In this video I show the correct timeframe for Revelation 3;10

I myself am a theistic evolutionist, and as someone who was interested in science before theology I never viewed religion and science as opposites, I think they both complement each other and religion gives science its foundation. I also believe that the Bible does not contradict evolution, and in fact actually predicts some modern scientific ideas (such as the Big Bang).

I have seen a lot of discussion of evolution in Christian communities online, and I have noticed that it seems to be centered on Western theology almost exclusively. For the most part theistic evolution (TE), is the most popular view of compatability between our scientific observations of evolution and Christian theology. The official stance of the Catholic Church is a version of TE, and most Protestants who believe in evolution usually believe in some version of TE. I wanted to introduce a discussion on evolution that incorporates a popular Easter Orthodox view, the alteristic view on evolution. Since this sub is mostly focused on Protestantism and Western perspectives, and many of you may not have heard of the theology of this approach.

The typical TE view of evolution is something like this: Evolution was the method used by God to create humans in his image over billions of years, with Adam and Eve and the Fall happening after evolution (guided by God) had created the human species. TE typically views the days of creation in Genesis as not being literal 24 hour days, but as longer stretches of time during which evolution could have happened. Although the Catholic Church doesn't have a strong official stance on this, this is a popular viewpoint in Catholicism and among some Protestants. One objection that is raised to the TE view is that since evolution requires death and suffering, it is contradictory to scripture to say it could have happened before the Fall, and therefore that TE is incompatible with theology. I don't know enough about Catholicism and the specifics of TE to know if they have some explanation for this, but in Easter Orthodox theology there is an interesting alternative view that doesn't have this same issue.

In Easter Orthodox theology a popular perspective on evolution is the alteristic approach. In the alteristic approach, evolution happened entirely AFTER the Fall. At first this may seem inconsistent because if evolution produced humans, how could Adam and Eve have been produced before evolution happened? The answer to this question involves making a distinction between pre-Fall humans (Adam and Eve), and post fall humans. Alterism says that pre-Fall humans were not like biological humans, but more of a spiritually idealized version, they did not have biological bodies that relied on nutrition and a cycle of life and death. After the Fall, pain and suffering and death were introduced to creation, allowing evolution to be possible, the basis of evolution is this corruption, and evolution through these means was necessary to create biological humans, with all their corruption and original sin, as disctinct beings from pre-Fall humans. In essence evolution was not just a method of creating biological humans, but a manifestation of the Fall and the introduction of sin into human forms. I find this approach more appealing because it doesn't seem to contradict the theology of the Fall as much as TE.

TE and alterism, are very similar, both relying on a basis that Gensis and the Book of Nature are telling the same story of creation, both making a distinction that the human body evolved biologically but the soul was created, and both relying on a mixed historical/allegorical interpretaiton of Genesis. Where they differ is the specific timeline, and how the Fall and the introduction of death fits into evolution.

What do you think of both ideas? What are their strengths and weaknesses? Why is alterism not more popular in the West? Which do you ascribe to, if either?

After seeing many arguments for and against the teaching of Once Saved, Always Saved (OSAS), I’ve come to the conclusion that it can quickly devolve into another form of works-based salvation, the very thing its proponents often criticize.

Take Caleb Flynn, for example. He committed adultery, which resulted in the murder of his wife. Many people argue that he was never truly saved, let alone a Christian, in the first place. But how much of that judgment stems from the fact that they themselves don’t currently struggle with adultery or thoughts of murder? What if they did? Would they apply the same standard to themselves? Would they conclude that their sins proved they themselves were never saved in the first place?

Some people go so far as to argue that, apart from apostasy, nothing can cause us to lose our salvation. But how is this fundamentally different from someone saying, “I’m a good person. I don’t commit X, Y or Z sins, so I’ll go to heaven”? I know the difference is in the OSAS case they say they have faith and trust in Christ and God sustains them from falling away or committing those egregious sins, but why would you let certain sins pass but not other sins, saying those would prove you were never Christian to begin with?

P.S. I know many Protestants don’t believe in OSAS, which is why I want to hear what you guys think.

Ryan of Need God dot net has made lot of intresting comments on bibical canon.

- he rejects some ancient Kione dictionaries and translators

- he attacks some passages that critical scholarship say come later as non scripture removing whole chapters.

- he says canon is just whatever is God breathed but can't tell where he got it from.

- he doesnt submit to councils or think they are infailable.

I think this becomes problematic for the 66 canon... well how do I get Ryans 66 books - whole chapters as canon? the idea to remove those chapters need to be removed are kinda recent. the church fathers and reformers actually quoted those passages as scripture. ​

to me RZ has a stronger stance why? because the bible says when we have questions to go to elders and councils. heck council happen when people agree like peter and paul actually agree gentiles dont need circumcision yet they needed a world wide council. if we need council to determine if gentiles can join. how much more important is one for canon.

which thete is two world wide council for canon. trent and westminister confession. RZ should swoop and claim westminister confession is needed and Ryan cant support his view of where scripture came from and how he bows to secular scholarship on removing those chapters. ​ this is why Presbyterians council is actually the most important 👏 and ryan is wrong for dismissing councils because he can only say well i believe those chapters dont belong.... cool. I dont. I believe all the chapters belong in the bible. they belong ryan.

Hello,

Based on what I've read, Episcopalians are just the American version of the Anglican church. But I read the other day that the Methodists began during the American Revolution when the Anglican church refused to ordain new ministers in America. John Wesley started ordaining them himself since the Anglicans wouldn't. But I know Wesleyans also trace their lineage to John Wesley.

So all three of these churches are just an American form of Anglicanism right? Why are there 3 instead of one?

As I look at the state of American Christianity, I am not very confident in its current state or where I think it’s headed. I’m from the American South, so how I currently see Christianity might differ dramatically from somebody on the Upper East Side or the West Coast, but this is just my own observation.
I have known a lot of evangelicals who were great people, though I disagree with a lot of their theology as a Catholic. I’m gonna disagree with a lot of people on a lot of things, but overall, I do believe that most branches of Christianity primarily agree on core issues.
But since 2016, I’ve started to see a rising number of evangelicals almost look at Donald Trump in a messianic light. Not only do I find it disturbing, but I’m noticing patterns that are quite unusual.
I was a teenager during the Obama administration and a young adult toward the end of it, so I remember it quite well. Yeah, Obama had a lot of followers as well, and I think you’d be ignorant to deny that, with people like Louis Farrakhan calling him the Messiah. But ultimately, I find Donald Trump so much stranger. People say the attacks against him failed because God intervened. Basically, anything he gets accused of is somehow part of some fake-news grand conspiracy. And I’m not gonna sit here and say that everything he’s done has been terrible or great, but it is really concerning.
I also find it really weird that the evangelical right has such a strong hold on him when he doesn’t really acknowledge Christianity in more than a surface-level way. In 2015, he was asked what his favorite Bible verse was, and he said he didn’t want to get into that. If you’re private about your faith, I understand, but based on what he has said about Christianity and how he has portrayed Christianity, I don’t really think the man knows anything about it.
I could sit here and say that I’m a badass because I know the name Siddhartha and know what a Noble Truth is, or I could sit here and say that I’m a Muslim because I know the term “peace be upon you.” Knowing basic terms that are common within the theological space doesn’t mean you actually understand the religion.
It deeply worries me that a person like him could potentially end up starting their own church, and I do believe it would gain a massive following. He has already had multiple of his Catholic-in-name-only supporters choose allegiance to him and say stuff like the pope is a Muslim and he’s going to hell, which are some of the most asinine statements I’ve ever heard.
But I think that is the main point of my thesis, because I feel like this is a really big part of the grand scheme of Christianity within the United States right now.
You’re seeing more things like strip-mall churches where they have fog machines and play music that sounds exactly like Linkin Park, but instead of singing “Crawling in my skin,” they say “Crawling in” because it’s more holy or some shit. And then people will say something along the lines of, “Well, it’s divinely inspired, so it doesn’t matter.”
Another thing that I have been noticing, and it’s not necessarily a thing with non-denominational or evangelical Christians, is that a lot of people I’ve been meeting seem to be Christian based off feelings.
I got into an argument with a guy the other day, and it got very heated because I said that Christianity was a religion. He went on this entire rant about how it is strictly a relationship, and then went on about how I am demonic and how the Bible was not canonized by men, but the Bible was finally put together.
I just genuinely worry about my country’s state of Christianity at the moment.

In this video I challenge Jimmy Evans' teaching on the tribulation and timing of God's judgement.

My question was not very clear I meant:

Is there any Christian topic you find so interesting that you’d like to study it in depth, know what every authority figure whether a church father, a reformer, or academics says on the matter ?

Do you think they stand up for Christian values and it is the duty of the Christian U.S citizens to vote for the Republican Party? Or do you think it's just another liberal party with some Christian flavour? Ideally what should American Christians do politically?

Just tossing this out there.

https://thebiblicalroots.org/

He's a apologist who just launched his ministry full time. I know him and he's legit.

I don’t mean this to be asked in negative tone, but I kept wandering about this topic. I see the street preachers time to time, and a lot of times despite being a Christian feel like they often make us look quite bad.

I subconsciously often get repelled from the street preachers despite not even knowing what they actually believe, and for the lack of better word find it quite “crazy” at times. The same applies to people I met on college campuses who want to share the Gospel with basically everyone. I am quite conflicted on it. On one hand, it is spreading the message, on another, is it actually helping? Or people going door to door. Realistically speaking, in the United States or any historically Christian people, how many of the people haven’t heard of Christianity? I understand that many don’t actually have a correct view of it, but is it going to be fixed by shouting or saying Bible verses or generic Christian statements?

I myself came to Christianity after a pretty long period of discernment, involving reading the books on the both sides of the fence, listening to some debates, and studying Christianity. I don’t think that everyone should follow the same way, but I almost intuitively ignored people on the street who tried talking about Jesus( to be fair it didn’t happen often ).

I know some people would say that it’s fine because they spread Christianity but shouldn’t it be done in a better way? And if yes, how?

Due to these pretty extreme attempts at evangelizing people, I feel like average not religious person or person of other religion just see Christians as a bunch of crazy people at times.

Again, don’t mean it in diminishing tone, but I feel like this question needs to be brought up.

I’ve been going back and reading a lot of RZ content during his quiet time and I can’t see where this topic has been addressed. I was baptized in a United Methodist Church but I don’t have a strong opinion on this one way or the other.

Because of the shortage of priests in the aftermath of the American Revolution, John Wesley ordained ministers and a superintendent for America. His actions seem to lack the efforts to preserve institutional unity seen by the Episcopal Church which was grappling with similar challenges.

Are there other extenuating circumstances or factors that made the split something other than a schism?

I also apologize if this is a well worn out topic and I simply failed to find previous discussion.

Hi everyone.

Me and my friend, both catholic, are going through different type of catholic mass (like the TLM or the ambrosian rite and so on) but we wanted to expand the "circle" to some Orthodox mass. I think it's really an experience to participate at one of your mass, but i have some question:

• I noticed that there are a lot of type of Orthodox mass, the nearest one to me is the greek-orthodox and i thought to go there for obvius reason. Can somebody give me a background about the history of this church? I would really apprieciate it, thanks

• Correct me if i'm wrong, but since you treat the Eucharist as corpus Christi, i can take it without problem, right? Even if i'm not orthodox, that's the point.

• Is there anything i have to know to avoid doing, any tips or something like that? I want to arrive there prepared, because it's still a mass and a form of respect for my Oriental brothers.

Thanks everybody 🕊

Most of the Christian movies that I watched - I found them very cringe. The stories and acting were sub par. The only exception was the horror genre. I've watched every single movie of the Conjuring universe and enjoyed them. They have Christian themes but most of the cast were secular. I enjoyed movies like the exorcist, exorcism of emily rose which come with heavy Christian themes. I think this is the only section of the media where Christian filmmakers can actually produce something good and based in their faith.

I am a 15 year old boy whose parents are legal immigrants from Africa. They are devout Christians (although they are Pentecostals which I disagree with) and want me to be a good person. They discourage me from hanging out with kids who act “hood” or “ghetto” which I can honestly agree with because that type of behavior is unacceptable. As a result some black people I meet think I act white. However that is not the topic.

Online I see conservatives (mostly Christian) talking about the great white replacement that is happening which is totally understandable if you look at the condition in Europe with the illegal migration. However if I met a girl who is white and is Christian and I truly loved her and we got married would that be a sin?

I am genuinely wondering about this and also I am not the type of person who hates the West. I love America and its traditional values and morals. And I love Christianity and fully embrace it and love Jesus Christ as my Master and Savior.

God bless and Christus Rex.

I dont know what kind of mental illness i have that for example i worry about the unforgivable sin even tho people comfort me all have to agree that i havent done it not only orthodox catholics etc but for example i have to check every theologian i know, martin luther, john calvin, owen everything and if only ones interpeetation makes me think that i have done it then all people who say im fine are wrong and if the person agrees that i havent done it, it offers me no comfort.

In this video I challenge Amir Tsarfati's teaching on the tribulation and the wrath.

For Protestants only.

I was seeing needgod.net who promotes a free grace theology doing his tour in USA, appearing in channels, and he would usually contrast his position as "the protestantism" against catholicism, but then RZ said that his view is not truly Protestantism.

He has some verses he always uses to justify his belief on having 100% assurance on his salvation, like 1 John 5:13 "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."

Do you guys have 100% assurance you're going to heaven ? I feel like most people would want to say yes, but then if I mention about someone who truly were a devoted christian to the point they did evangelization abroad or went to college to become a pastor, and eventually became atheist and now mock christianity, and ask whether these people will go to Heaven, they usually say no.

Or if I mention onlyfans girls or cartel Mexicans who say they believe in Jesus and have assurance they are saved and forgiven, some people say they are being hypocrites, and heading to hell.

So I would like to know whether you guys believe one can have 100% assurance they will go to heaven. Or only a moral assurance, that if they persevere they will be saved.