the video: 1) Christianity is about starting and growing a genuine eternal relationship with God together, which currently results in both going to Paradise (aka Abraham's bosom) that's in the current creation 3rd heaven, then going to the new heaven/earth after Judgment day. 2) The current 3rd heaven (where God/Jesus dwell) is outside of the cosmos, and yes, eventually existence will be a new heaven/earth (with new Jerusalem, etc). 3) Yep...according to the Bible, the reign of Christ from heaven has been happening since he ascended and we're currently in the symbolic millennium. Christians are both realistic and trust God's plan even though we don't know all the exact, literal, specific details. Excellent graphics and descriptions on this one! For the Kingdom theology: 1) Kingdom of God/heaven => three different kingdoms: a) Like God IS, God's spiritual kingdom IS, which includes in the current creation: the spiritual body of humans (that have a soul that can be saved, and is saved when definitively joining His kingdom) and the Holy Spirit (that IS everywhere). (Luke 17:20-21) b) With new covenant, when humans become and stay Christian, when their physical body is no more, their spiritual body (where their soul is preserved) now enters Paradise (aka Abraham's bosom) that's in the current creation 3rd heaven, aka kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 4:17) c) With the new heavens/earth, God's eternal kingdom that (depending on the results of Judgement day) humans enter, where their soul is redeemed and their spiritual body is united with God and other spiritual bodies forever. (Matthew 25:31-34) 2) The church is a spiritual body where Jesus is the head and Christians are the rest. It's not a building / human made organizational structure. Yes, it is the "church's job to spread the kingdom", but that is Christians spiritually maturing over time, which naturally grows quality relationship with God together, naturally resulting in quantity (more Christians discovering and starting) relationship with God together...and the amazing upward/outward quantity/quality cycle continues. 3a) Absolutely on sacraments, though they are natural results. Discovering God naturally results in getting baptized and joining His spiritual family ("receiving citizenship in God's kingdom"), being in His spiritual family naturally results in assembling at least once a week on Sundays to worship, have communion, etc ("participating in God's kingdom"). Yes, what's supposed to happen, but all too often doesn't, is the spiritual mature "cream rises to the top" such that those Christians naturally perform roles based on their spiritually maturity and how the Holy Spirit works uniquely in them. 3b) Similar to fasting, drinking alcohol, wearing a shirt that says "I love Jesus"...baptizing babies is fine (and can be an experience for spiritual growth for humans that are capable) as long as it's understood it's not the official baptism (that includes the supernatural receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit). Biblically, and logically (by God's design), baptism should only occur when the human is capable to and uses their free will, and they discover God and want to make an eternal lifelong commitment to God. Also, there's a distinct before official / after official baptism initial transformation in the human, only humans that are capable are able to experience, recognize and be grateful for, that is by God's amazing design. 4a) As previously mentioned, the physical church are Christians, not buildings. It's is not God's will for Christians to become a physical construction crew and treat Revelation and the rest of the Bible like literal blueprints to physically create the new heavens/earth in order to join the angelic choir. 4b) "better" music in that context is human subjective. What's important with music is that it's pure and not distracting. What's amazing is the natural spiritual harmonization when it's true. 5) Christianity is The Way of life (God made, human documented) and not a human-made religion. It's one continually unifying existence on a foundational structure with diverse Christians (logic/art, abstract/concrete thinking, physically/mentally strong, etc) with the Holy Spirit working differently in everyone. Imperfect human-made religions (e.g. Christian denominations, Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, etc) create imperfect human-made belief systems (many of which have human official doctrine) that build a wall around those respective subset of humans. 6) Below: - Christ is our head of the spiritual body (aka Spiritual King) - The current creation is the opportunity to grow in the body together and add more to the body through the challenges (sin, evil, imperfect world, etc) - Yes, as mentioned before, Christianity is one of the three kingdoms of God/heaven - Yes, Baptism (when capable of using free will to make commitment) is citizenship - God's Word is the spiritual sword to figuratively carefully attempt to penetrate hearts (not physical sword to physically hurt) - Demons give the logical necessary challenge in order to provide the opportunity to spiritually grow together - The Church is a Christian family that when more united, is more capable to be the light - Sanctification is the ongoing progressively spiritual transformation into the image of Christ, both inwardly and outwardly, with the Holy Spirit together. - Pastors should be the spiritually mature that naturally become pastors and lead - The 2nd coming is inevitable and exciting that it is inevitable 7a) Matthew 5:13-14 is figurative language for Christians to be the salt of the earth, light of the world, and openly (but carefully) shining the light (and not being a Christian only behind closed doors). 7b) Absolutely on the Christians natural fruit-bearing tangibles and intangibles in society! On that note, most American Christians are spiritually immature and do not Christ-like vote for government officials, and then claim it's Christian to separate church and state instead of a Christian 100% of the time in all thoughts and actions. This is unfortunate, but logical immature and hypocritical imperfect human behavior. A write-in vote is almost always, if not always, an option. Looking forward to yours (or anyone's) thoughts, and much love!
I grew up non denominational and now go to a southern Baptist church. I don't agree with everything they do, but it's a great church. I'm certainly not tied to any specific denomination and am open to trying other churches. Here's the problem. While I agree with quite a bit of the reformed theology, many of those churches are extremely liberal to the point that they are allowing gay marriages, gay clergy and female pastors. Those things are a total deal breaker because they are without question umbilical. How do you reconcile that? For all the faults that the baptist church has, it seems that they are the only ones fighting the cultural battle.
I like how you believe that people should consider staying in the church, especially younger people and reform it from the inside. I would love to get your input on how you believe regular layman can have such an influence. Should I join a church, stay in it for a while, then attempt to become a deacon and influence it that way? Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Maybe a good video topic if you haven't already made it?
Traditional worship music is very 17th century focused, it’s almost Amish in a way, why shouldn’t we utilize new instruments in our worship? The focus should be on making the music sound regal and grandiose, I agree that most contemporary music is bad but that doesn’t mean we should abandon the instruments used to make it. I think the Prince of Egypt soundtrack is a perfect example of contemporary music done in a way that honors god.
Wow. What a stirring speech at the end. I feel like this project needs centralized planning among the evangelicals. Healthy PCA congregations need to split off and send missions with the purpose of taking back the mainline. Is there anyone talking about how to get this going?
The only thing I don't think this video really touched upon is regarding the book of Revelation. Amillenialism generally avoids a futurist interpretation, and yet that seems to a lot of people to be the most intuiative and sensible way to interpret it (myself included). I know it's probably not as important as some other topics, but I'd love if RZ could cover it in his KingdomCraft series. (It IS possible for a amillenialist to be a futurist, but it's not common)
I am unconvinsed by your argument on worship. There is good moden worship music and bad moden worship music. In the same way there is good and bad "traditional" music. It is not about the form but the message and theologie of the lyrics. Psalm 21 sung by a chior has the same meaning to me as when it is done in a more moden setting. Both glorify God. The reverse is true with a 'jesus is my boyfriend" song. ON CHURCH MUSIC By C.S. Lewis is well worth a read as a balancd view on the way we do worship in the chuch.
My understanding was that the Westminster Confession was broadly agnostic on the millennium. In 1838 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland appointed a committee to consider the subject of a Mission to the Jews and a deputation was appointed to visit the chief Jewish communities on the Continent and in the East. The deputation comprised: Alexander Keith, Alexander Black, Andrew Bonar, Robert Murray M'Cheyne, and Robert Wodrow (not that one). Several of these wrote books espousing a premillennial position and ministered in the Free Church of Scotland. David Brown (of the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary) and also of the Free Church took the opposite, postmillennial position. My guess would be that the amillennial views would be most common in Scottish churches which require a subscription to the Westminster Confession but none of these three historic views would be seen as a bar to office - even in churches where such a subscription means anything.
While I don’t agree with you on all points, you explain things very well. I will say that illustrating heaven like a traditional church is not a way to draw people. Like we are going to be sitting in a pretty building singing hymns for eternity? Nope. I think King David clearly had other ideas of how to worship God.
I'm totally for you and you're reconquest of the PCUSA. I'm also not going to participate in that effort. I have been a member of the PCA for many years, never was a PCUSA member. I could consider joining the reconquest, yet I am not single. I am married with 5 kids. My wife and children take priority. I say this with love and kindness, I would be a derelict husband and father if I put my family in a shipwrecked church. Yet I cheer you on! What would be sin for one is a glorious calling for another.
Don't join a fallen church, find one of the remaining true individual churches within those denominations and strengthen it with your membership. The Reconquista Discord has a map with worthwhile churches from every mainline denomination. That's a good place to start if you think that's something worth considering.
5:18 And Ordination is the establishment of the hierarchy of this Kingdom. Confession and Annointing of the Sick are the medicine of this Kingdom. Marriage is a Covenant that establishes families not only in the world but inside the Kingdom. And Confirmation gives the fullness of that citizenship granted by baptism (they were even called the double sacrament once by St Cyprian).
Did RZ make a video on the New Perspective on Paul or does he just assume every Reformed Presbyterian believes this shift on how we view the gospel? Genuine question
Thank you for your explanation of Kingdom Theology. Used to be Premillennial but don't think it will happen that way now, ironically because it seems like everyone I know believes it...Bible said it would happen in a way no one expects
“Now concerning that day or hour no one knows - neither the angels in heaven nor the Son - but only the Father. Watch! Be alert! For you don’t know when the time is coming. It is like a man on a journey, who left his house, gave authority to his servants, gave each one his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to be alert. Therefore be alert, since you don’t know when the master of the house is coming - whether in the evening or at midnight or at the crowing of the rooster or early in the morning. Otherwise, when he comes suddenly he might find you sleeping. And what I say to you, I say to everyone: Be alert! ” -Jesus (Mark 13:32-37) We are not to be raptured up to heaven, but to await and be alert for the coming of our Great Lord.
(A)s it was in the days of Noah." Whenever I encounter someone who talks excitedly about being "Raptured" out of this world, I point out that righteous Noah and his family were "left behind."
Caring about the wellbeing of the earth and our bodies (and institutions, etc.) makes a lot more sense with a non-annihilation/gnostic view of soteriology. I'm thinking a bit about the much maligned Pope Francis teachings on environmental care.
I don’t know how you can read the Bible and not think There isn’t an End times scenario, Like I know we shouldn’t dwell on it but It Just makes so much sense to think there is a 7 year tribulation and Physical Israel and spiritual Israel which is the church . It makes sense
I don't see prelimilenialism in the Bible, i don't see it in Church Tradition, and don't see it in our best Theologians and it does not make sense to me, really. Maybe It does If you grow up listening to It.
It should be amillennial idealism if I am not mistaken. Many lutherans, catholics and presbyterians subscribe to this model. But I would say that there are christians of any denomination that subscribe to basically any of the pre-, post- or amillenialist positions, be it preterist, idealist, historicist or futurist.
My disagreement with your mainline vs evangelical analogy is that we (evangelicals) didn’t flee from a battle that was tenable. We withdrew and founded a resistance movement to resist the puppets in charge of the kingdom so that we can re establish it.
There is a time for everything, as Scripture says. Likewise there is a time for each kind of music, as we know all to well music reflects and disposes us towards certain emotions. Now think with me: what does worship consist of? Isn't it you paying homage to God your Lord and King? Isn't it you offering your soul to God? Isn't God the most sacred and important thing by definition? Therefore, isn't the act of worship the most solemn thing in existence? What kind of music better reflects and induces solemnity? Music for worship isn't merely there floating in a void, it is there as a visible sign of your most solemn submission and offering of yourself to the most sacred and important Thing in existence. Signs ought to communicate the realities they represent in a due manner, so sacred music should be solemn. Besides, the more agitated or sentimental musics induce you towards your passions, not towards the solemnity of worship.
6:30 Although I somewhat disagree with you on that, I can see what you were talking about. There are a lot of false teachers in huge megachurches preaching all sorts of heresy’s that the beliefs just become inconsistent and even misleading for some people.
Revelation 22 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely
“Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” *Mortalium Animos*
Yes but his position is understood to be that conservatives are separating off and leaving the libs to grow worse unchecked, and the conservatives are wrong or cowardly for doing so. PCA is considered a conservative denomination both in the vid and in the community
Dear Redeemed zoomer your videos have impacted me greatly Pro: I've legit turned from a life of Atheism to Christianity (took a long time) Con... I'm freggin leaning Catholic rn, sorry 😂❤
5:13 Easily confused person here 🙋 Question: Does this mean baptism simply saves because it marks the baby as a member of the kingdom? When the baby grows older they can reject this like how a person can revoke their citizenship?
No, like he said Baptism makes it known to Man and God that you are part of his country. That’s why everyone should get Baptised, not to be ‘saved’ but to assign yourself as a Christian
I know Zoomer likes to claim that Lutherans think "baptism saves" (which is wrong), I'd like to quote what Luther himself said about baptism: "Baptism without faith is useless water". The baptism doesn't save you, it's an outwardly sign. To stay within the example of citizenship, one could become a german citizen outwardly without actually being a german culturally (internally). The reformed view on baptism is more similar to the lutheran view, than Zoomer likes to admit.
As was Charles Spurgeon. Plus not all premillennialists adhere to the idea of pre-tribulation rapture, that is only dispensationslists. Calling premillennialism "influenced by gnosticism" is just such a ridiculous take.
