Hello! Thank you very much for the video. Would you be willing to share some resources that made you consider supra over infra? I've been wrestling with the issue for years, and I haven't found either definitively compelling over the other. I know you mentioned the necessity of the Incarnation, apart from sin, but I'd appreciate if you have anywhere to find in-depth discussion. Thank you!
Look up Srila Prabhupada, he dismantled Augustine’s new philosophy thoroughly and clearly. The section is in the book Dialectic Spiritualism, highly recommend to anyone serious about philosophy.
Hey Redeemed Zoomer, why do your videos always get dislike-bombed? Your content is really good and it doesn't make sense for a 2:1 dislike ratio to consistently happen.
God created people knowing they would go to Hell no matter what calvinism versus God created people knowing they would go to Hell no matter what calvinism
Well, it's from a Presbyterian perspective. I'm Catholic, but I wouldn't expect a Pentacostal to make a video about his top favorite pastors and put any Catholic priests on it.
I'm a calvinist protestant too, and I think you should give Aquinas another shot! "Pure Being" is a SUPER sophisticated definition that helped me a ton once I understood it. It isn't as immediately understandable like "The Infinite," but it contains everything that The Infinite implies, and is even more philosophically useful imo.
good job RZ, I listen to a lot of catholic podcasts their production quality is so high, (from those ive seen on spotify) so I love this protestant Resource!
I’ve learned so much from this channel and similar channels that are run by people younger than me (probably ? Idk how old you are) and it’s made my return to Christ and growing interest in theology so fulfilling. The amount of context I have learned makes every Sunday mass (and daily mass) I attend much more meaningful and I feel like I’m a part of a continuation in a multi millennia history
Being French, hearing that “Calvin is not quite as skilled as a writer” hurt since his written works are in a strictly literary sense highly recognized among French scholars, his “rethoric of simplicity” is a huge part of how the Reform spread since Calvin’s literary skills were very refined,
Yeah, this guy's talking nonsense. His writing is generally acknowledged to be quite extraordinary, as here described, "Cependant, même sur la base des seuls Instituts français de 1541, Calvin se place au premier rang des prosateurs français. t Les Instituts de Calvin, dit M. Ferdinand Brunetière,^ | est « un des grands livres de la prose française, et le premier, en ce qui concerne du temps, dont on peut dire que les proportions, la disposition et la construction sont monumentales ; en un mot, c'est « le premier de nos livres que l'on puisse appeler classique ». Cette position elle atteint, suggère-t-il, en vertu de la grandeur de sa conception, de la dignité de son plan, de l'unité de son traitement, de la enchaînement étroit de sa pensée, de sa grâce rhétorique, de la la gravité soutenue de son style, s'élevant même à la majesté, et la pureté de son langage. Pour m'attarder uniquement sur ce dernier qualité, dans la pureté de son style français, Calvin était bien en avance sur son âge. Latiniste du goût le plus sévère, au lieu de transposer son latin dans son français, comme le faisaient la plupart des écrivains. de l'époque, il a conservé la pureté de son goût."
He was one of the best writers to pen anything theologically , Samuel Rutherford and Calvin both , brilliant brilliant minds with beautiful way of explanation and wording
My Top Ten: 1) Rob Bell 2) Leighton Flowers 3) Katharine Jefferts-Schori 4) Robert Bellarmine 5) Pope Alexander VI 6) Bob the Builder 7) Harambe 8) Haruki Murakami 9) Candace Owens 10) Joe Rogan, but only when he is high
1.G. K. Chesterton 2. C. S. Lewis 3. I'll cheat and throw Aristotle in 4. St. Augustine 5. Thomas Aquinas 6. William Lane Craig 7. Blaise Pascal 8. Scott Hahn 9. Stephen C. Meyer 10. John Lennox
Well, Aristotle is basically a deist and atheist at the same time, believing in an impersonal and non-living "God"...but Catholicism wouldn't exist without him and his work...catholicism is not much more than an interpretation of a reconciliation of Aristotelian philosophy and Christianity, which is interesting since Aristotle is more of an egoist that admires the noble over the base/slave, whereas Catholic doctrine is supposed to be more family oriented and promote more base/slave values.
@hordechess7629 In what way was aristotle an atheist at all? His first mover has nothing to do with atheism, and deeper than that he assumes a telos for every existent thing based on the infinite reason and self contemplation of the first mover, ie, he doesn’t think the creator of the universe isn’t invested in reality because it imparts a purpose and natural end for each thing in reality- he doesn’t have the sort of mechanical causal view on physics a deist would, his first mover is active and organisational. Also your view on his ethics is blatantly nietzschean and nothing to do with the guy himself.
@@bun197 Honestly, I think you are right and I stand corrected...After all, many Theologians (like Aquinas, Maimonides, Al-Farabi) took the "first cause" idea really seriously and based on that point of view, carried on Aristotle's work. Thank you for enlightening me! :) Still though I think Aristotle admires the noble over the base and yes I am going off Nietzschean terminology here. There are four tenants of Aristotelian Naturalism - 1. Species have characteristic ways of life, 2. Some ways of life are better for survival and reproduction than others, 3. Survivability is an intrinsic good, 4. Intrinsic goods are desirable so characteristic ways that promote survivability (also the species' arete) is the most fulfilling life ... This is contrary to many moral tenants in catholicism and maybe like 80% as egoist as Nietzschean master morality...So overall I think you are right on the first point about Aristotle's work not needing to be deduced to any atheism, but I still think Aristotelian ethics endorses the noble by far more than the base
Just starting my journey actually reading these theological works, so I don't have a nuanced opinion myself. But what do you (RZ and others) think of Thomas a Kempis? Haven't seen him mentioned.
I've seen your video on evolution and I'm curious, what do you think about the literalism of the flood? Personally I think there is some scientific evidence of some sort of global flood (such as marine fossils found at high elavations), though if I were an atheist I would probably invoke something like continental drift against that argument. What do you think?
Interesting list. There are lectures on John Knox and Samuel Rutherford on my channel. Other Scottish churchmen from the same lecture series are Robert Bruce, Thomas Boston and Thomas Chalmers. This lecture series has captions/subtitles.
Let me know if you've already done this but I'd love to see a tour video of the Kindomcraft server itself and all the churches you (and others) have built
Hey zoomer, I think it'd be a neat idea to do a video on heavy metal and Christianity, I personally consider myself a metalhead and a growing Christian (not saved yet or truly accepted God yet but im growing more towards the idea)
Wonderful job and very clear. I agree with your estimate of Anselm of Canterbury. He is superb. I did my first master's degree on the Pre-critical Kant and plowed through many of the very brilliant ;minds you discussed very ably this evening. Many thanks.
TheGerkuman, can you try posting your comment again? I can see part of it in my notifications, but not all of it. It is not all showing up in the comments section itself for some reason.
Can you do a video on postmillennialism? Your transformative and optimistic view of the church's role in the culture seems to align more closely with postmillennialism rather than amillennialism.
Hey bro i appreceate your videos very much. Can you please make a video about religious critique like feuerbach etc. ? Because i think nowadays people think Religious critique is a phobia and racist, but its actually usefull for the religion and the culture
I love the videos and good info on other branches of Christianity than the one that I grew up knowing However, when your East Coast accent comes out I hurt a little bit.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Not sure if you'd consider him one or not-- heavily influenced by Aquinas and Augustine, but kinda put a Heideggerian spin on it all I think. God as the ground of Being, etc. I'm sure there's more nuance there, but I'm fairly certain he was generally a Lutheran existentialist.
I'm a member of the Church of Jesuschrist of the Latter-days Saints, but I still love the videos you make. I know this is not the theme of this specific video, but I've been attracted by your denomination and the story behind how you got there. I'm a 17yo kid about to go to mision, but I'd still love to have the opportunity to see you giving your oppinion about the church I'm a part of and I'm willing to help if you need any source of information. Inhowever it turns out, it's great to see people of this generation getting nearer to God and even better to see them sharing it with the world. Keep it going!
I don't think it'll happen, but if someone is interested in learning why I think this church is the truth you can always read the Book Of Mormon. If you are not willing to, there's a book called "The Day of Defense" (of which I have an epub to share) that states how the Book of Mormon and the religion itself are true using only the Bible.
My Brother, there is a fundamental problem with LDS, Authority, if the bible its true, we know that we have some kind of authority right? The Elders and the Deacons, because we want to protect our Christian faith there are necesary, then in the bible says that the Holy Ghost will guide its Church and that dont hear if they give you another Gospel, even if its an angel. Then how can I trust Joseph Smith? 1800 years latter to Christ we have Someone that stated that he is a Prophet, that had 40 wifes, that was racist, that started wars, and made ita own bible, how can I trust this man, and not the Church that has been there for 1800 years prior to Smith, and to someone that says everything about the church, including Heaven and The trinity its fallse, giving that the bibke its truth? God loves you Brother, search for Truth and fight for it and for God
@@juandavidguarnizogutierrez4566 @juandavidguarnizogutierrez4566 First of all, thanks for being respectfull overall, but the unic one of the accusations you made that does have kind of sense is the fact that he had 40 wives because indeed he had as many and there's proof of it, but not for all the other anti-mormonism stuff you said. He wasn't racist, he didn't start any war, he didn't made his own Bible but a book that testifies how the Bible and Christ are true adding also more of the word of God that wasn't delivered to any of the prophets that lived before him. He was indeed a prophet and, if you follow what the Bible says about being a prophet, he fulfill all the requirements for being one EVEN dying for the cause of the gospel of the Lord. None of the words he said were against any of the things in the Bible. Also, we have all the authorities AND the keys of the restored gospel on Earth which are the priesthoods, the main difference between the Church of Jesuschrist of the Latter-days Saints and any other church in the world. In fact, is the unic church centered in Jesus that has His name in it. I testify that this church is true and I'm completely willing to stand and defend it if necessary. Always with respect. God bless you too.
@@AgnusDeiGloria respectfully, I've read it before and I'm completely sure we believe in the same almighty God, but not in the same way. And, why do I think that I'm in the right? Not only because of my personal experience, but because of how harmonious the Bible and the Book Of Mormon are. Again, you're more than invited to read the Book of Mormon if you're WILLING TO LEARN from it. I'm sure if you do so, the Holy Ghost will testify of it. If you're not willing to learn and just to show how "you are right and I am not" then you should probably read "the day of defense" first. Not made by the Church, but an useful tool when it comes to talk with people from other religions trying to destroy our faith. Reiterating the respect, God bless you.
I recommend listening to the institutes on audiobook while you game or work, not necessarily reading all of it. that’s what i did working in a freezer, very enjoyable.
There seems to be a common thread here that you recommend mem who put their faith into action. Today theology comes out of university departments and is sterile. What do you think of PTForsyth?
Wait! You forgot the greatest theologian ever: Joel Osteen Nice list, I've read "contra Maximinum" by Augustine and I really loved the combination between the confutation of Arianism and the sincere wish of conversion of the counterpart, Arian bishop Maximinus as he ends with:"If you peacefully acknowledge this and other similar testimonies[...]you'll be the disceple of the Divine Scriptures, so we may rejoice in your fraternity". Have you ever approached Blaise Pascal's "Pensées"?
My favorite theologian is definitely Origen. This dude was brilliant in his exegesis, and he was the first textual critic of the Bible, creating the Hexapla which was a combination of various Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. He also wrote various commentaries and homilies on the Bible, and currently I'm reading his "Homilies on Luke" and it's mind blowing.
@@jorgelopez-pr6dr I agree. Origen was very passionate about the Bible, but I think his main error was that he tended to make big "reaches" sometimes. I mainly appreciate him for his scholarship, and I consider him a useful source for source criticism and hermeneutics. I don't agree with his doctrine of the pre-existence of souls, and the other stuff, but the Church was a bit too unfair on him.
@@user-yh6tt2nu4p In don't discuss his importance in the history of apologetics and Christianity. In fact , I have a book of selection of his writings . I was not thinking only in the preexistence of the soul , which, if I am not mistaken , comes from Pythagoras but also of his typology sometimes far fetched and above all, the famous apocatastasis , that is , universalism. He himself said that he was misunderstood about that, but many people believe in it. In fact, there is a sort of universalism in these days and there are theologians that support it
As a devout charismatic born again Roman Catholic 🤗, I particularly enjoy reading these gentlemen who are Calvinists 😘: 1.Richard Baxter 2.John Bunyan 3.Thomas Watson 4.John Flavel 5.Jonathan Edwards 6.Thomas Brooks 7.William Perkins 8.Jeremiah Burroughs 9.John Owen 10.Cotton Mather
I was going to say Sproul would be pretty high on my list. He was a brilliant theologian but could explain the why of it all to anyone clearly and relate it all back to how he’s getting this info from the Bible by interpreting the Bible, instead of trying to interpret things on his own.
It is the same, imo. Read of Aquinas wrote in his summa theologiae question 23, article 3 (Whether God reprobates any man?) about reprobation, which is one of the points Catholics often claim that it is different: "I answer that, God does reprobate some. For it was said above (Article 1) that predestination is a part of providence. To providence, however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which are subject to providence, as was said above (I:22:2). Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (I:22:1). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin." "Objection 1. It seems that God reprobates no man. For nobody reprobates what he loves. But God loves every man, according to (Wisdom 11:25): "Thou lovest all things that are, and Thou hatest none of the things Thou hast made." Therefore God reprobates no man. Reply to Objection 1. God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good-namely, eternal life-He is said to hate or reprobated them."
@@pedroguimaraes6094 I think there's a massive difference otherwise Calvin's would not go against the Catholic belief of free will. For example, Calvin's believe if a child is raped that is God's doing, God made that happen for a greater purpose, I cannot believe that, it's evil.
@@leoashura8086 So we're not talking about predestination, we're talking more about providence. We would not say this is "Gods doing" because we do not believe that God forces human beings to sin. See what the Wesminster Confession of Faith says in chapter 3, which is what we Reformed believe: "1. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;a yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin,b nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.c" Calvin's understanding of providence did not necessarily mean that God directly caused or intended specific acts of evil, such as rape. Instead, Calvin believed that God's sovereignty extended over all events, including those that humans might consider evil or tragic. God did not "make" the man to rape the child, but this happened according to His providence in some way in a way we don't understand but we trust him. Thats how every Christian implicitly live his life tbh.
Hey your map is all changed up, now I have no churches to go to within a two hour radius :( also there’s no Methodists and it doesn’t say the progressivism level
I’m pleased to see Kuyper in your list. But take note of his distinction between church as organism and church as institute. The two kingdoms people and a lot of others fail to make this distinction and end up painting themselves into logical and spiritual corners. I also find Nevin intriguing.
For non-christians, if you'd like: Baruch de Espinosa, Moses Mimonedes, Saadia Gaon, Aristo, Moshe Chaim Lutsatto, Jehuda Arie d'modena. The best book is "More Nevochim" or "a guide to the perplexed" by Mymonedes
What I like about NT Wright is that he’s theologically solid, but he can communicate in a way which could engage with progressive Christians and non-Christians. He could bridge that gap without compromising anything.
1. David Martyn Lloyd-Jones 2. Sam Waldron 3. R.C Sproul 4. John Bunyan 5. Jonathan Edwards 6. Friedrich Wilhelm Krummacher 7. Joachim Neander 8. Moritz von Hessen-Kassel 9. Hendrik de Cock 10. Olaf Latzel
i don't know if NT Wright and Reformed should really be in the same sentence. He has great stuff on the Resurrection, but he is notoriously not reformed in his view on justification (new perspective)
RZ, remember that discussion you had with Trent Horn? I’d like to inform you that he made a video reacting to cringe Protestant memes. Just thought it’d be interesting. And he said he might do a reaction to cringe Catholic memes since no one is safe from being cringe. I’m sure there’s non-cringe Catholic and Protestant memes out there.
Ive never seen cringee Catholic memes and the only protestent memes that i saw are from the video from Trent Horn reacted to those cringee protestent memes but i don't know if theire cringe(to me at least) God bless you brother in Christ and may you have an exalent day!
@@matOpera from my limited understanding, it fundamentally changes one’s view on justification and how grace is apart from works. I believe the NPP basically says that Paul’s statement of “one is justified apart from works of the law” in Romans 3:28 only refers to just Jewish covenant markers like circumcision, so it changes what many interpret this passage to mean that justification is apart from works entirely, which could be a bit problematic for those who hold to the “old perspective”
St. Thomas was neither a supralapsarian nor an infralapsarian, since both are inadequate ways to view the logical order of God's decrees. But, unlike what you said, he was closer to the supralapsarians insofar as God's election is unconditional and negative reprobation is also unconditional.
main difference is that St. Thomas holds that salvation can be rejected by grave sin which is why he views reprobation as privation of grace which leads to falling into grave sin, final impenitence, and due to those sins he then judges the person worthy of damnation
The challenge here is figuring out if we mean our personal favourites, or theologians who have blessed us, or shaped us - or theologians whose thought we believe to be genuinely or categorically significant. In any case, and in no particular order: 1) Augustine 2) Calvin 3) Tolkien 4) Boethius 5) Gregory the Great 6) Cassiodorus 7) Anselm 8) Athanasius 9) Henri Nouwen 10) Juan de Valdes
So, RZ, just a genuine question… On the topic of original sin, and deserving hell from time of birth, what happens to the unbaptized baby that passes away? What’s your position and what’s the reformed position? Is it simply if the baby was elect, he goes to heaven. If the baby was non-elect, he goes to hell?
@@ixxdiego love it, its kinda sad how the protestants and reformers in hispanic and in italian traditions had to flee their own countries from prosecutions...
So... You're still gonna justify Calvin's orchestrated m*rder of Servetus and even make an idol out of him by calling yourself a calvinist? No good fruit comes from a bad tree, and Calvin, by doing what he did to Servetus and never repenting straight up went against the 10 commandments, and that's one of your best theologians? Foolish, just foolish
Did you just read only the theologians from the West and from some periods of history, with the exception of two examples? Also, could you butcher their names more?
