Protestant Disagreement over "Progressive Christianity" 

And its issues like this that make me sit back and think ... "I'm glad I'm Catholic."

"We agree on the essentials." "So you subscribe to the Nicene Creed?" "No, we oppose Creeds. They're superstitious."

When you twist the meaning of scripture and ignore what Jesus taught you’re definitely not preaching from the Bible and it is another gospel.

This guy is kind of a looney. He considers defining the bare minimum theology of Christianity "off into the weeds" in a discussion about whether certain groups are Christian or not. If you are unwilling to set any standards, you believe in nothing. If you have low standards, you are lukewarm.

It's important to emphasize that Saint Teresa of Kolkata wasn't doubting God's existence the same way that the average person was, Mother Teresa was going through something that's known as the Dark Night of the Soul, it's something that every Catholic who advances far in the spiritual life is expected to go through.

46:45 “Epistemic humility” is simply a smokescreen for “relativism about truth.” Those with whom Progressive Christians disagree, we are told, should exercise “epistemic humility,” just as the Progressive Christians ostensibly do. But that “humility” is readily abandoned when Progressive Christians make their truth-claims. Then, the progressive view is essentially regarded as the only coherent and emotionally pleasing conclusion.

"I've had students who denied the Trinity" - then they shouldn't be in a seminary (which assumes they will be pastors or leaders in churches). This is what happens when you don't have a standard for belief. Sounds like this seminary lets these people out into the sheepfold with "credentials". This conversation ignored, I think, the very loud progressive "pastors" out there who are posing as authorities, calling God trans, saying sodomy is fine and even good, etc. I'm sorry, but that is another religion and they do loudly proclaim to be Progressive Christians. Someone can use Christ's name but on the last day He can still say "depart from me, for I never knew you". Only claiming Christ is not enough - you have to conform your life to Him. Having come from a protestant/evangelical upbringing this discussion was, as the kids say, "triggering" - it brought back memories of all my questions that were answered in so many different ways. When I pointed this out and admitted my confusion I was told "just believe in Jesus and be saved". And so, I lived in confusion, had no peace, and could never figure out why backsliding into sin or floundering for firm boundaries was a constant issue. Sounds like this book wasn't great. Also sounds like the defense against it isn't great either. Confusion on confusion.

Childer's claim is imprecise and overly broad, but this defense is weak because it focuses on a small part of her overall criticism. Progressive Christianity's end point, even if this is not the goal, is atheism and apostasy because it embraces a very strong skepticism that acts as a universal acid. Some might not follow the ideology to its conclusion and therefore hold onto their faith, but that doesn't mean the ideology is not harmful and wrong.

Alisa isn’t off base about progressive Christianity. “Deconstruction” and getting away from what has always historically defined Christianity is dangerous. Period. What exactly are progressive “Christian’s” progressing towards? I’d say nowhere good. I’ll agree Alisa is a little trigger happy with the “heretic” word, though, and affected greatly by her evangelical bubble. But Christianity is what it is and isn’t what it isn’t.

It’s always interesting to listen to progressive Christians. It brings me back to when I was wrestling with these issues, and I realized that, due to all of the presuppositions I bring to scripture’s interpretation, I either needed an infallible interpreter to guard the church (and myself) from error, or I and other conservative Christians really had no business playing gatekeeper on what’s “authentic” Christianity, outside of some pretty extreme examples.

23:30 That's a very strange explanation, to say the least. The Catholic Church (or any other Christian denomination, as far as I know) has never said that one is never allowed to doubt, in fact dogmas are estabilished to help understanding the Truth, not to censor anyone who struggles with his faith or is an atheist. A 'safe space' has always existed, that's God's Love and Mercy, and His Church who's always ready to help those in need of spiritual help. 31:10 The Catholic Church explains that exhaustively and clearly, it seems Randall needs a deeper dive into Catholicism.

It's funny to see the competing goals in this interview. Trent is trying to demonstrate to both conservative and progressive evangelicals that it doesn't have good boundaries for doctrine and Christianity, while Randal is trying to tell evangelicals that Progressive Christianity is Christianity too.

she speaks a lot about desconstruction of Christian faith, and how progressive Christianity often seems (at least) to walk in lockstep with anti-christian teachings (certainly in terms of Catholic and more orthodox protestantism). I hope you have Ms Childers on to make her case.

So this guy disagrees with conservative evanglicals on almost everything but he's mad that they are calling him a non chrsitian? Hahahahaha

I think Trent acted really well in presenting the Catholic viewpoint and letting viewers think about how much their own paradigms make sense.

This would have been a more productive conversation if Trent had read Alisa Childer's book. (He appears to google it for the first time at 4:20) So he is accepting everything second hand with Randal as his interpreter. Trent is always so ultra-prepared for every interaction, this is surprising. I think conservative Catholics actually have more in common with Alisa Childers than with Randal Rauser. And it is surprising that Trent, as a conservative Catholic, would give such an affirming platform to a liberal theologian - and with very minimal challenge. Would he give this kind of sympathetic ear to one of the liberal German bishops?

Progressive “Christianity” is oxymoronic. One is reminded of the man who refused to sell everything he had to follow the Lord. Progressives care more about their worldliness and enlightenment stained false gospel then really following the Risen Lord

Progressive Christians seem to place a very high esteem on personal feelings as it relates to God and therefore Christianity. All wrapped in feelings not necessarily logic though. Perhaps I’m wrong but this is what I’ve heard here and also experienced from other Christians

20:23 “Progressive Christianity” is Evangelicalism taken to its logical conclusion.

Randal's shirt is clearly blue. Or am I insane?

Since Randal Rauser is pro choice, I would barely consider him a Christian.

It's funny when Protestants call others heretics. Almost the definition of "the pot calling the kettle black"

The idea that all you have to do believe in Jesus BUT you don't have to acknowledge who Jesus is...THIS is exactly what she is talking about in her book. You can't just make up what you believe. Honestly the creed is always a good place to start...Trent really didn't follow up much or press, which I understand not wanting to call a guest out but sometimes you have to.

First comment from an Orthodox lol.

This interview to me felt a bit like we are trying to define what a square circle looks like.

I just looked at some of Childer's claims and she says that you have to believe in penal substitution to be a Christian. As a Catholic, I would say that penal substitution is a critical error that misrepresents/misunderstands Christ's atoning work. She also said, "As you can see, progressive Christian theological beliefs are not simply secondary issues we can agree to disagree about." Yet, who among Protestants can authoritatively say say what is Primary and what is secondary?

I don’t really see the problem with Alisha’s line of thinking though. If she’s a Christian who believes in believer Baptism, where your definition of oneself as Christian is based on their ascent to a certain set of beliefs, she can absolutely claim that those who oppose those beliefs are of “another gospel”. I’m not saying she’s right. I’m just saying that operating within that framework it makes sense.

First comment from a Catholic

I follow Alicia her big hang up with progressive Christians is same as we have with the German Bishops

Trent attacked Fr Casey’s views on modern prison system, even called him dangerous, but the amount of “I agree with you” he said to this heretical “theology professor” is astounding. Something is off.

Childers assertion of the use of deconstruction destroying faith is sound, but the problem for people like her is where does the basis of her beliefs come from. As a Catholic, I can say that the beliefs of the Church came before hers and are well attested to whereas she takes what she says to be biblical for granted and there is no, or often contradictory, evidence to her beliefs in the early Church. What correct religious belief conservative evangelicals like her have is whatever they have gotten from the Church

I've never heard of this book before, "Another Gospel," but I'd already come to a similar conclusion. As a staunch Catholic, my personal interpretation has been a little more strict, I'd say since there's been ecumenical councils addressing Nestorius, the Church of the East (parts that haven't returned to communion of course) are on the same definite "separate religion" as Arianism, gnosticism, and Islam. The council of Trent addressing Protestantism i believe also places most protestants, the vast majority, in the same category of separate religion. That makes me feel sorrowful, because most of my friends, and my Mother are Protestant, and I can see that they're at least loving the Lord the way they know how. In the end, i put my faith in the Lord, for he is good, and knows love, and pray.

I would love to hear a follow up from trent about anything he might agree with or think is legitimate in childers critique.

Oh, good grief! This was a complete waste of time. Sometimes, Trent’s judgment is just plain faulty. “Progressive Christians” have few if any distinctives from Mainline Protestantism (other than often claiming to somehow still be Evangelicals). Childers is not some rabid dogmatist. She’s just defending mainstream Evangelicalism. (And anybody who can’t see that Rauser does NOT deserve inclusion in mainstream Evangelicalism, doesn’t know anything about Rauser.) During the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, there was an attempt to give a lowest-common-denominator delineation of those beliefs that were essential to any historical form of Christianity: the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth, sinless life, atoning death, and resurrection of Christ, the validity of his miracles, and his second coming. Progressive Christianity makes a mockery of many of these beliefs. At the time, Gresham Machen famously called Liberal Christianity “another religion,” and such an opinion is eminently reasonable. Catholicism itself has adopted higher criticism of Scripture and is really only a variant version of Mainstream Protestantism (and when Rome involves herself with ecumenics, nine times out of ten the discussions are with the Mainlines). So Trent can be all buddy-buddy with Rauser because they’re coming from similar places.

The common hermeneutic of "Progressive Theology" leads to doubting everything the Bible says...except, of course, a weaponized tolerance towards certain sins, justified with cherry-picked statements from the Lord. Of course, not everyone reaches the logical conclusion of these methods, but the method is clearly discernible. There's also nothing inherently wrong with saying someone with some belief or set of beliefs has a different religion. Paul did it when he called out "another Gospel" to the Galatians, and so did the Lord in Revelation when he calls Jews a "Synagogue of Satan."

2 Timothy 3:13-14 13 while evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it

Praying for Christian unity. Lord, have mercy on us sinners, help us heal the wounds of schism. Help us be Christ like to each other. Let us build bridges of love.

Anyone notice how he completely dodged the question about if Progressive Christianity has essential doctrines?

I'm impressed by the Chat today and I didn't realise it had decended to this level of discord in Protestantism. I feel Mr Rauser as a seminary Professor must be disheartened that inter denominational Protestants are trying to undermine each other in the Evangelical World...I know there's always been disputes in theology but we all supposedly look to the same God and read roughly the same Bible..Its sad to hear such an humble man express his frustration at the lack of Charitable discourse that's made possible by this book...Prayers for your work Proffesor Hauser...Always a good insightful show Trent

How can you love what you do not understand?

I hope we’re giving Alisha a fair portrayal here. I don’t watch her channel often but she seems to call out the same kind of people Catholics would call heretics. Also, does she label people as “progressives” simply for having doubts?

Ms. Childers must have gone to a Unitarian Universalist church, because that sounds like what she’s attacking.

Protestantism as a whole is a liberalization of Christianity. "You don't have to obey God you only have to believe" "Once you are saved there's nothing you can do which will condemn you" etc. These statements are contrary to the gospel.

Watching "in-house" protestant debates and polemics always reminds me why I love being Catholic and why I became Catholic in the first place. Also, you can listen to different points of view and some really interesting perspectives, I love Unbelievable for that reason; but man, thanks God for the magisterium, the popes, and the saints!

I don't know how to say this without seeming uncharitable, but Randal seems to be annoyed with people who base their religion on protesting Progressive Christians. Isn't this the same thing as Protestantism protesting Catholicism? Maybe I am missing something. Anyway, Jesus really solves this for us in Scripture: He spoke the Truth to the Sadducees using only the five books of Moses, He spoke the Truth to the Pharisees using their books (and the Septuagint), He spoke the Truth to the Samaritans using only the five books of Moses, and (supposedly) ate the Last Supper at the house of the Essenes so He must have known and spoke with them also. The point being that Jesus meets us where we are with all of our baggage: our history, our forming, our understanding, and our heart. It is here where He will judge how well we did out of love and vigor in trying to know Him, so we could love Him, so we could trust in Him, to surrender to Him, and then do His holy will. Sometimes we get too puffed up with all of this biblical debate and our understanding. With all that said, I'm very grateful to fall under the obedience of the Catholic Church. It takes away this great burden.

Let’s try to sound reasonable while we ignore progressive Christian thought leaders like Brandan Robertson. This conversation feels like a whitewash.

Your giving progressive Christians air time without pushing back.

I remember Alisa Childers was on Pints with Aquinas. I think she would be open to dialoguing with both of you. I never read the book but I like to watch her channel. I value her work, and some others like Melissa Dougherty, Stephen Bancarz and a few others because they helped me realize how for decades, my beliefs were new agey, and universalism based and not in line with Christianity or catholicism at all. * Doreeen Virtue, she's another one! I couldn't think of her name for the life of me.

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you? Luke 6:46 ESV “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. John 14:15 ESV

Many of people love "Jesus", or more accurately who they *want* Jesus to be. ("Nor everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord'..." etc.). "Who do *you* say that I am?" That is the central question of Christianity. Are you going to say that Jesus is who He actually is, or are you going to decide who you *want* Jesus to be, and then say that He is that?

As a Catholic, Kenneth Copeland is so difficult to listen to. His assessment of Catholicism is so far off the mark. I would also consider him as heretical, especially in light of his prosperity gospel. Within Protestatism, there are so many differences in doctrine, even within each denomination. I feel that unless you are a scholar, to keep up with all the differences within the many denominations is confusing at best.

Ya’ll touched a wee bit on doubt. In the continuum of doubt *-Believer-Believer with Questions-Believer with Doubts-Former Believer-* when is a person no longer “Christian?” Who decides? In my thirties; motivated by social convenience, I said I was a Christian. But I had questions and doubts. Over two decades of diligent study, I came to believe Christianity is false, and atheism is probably true. Was I ever a Christian? How much doubt makes someone a non-Christian? Does it matter who the person is? Mother Teresa privately wrote about her doubts at the same time she was publicly proclaiming Christ. Is that honest? Does Trent’s comment about trusting God when dealing with doubt cut both ways? Could the real God be putting doubt in the minds of Christians to progressively move them away from their false faith?

ask rauser if he believes in the ff: 1. bodily resurrection of Christ 2. miracles(e.g. multiplying of bread and fish to feed the 4000) 3. homosexuality is sin 4. inerrancy of the bible 5. abortion is sin

Mike Winger did a great break down of Catholicism. Very solid points made on his part.

At first, I thought this guest was just laughably naïve about what "Progressive Christianity" truly believes. Then, I realised he knows full-well what it means. He's just a lying wolf in sheep's clothing.

Extreme progressive Christianity is just modern gnosticism in a new dress and lipstick. Same with CRT, queer theory, etc. James Lindsay’s youtube channel has details on modern gnostic theology.

24:15 I learned that in CIY, doubt can mean disbelief[which I think is the primary meaning]. Nice catch, Trent. Thanks, Fr. Mike!

OK. I am very surprised by how even-tempered and charitable you are with Rouser. My only concern is if this compassion, or empathy, was shown in good faith; and not because Rouser’s book highlights the wedge issues Catholics have seen emerging from Protestant divisions for years. I understand that Rouser is not Catholic and that he signed on for an interview not an interrogation or a debate. But I can’t help but feel if he was a Catholic of Liberal or Progressive leanings theologically, you would have pressed him harder. And I do think Progressive Christianity and the “Faith not religion,” “Jesus not the Bible” types are influencing lay Catholics. Let me explain my train of thought here. I came back to the church 10 years ago, at the time of my confirmation my theology was somewhere between a progressive Christian and Liberation theology. Mind you at that point. I had already read the Bible front to back three times, I had gone through RCIA. I had been listening to Catholic Answers Live for three years nonstop every day, I went to Church on every day-of- obligation and I even listened to an orthodox Divine Liturgy after Mass every Sunday. I had read through the catechism of the Catholic Church. Yet, my day-to-day lifestyle, my political and social beliefs were still Worldly, Secular, and Humanist; it would be several more years before I would decide out to curiosity to start practicing the liturgy of the hours, and it was through the liturgy of the hours, and then later by reading the church fathers that my views finally became more orthodox, and I began to willfully, submit to holy tradition. this is not just humility or self-debasement, I made a video before I read the church fathers to see how my views might change, and back then I sounded like Randal Rauser, Brandon Robertson, & Nadia Bolz Weber. After maturing in my faith and reading many Church Father works, I now hold up Father Josiah Trenham, reverend Calvin Robinson, Father Mike Smitz, & Bishop Barron as aspirations. But without the Church Fathers my beliefs would still be held back by post-modern open theism. I am very grateful for my journey towards conforming with Holy and Sacred Tradition & within the bounds of orthodox (small o) Christianity. So I see danger in not challenging Rouser on his more radical liberal views, even if only done in passing and with a gentle hand based within the bounds of the agreed to topic at hand.

Childers ain't wrong tho. Progressive Christians aint Christisn.

“Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I say?” True Christians follow Christ. The one of the Bible. They believe the Bible. If you’re not following the Jesus of the Bible, you’re worshipping your own golden calf.

I figured this was going to be the case and it does seem like this guys biggest hangup with Melissa Childers critique on Progressive Christianity is labels. American Progressives mean something totally different then the apparently what Christian Progressives mean. I don't believe it. But I'll take someone at face value. You can argue about definitions yet Progressive ideology has ruined that term for most Americans. You should create a new label or just look into the Catholic Church and really follow Christ.

16:12 the irony of a Marcionite calling another person a heretic

This was a blast from the past which makes me happy to be an ex Protestant (now doing RCIA). I'm grateful for the clarity of Catholic teaching (although discipline seems to be somewhat lacking atm). I've listened to a lot of Childers and some Rauser over the years. Reminds me why I stopped listening to Rauser. While I might disagree with some aspects of Childers argument, broadly she is right and is doing great work. Progressivism claims the inheritance from the past while discarding the traditions and values that define that inheritance. It undermines and reinterprets whatever it claims to represent. It blesses the unblessable. Or as others have said: Progressivism will hollow out your religion and wear its skin as a trophy. Kudos to Trent for his charity. I found much of Raiser's commentary to be ironic. I paraphrase: * "lose the binary categories" . So loosen boundaries to more easily redefine them? * "ok to doubt doctrine/dogmas" - Trent countered this well by reframing doubt as difficultly not rejecting * "foundation is relationship to Jesus not cognitive propositional assent". This is just progressive speak for the Holy Spirit will affirm my interpretation based on my feelings. * "Relativism is...". No - relativism is accepting the idiocy of your truth/my truth. * "We need to counter a Protestant trajectory to schism". Ok - now I'm laughing.

Prominent internet progressives like Brandon Robertson specifically state that truth is socially constructed and thus non objective. Maybe I don’t have enough experience with progressive Christianity but this is the sentiment I’ve seen quite a bit.

That is so easy. Progressive Christianity has very little too do with biblical Christianity, i.e, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One other thing. It bores me to death. 😊

Trent defers to men in matters of spirituality, and Rauser defers to Christ. The choice is a no-brainer.

Awesome discussion. This comment section is a great example of the vastly differing views within Christianity and the arrogance that so many have.

18:00 LOL Geisler is missing his Trinity in essentials.

I love the Ken Ham impersonation! I think the voice was perfect!!

Based on my experience with these people (Winger, Childers, Dougherty ... etc.) I seriously doubt that Randal will get any dialogue with any of them, or any retraction from them. They've invested too much time and money into their images as authorities on theology for that.

Loved this dialogue

Randal Rauser seems like a thoughtful and honest chap. But I feel that his version of Christianity is unsuited to the Little Guy. Indeed, it doesn't seem to have noticed that the Little Guy exists. By "Little Guy," I mean the plumber or millworker, the Average Joe who just needs to know whether to get his newborn baptized, and by whom, and how. He's not called to be a theologian and spend all his life questioning stuff. He has to figure out _how_ to lead his family in the faith, and what that _looks like,_ so he can then just _go do it,_ end-of-story. Rauser's version of Christianity is worse than useless to the Little Guy: It can only give him answers that he _knows,_ in advance, cannot be trusted to be correct, _not even in principle._ It then invites him to figure out his "own" answers, which (if he has an ounce of humility) is the one thing he _doesn't_ want! For, if he is humble and realistic, he knows he hasn't time or talent or inclination to go get a seminary degree and do the requisite reading anyway. Moreover, all the seminary grads he knows _also_ disagree with one another! So apparently, intellectual firepower and serious study _also_ are insufficient to reliably arrive at the truth! Even if he went that route, this observation should suffice to tell him that well-informed, well-studied answers are _also_ entirely fallible. In fact, using Rauser's methods, any conclusion the poor Little Guy arrives at is just "the thing I most recently heard that sounded plausible enough to be persuasive," and if he pokes his head out of his own little enclave of like-minded persons and looks around the world of Christianity he _immediately_ finds that there are dozens of other not-quite-the-same answers to the same question which are just as plausible, or more so, and supported by smarter and more convincing arguments, and held by better and wiser men! If a Christian finds himself in _that_ situation, here is what he should say to himself: He should say, "Self, something is _wrong_ about this whole scheme. Self, if Jesus Christ intended us to use _this_ screwed up system, this _unworkable kludge,_ as our divinely-approved method for coming to know the content of the Christian religion, then Jesus Christ didn't understand _people_ at all, and had no freakin' clue what humans _needed_ ...and therefore, could not _possibly_ be the God who created us. But He IS the God who created us. "Therefore, this screwed-up Epistemology For Figuring Out Christianity CAN NOT HAVE BEEN HIS IDEA. Instead, it's something some merely-human jackanapes came up with. The question, therefore, is not whether I can use Randal Rauser's endless-questioning approach to deduce my own customized version of Christianity that _satisfies me_ even though I know the odds are very slim that I, out of all the people using this method, am the only one who got the right answers by it! The real question is: What Epistemology for Arriving At The Required Content of Christianity was OFFICIALLY GIVEN TO US BY CHRIST? ...for _that_ method of coming to know Christian truth would give the Little Guy what he needs for living a Christian life, while still satisfying the theologian or academic. It would allow a man to teach the faith to his kids without wondering whether he was just teaching his pastor's opinion, or his favorite author's. It would allow him to _obey Christ_ instead of just obeying some pundit's best guess as to what Christ _might_ have wanted from us." That, I think, is how every Christian ought to react, when he perceives the endless questioning of "progressive Christianity" in a clear-eyed way. So, however honest and well-intended a chap Rauser may be, I think he needs to realize that his own words, his own analysis, constitutes a _falsification_ of his approach. It isn't that he has the wrong answers to some questions: He already _knows_ that, and has accepted it, and is fine with it. He shouldn't be. Maybe an academic like himself can operate that way, but the migrant farm laborer needs more. Jesus knows and loves the strawberry-harvester, the plumber, the and millworker, and He gives them what they need: A Church, which is the "Pillar and Bulwark of Truth." The progressive Christian may be satisfied with his bargain-basement epistemology-of-faith, but for my money, I want what the Little Guy has: The "Cadillac Plan," the full-featured version, where I can _know_ what I need to believe, and to do, and get about the business of doing it.

If one believes that God set up the Church with the guidance of the holy spirit (as Jesus said he would) as the divine through-line, aka truth, then being guided by "something else" for one's interpretation seems like a problem. That something else seems like it can't be the holy spirit. People who claim these sorts of things seem to be false prophets - people trying to bring in their own novel moral or philosophical ideas from their background to the gospel, and protestantism seems inherently weak to it. Randy has to accept "openness to reinterpretation" as a sort of divine truth, which to me is relativism.

What books do you recommend for critiquing atheism and non Christian religions 😊

After listening to Fr. Ripperger? this lent season, I really see how so many of these ideologies are a by-product of intellectual pride.

Thanks much for this video.

As a former protestant, I can understand where Childers and Strobel are coming from. When you don't have an objective initiation into the faith like Baptism, where you can be both a Christian and someone who doesn't live or believe like a Christian at all, and where all you have is beliefs to determine who is and is not a Christian, it makes perfect sense to consider progressive Christians as non-Christian since they really do tend to have a different gospel. The problem is that that Childers, Strobel, and others like them are wrong about progressives having another gospel, it's that they don't realize one can be both a good or a bad Christian who has accurate or inaccurate beliefs. For protestants like them and like my former self and circle, doctrinal beliefs, faith, and practice where how you knew who was and was not a Christian. It's actually a lot more works based than most protestants of that vein will usually admit.

Being a protestant, I agree that we protestants are our own religion. And all our teachers/preachers are different brands and levels of jehovah witnesses. All most of our churches focus on is false end time scenarios, when were not making new doctrines to show the Catholic church as false, of course.

It appears that this discussion treated Childers' book as a scholastic work and not as popular level. I have read her book and believe this discussion simply did not offer the appropriate amount of grace. She did nuance her arguments much more than is alluded to here. Although she obviously settles into a "reformed" camp in her final stance, I think that she was not subversive in pushing her views but only simplistic. Do you really expect a popular level book coving this vast of a topic to push a thousand pages?

You guys are a lot smarter than I am but my simplistic view is, The Bible is the inherent word of God which gives us general guard rails. If you remove the guard rails, there's a real danger of making God in our own image.

Love the catfish analogy

I found the constant reference to the third party (Alisa Childer's book) confusing. I guess I really wanted to know what is meant by "Progressive Christianity" .

The Roman position on who is in the Church is far more narrow than Childers' is.

I wonder how much if any of this is important in any way. How many people have the time, patience or mental capacity to go through these long, complex, theories of religious belief. Did the thief on the cross next to Jesus have any understanding of any of this prior to Jesus declaring that he would be in heaven. Did the ida that Jesus repeatedly said that we should come to him like little children, that simple acts of kindness ment more than any of the subtilties of the law. That Jesus spoke in parables seems to indicate a general instinctive understanding was more important than some outline of the law.

There is a distinction between doubt and rejection. Read St. John of Cross, Dark Night of the Soul.

All of Protestantism is progressive. Duh. Scripture alone and faith alone are progressive concepts, not in the Bible. Only Catholicism is the One True Faith Apostolic Faith.

Read J. Gresham Machen's book: "Christianity and Liberalism"

I feel like I already listened to this on the podcast feed. So I am a little confused why it is just now coming out.

In the light of reality and living in the real world any port in a storm.

But what is the progressive Christianity progressing towards?

Do Progressive Christians love Jesus? I think the real question is "Do Conservative Christians love Jesus." They seem to hate his teachings about caring for the poor and how one cannot love God and money.

'Evengelicals' criticizing anyone for a lack of doctrinal coherence is either a bad joke or a massive blind spot.

What does it mean that Jesus assumed us in our waywardness of sin?

I believe Progressive Christianity is the logical conclusion of post modernism, Protestant “sola scriptura” and moral relativism. In fact all three are of the same ilk. They all propose to know Truth through human reason alone. The Church has always held up Gods Truth above its own definition of Truth based on Sacred Scripture. Catholic doctrine is the most logical, coherent interpretation of the Scripture- and not as defined by any one man, but by the whole Church given authority by Jesus.

You could call Islam a Christian heresy because it is that doesn’t change the fact it is now also another religion.

If u want some views do a Tim Gordon response video to this question.

If there is no faith in the grace of God "Jesus's sacrifice " there is no salvation, no Christianity no forgiveness of sin etc etc etc....

There is no progression RR other than moving away.

Poutine is my favourite argument for God’s existence.

Fruit of their vine. They've got no one to blame but themselves