Is This New?

[No Other Name]

On April 6, 2025, Redeemed Zoomer sent this following tweet:

Evolution is true, based, awe-inspiring, and God-glorifying. God can raise up children of Abraham from stones, so can He raise up children of Himself from bacteria

https://twitter.com/x/status/1908999087837323454

Is this old news or is this a new shift leftward? I ask because I am rarely ever on the bluebird app or X or whatever it is

 

[Sam Jer]

No this is old news, I am not sure he was ever a creationist to begin with

 

[clawrence9008]

WHY do people listen to this guy? I am endlessly frustrated with the obsession with RZ on social media and the platform that he has obtained. There is certainly a need for Protestant apologetics online, but a neo-orthodox, Barth-obsessed, theistic evolutionist, PCUSA guy is not the one to do it.

 

[paranymph]

Why do we keep talking about him? Starve him of the attention he desperately wants and off of which he earns an income.

 

[No Other Name]

WHY do people listen to this guy? I am endlessly frustrated with the obsession with RZ on social media and the platform that he has obtained. There is certainly a need for Protestant apologetics online, but a neo-orthodox, Barth-obsessed, theistic evolutionist, PCUSA guy is not the one to do it.

Numbers, that's why. And he gets numbers by producing very well-made slick easy-on-the-eyes videos. People respond much more frequently to gifted communications rather than a boring video with a pastor speaking into a camera about Christians and Christianity like our own @greenbaggins

And I am not slamming my friend Rev. Keister. He got a watch from my Youtube channel and will get a like and share as well and RZ never has, but people like you and me are exceptions not the rule.
[automerge]1744732138[/automerge]

Why do we keep talking about him? Starve him of the attention he desperately wants and earns an income off of.

I apologize for nothing

 

[No Other Name]

I apologize for nothing

I meant that playfully joking. Everyone is different. Myself, I haven't heard anything from him in a while. If I am the odd one out and he has been all over and I hadn't heard he officially embraced TE, then yeah, that is on me, but it happens I guess.

 

[paranymph]

I meant that playfully joking. Everyone is different. Myself, I haven't heard anything from him in a while. If I am the odd one out and he has been all over and I hadn't heard he officially embraced TE, then yeah, that is on me, but it happens I guess.

He's also in a phase now talking up Roman Catholicism.

 

[RamistThomist]

Just keep mentioning "Pastor Susan." It bothers him. And ask him what "Come out from among them and be ye separate means."

 

[Ye_Olde_Heidelberger]

He's also in a phase now talking up Roman Catholicism.

He has been flirting with Romanism for as long as I can remember. If he doesn't flee from these errors and set himself under godly, biblical leadership in a confessional Reformed church, I fear we will be hearing of his apostasy soon enough.

 

[dsanch1120]

He's also in a phase now talking up Roman Catholicism.

Don’t know if I’d call it a phase, as someone who watches his videos (not sure why I keep watching them when they always frustrate me) I think he’s always been like this, just more frequently vocal about it. He’s also been TE for a very long time as well.
I think he understands the YouTube game in that stirring the pot gains views - we’re talking him now, aren’t we? Statements like this from him are unfortunately the norm.
To answer why people keep listening to him.. I think it’s in large part because he occupies a mostly empty space. There’s not many Gen-Z-savvy somewhat reformed folks with a social media presence. His videos, problematic as they are, are easy to watch, and when a lot of people grow up in the big-Eva world, anyone discussing theology feels like someone worth listening to

 

[pianoviolin]

WHY do people listen to this guy? I am endlessly frustrated with the obsession with RZ on social media and the platform that he has obtained. There is certainly a need for Protestant apologetics online, but a neo-orthodox, Barth-obsessed, theistic evolutionist, PCUSA guy is not the one to do it.

Exactly - he misunderstands that although Barth / neo-orthodoxy is not quite as bad or heretical as the current PCUSA, it will lead right to it. What is the point of this so-called "Reconquista" if it does not lead back towards confessional orthodoxy?

That being said, I sincerely hope that Redeemed Zoomer grows in his faith, that his faith is true, and that much of his errant beliefs are due to his background in a very liberal setting around NYC (primarily liberal Jewish/Roman Catholic). His mother is also Roman Catholic, so pray for her as well - part of his fondness for Roman Catholicism may be due to that. We should not be afraid to call out error, while also understanding that Zoomer is also a person we should pray for as well.
[automerge]1744739024[/automerge]

Just keep mentioning "Pastor Susan." It bothers him. And ask him what "Come out from among them and be ye separate means."

Yes, I would strongly hesitate ("strongly" is probably not strong enough!) against attending a PCUSA church, and I would never recommend a new church to join the PCUSA (not just because of the apostasy, but also because the denomination owns the buildings and church names).

That being said, I still pray for the PCUSA, that they repent of their sin and apostasy, and that they return to the Word of God and the Gospel that saves. I know many brethen within the PCUSA (primarily within Korean-speaking churches that are mostly - though not entirely - conservative), including many Korean PCUSA congregations that would reject Barth and would be as conservative or more conservative than Keller et al. It breaks my heart to see the current state of the PCUSA given the many missionaries that were sent from the Northern Presbyterian church to Korea and their involvement in the Pyongyang Revival of 1907.

There are still many faithful brethen within the PCUSA, although this number is dwindling. (Even among the faithful, it is more of a broad evangelicalism than Reformed orthodoxy, which is sadly also true of many conservative, Korean PCA churches today as well as many PCA churches in certain urban areas). Although the situation seems dire, we should never presume that God cannot revive such an apostate institution -- even the PCUSA. Let us not forget the pouring of the Holy Spirit in Europe during the Reformation and earnestly pray for revival (if it is in His will), knowing that God is sovereign above all. Let us never lose hope, no matter how hopeless the American church and the world may seem.

 

[RamistThomist]

RZ is a great example of why prioritizing apologetics over theology always ends in disaster.

 

[paranymph]

Don’t know if I’d call it a phase, as someone who watches his videos (not sure why I keep watching them when they always frustrate me) I think he’s always been like this, just more frequently vocal about it. He’s also been TE for a very long time as well.
I think he understands the YouTube game in that stirring the pot gains views - we’re talking him now, aren’t we? Statements like this from him are unfortunately the norm.
To answer why people keep listening to him.. I think it’s in large part because he occupies a mostly empty space. There’s not many Gen-Z-savvy somewhat reformed folks with a social media presence. His videos, problematic as they are, are easy to watch, and when a lot of people grow up in the big-Eva world, anyone discussing theology feels like someone worth listening to

Thanks for clarifying. I intentionally avoid watching his videos for this very reason. Any attention he gets only furthers his brand. I do see people quoting/replying to his posts, and a number have been about Romanism lately.

 

[alexanderjames]

I view this kind of thing as simply another sad symptom of the recent Christian resurgence which is not grounded in the fear of the Lord.
But which of us is without stain of guilt? Thanks be to God, that He gives more grace (James 4:6).

 

[Mrs_soup]

Thankful more than ever that I don’t keep up with X anymore. Don’t know who this is, but from this tweet alone I’m not interested.

 

[dsanch1120]

Thanks for clarifying. I intentionally avoid watching his videos for this very reason. Any attention he gets only furthers his brand. I do see people quoting/replying to his posts, and a number have been about Romanism lately.

He very well may be going on a tweet-spree about RC. I’m not on Twitter and have zero desire to be. I’m basing my statement off of his YouTube videos

 

[John Nyberg]

I have been reading "Christianity and Liberalism" again and have been profoundly affected by how empty liberalism feels. It is religion without Incarnation, miracles, atonement, resurrection and, as this post suggests, without a true creator. A god who "raises sons for himself from bacteria" is far inferior to the True God who breathes life into his son and places his image upon him and his posterity.

 

[WithinThePale]

On April 6, 2025, Redeemed Zoomer sent this following tweet:

Evolution is true, based, awe-inspiring, and God-glorifying. God can raise up children of Abraham from stones, so can He raise up children of Himself from bacteria

https://twitter.com/x/status/1908999087837323454

Is this old news or is this a new shift leftward? I ask because I am rarely ever on the bluebird app or X or whatever it is

Probably not, he's consistently widely ecumenical, short on doctrine, long on lust for buildings and institutions (at least back when I was on the Instagram, which I left a couple years back). Evolution just isn't a hill he's willing to die on (and to be honest, I can't think of one he is willing to die on, although I hope he's there on the core of the Gospel), although he is quite happy to dunk on seceders of any kind.

 

[No Other Name]

Thanks everyone

I am still a little taken aback by the visceral reaction my OP got. "WHY are we still talking about this guy?" ... with 13 likes, amens and loves.

While I may not follow twitter or X, I do follow PB pretty closely and I cannot recall any thread about him and TE. So when I saw he said that April 6, 2025, I literally asked if this was new?

So, maybe a couple of you might want to remember that your personal exposure to persons on the internet is not necessarily the same as others?

A dash of aggravation at his communication skills coupled with a sprinkle of (possible) over-exposure on your end topped off with his idolatrous error about buildings and beauty does not equate to justified exasperation being directed at my OP, does it?

Recall: I came in to this saying how little I tweet or follow RZ and still I got reactions for how come this guy "gets attention" as if - somehow - I am part of the problem here?

Otherwise, can we get an official list of personalities out there that the PB is officially done with (like RZ) vs. those whom PB will never be done with (DW and others)?

You know, so us noobs don't make the same blunder again? Hahaha

Anyway, thanks everyone, particularly for affirming yet again that we are all on the same page that TE is heretical blasphemy and not to be confused with OEC or framework views (as had happened on a previous thread recently here)

 

[paranymph]

Thanks everyone

I am still a little taken aback by the visceral reaction my OP got. "WHY are we still talking about this guy?" ... with 13 likes, amens and loves.

"We" in my post was not about you in particular or PB. I meant Reformed Christians in general, or just people who disagree with him. I was just trying to make a point that RZ tries to be provocative. It gets him views. Which makes him money. Which encourages him to be more provocative. Which means his channel will influence others of his generation, especially, to believe his teaching. Talking about him, even negatively, feeds the beast. But I'm not sure how this vicious cycle can be avoided in the internet age.

 

[No Other Name]

We" in my post was not about you in particular or PB. I meant Reformed Christians in general, or just people who disagree with him.

I hope you can agree that there simply is no way I could have inferred that.

I was just trying to make a point that RZ tries to be provocative. It gets him views. Which makes him money. Which encourages him to be more provocative. Which means his channel will influence others of his generation, especially, to believe his teaching. Talking about him, even negatively, feeds the beast. But I'm not sure how this vicious cycle can be avoided in the internet age.

But posting about him on the PB does not feed the beast, right?

And giving you the benefit of the doubt that you simply mean generally, ok, I am more than willing to believe you, but why is this specific to RZ but not DW who also fits these bolded statements in every way? Maybe you agree they aren't too different and you just do not participate in DW threads either?

At any rate, thank you for explaining. I genuinely value your thoughts

 

[clawrence9008]

Thanks everyone

I am still a little taken aback by the visceral reaction my OP got. "WHY are we still talking about this guy?" ... with 13 likes, amens and loves.

While I may not follow twitter or X, I do follow PB pretty closely and I cannot recall any thread about him and TE. So when I saw he said that April 6, 2025, I literally asked if this was new?

So, maybe a couple of you might want to remember that your personal exposure to persons on the internet is not necessarily the same as others?

A dash of aggravation at his communication skills coupled with a sprinkle of (possible) over-exposure on your end topped off with his idolatrous error about buildings and beauty does not equate to justified exasperation being directed at my OP, does it?

Recall: I came in to this saying how little I tweet or follow RZ and still I got reactions for how come this guy "gets attention" as if - somehow - I am part of the problem here?

Otherwise, can we get an official list of personalities out there that the PB is officially done with (like RZ) vs. those whom PB will never be done with (DW and others)?

You know, so us noobs don't make the same blunder again? Hahaha

Anyway, thanks everyone, particularly for affirming yet again that we are all on the same page that TE is heretical blasphemy and not to be confused with OEC or framework views (as had happened on a previous thread recently here)

I hope my response did not come across as being exasperated towards you. Not at all! I’m glad you posted this, as it exposes his errors to more people who might not be aware of him. My response was more expressing frustration at the fact that I have online and IRL friends who are constantly overlooking his theological errors because he is “fighting back against the culture” (whatever that means). I hope my comment of “WHY do people still listen to this guy?” conveyed that and did not come across like it was an attack against you brother. I have the utmost amount of respect for you for the interactions I’ve had with you on this board.

 

[paranymph]

And giving you the benefit of the doubt that you simply mean generally, ok, I am more than willing to believe you, but why is this specific to RZ but not DW who also fits these bolded statements in every way? Maybe you agree they aren't too different and you just do not participate in DW threads either?

At the risk of derailing this into DW!. . . Yes, all the internet controversies generally work the same way. But RZ, in particular, is different. DW is an ordained minister of the gospel, so there is more public accountability required. He also leads real institutions (not just a YT channel). RZ is particularly frustrating because he has no real credentials academically nor ecclesiastically, and he is not accountable to anyone. So, for example, talking about DW is an attempt to influence people to hold him accountable. Nobody can hold RZ accountable. The only way to decrease his influence is by giving him no attention.

I don't have an issue with you asking a question about him on this board. Again, I was just making a general point.

 

[Cals2lip]

WHY do people listen to this guy? I am endlessly frustrated with the obsession with RZ on social media and the platform that he has obtained. There is certainly a need for Protestant apologetics online, but a neo-orthodox, Barth-obsessed, theistic evolutionist, PCUSA guy is not the one to do it.

Can you explain who Barth is? I've heard that name before. Sorry for the ignorant question lol

 

[No Other Name]

Can you explain who Barth is? I've heard that name before. Sorry for the ignorant question lol

Someone asked this very question and the thread has some illuminating answers you may find helpful:

Thread 'Karl Barth?'

May 21, 2009

Can anyone tell me what the deal is with Karl Barth?

Was he Reformed?

Is his work worth reading?

I think he had an issue with the inerrancy of scripture?

Is his view on Election correct?

Thanks

Steve

• The Author of my Faith
• Replies: 71
• Forum: Calvinism & The Doctrines of Grace

 

[John Nyberg]

@No Other Name Hey brother

I also reacted to that post, because I agree with the following portion:

, but a neo-orthodox, Barth-obsessed, theistic evolutionist, PCUSA guy is not the one to do it.

I do not think the post was meant to disparage your OP.

 

[alexanderjames]

How do we best warn others about listening to people like this?

I have a close brother who enjoys listening to this young man (I refuse to call him "Redeemed Zoomer") and have gently warned him a couple of times now to use caution and that there are plenty of far better resources for teaching online. Even so, my friend still doesn't fully agree.

 

[Pomopu]

How do we best warn others about listening to people like this?

I have a close brother who enjoys listening to this young man (I refuse to call him "Redeemed Zoomer") and have gently warned him a couple of times now to use caution and that there are plenty of far better resources for teaching online. Even so, my friend still doesn't fully agree.

He is not against us, per se. Doesn't he teach the doctrines of grace? Doesn't he hold to a an Orthodox Trinitarianism, theology proper, and Christology? Doesn't he love Jesus Christ and want to share the gospel of Jesus Christ? Like, on the list of guys to go to, he isn't number one. But from my perspective, we would do better to not alienate our Zoomer friends by hating on this guy, and instead celebrate the fact our zoomer cousins and younger siblings and nephews and nieces are consuming content related to someone that actually does know and bring out the gospel, despite his other errors.

Disclaimer: I've never seen a single video. But from what I understand what I've said is true. So I celebrate the chap.

Think about it this way. Puritan Board is, to most people, like the snobby cheese and meet club that talk about wine and French films without subtitles. We attracted that one Nazi guy, trying to sus out how far right we were. In contrast, our fellow, the Redeemed Zoomer (Can we be gracious enough to use his public name, per his preference?) is like the guy who is hosting a Minecraft server and a pizza party.

 

[John Nyberg]

@Pomopu

I guess it depends on how you feel about "theistic evolution". Is it a valid Christian philosophy of creation? Can one begin with Theistic Evolution and end up with a correct doctrine of God? Of original sin? Of redemption?

 

[Pomopu]

@Pomopu

I guess it depends on how you feel about "theistic evolution". Is it a valid Christian philosophy of creation? Can one begin with Theistic Evolution and end up with a correct doctrine of God? Of original sin? Of redemption?

Great questions. I don't know. I'd say the vast majority of the versions of theistic evolution are incompatible with those things. But Jesus says, "For whoever is not against us is for us," and I'm willing to claim RZoomer as a good guy until he makes it abundantly clear he's a bad guy.

"The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice."

One thing I do know: we are inconsistent creatures. Inconsistently, he might claim TEvolution here, but hold to another, orthodox position on another doctrinal point despite the fact his belief in one area (Evolution) should entail the belief in another area (creation, theology proper, anthropology, whatever) isn't true. That's just how humans work. So I give him the benefit of the doubt. I'll assume he is tragically believing one thing (evolution) but despite that fact, still preaching a true gospel concerning Jesus Christ.