Is This New?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pomopu said:
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.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I can share my issues with this ministry.
  1. As far as I understand he is not qualified to be a public teacher in the capacity he operates in.
  2. He teaches unbiblical viewpoints like this thread demonstrates.
  3. His online materials and approach is from an unsanctified perspective, combining sacred matters with worldly terms/ideas - "redeemed zoomer" being one example. One look at the YouTube thumbnails demonstrates this to me.
I can understand listening to what he has to say about the history of the church.
When it comes to doctrine I think it should be a hard "no".
For me this isn't about being snobby, this is about honouring the Lord with due reverence.
 
Pomopu said:
I'm willing to claim RZoomer as a good guy until he makes it abundantly clear he's a bad guy.
Click to expand...
I am not sure this is the point. I am not trying to make a judgment call either way about RZ. I do not know him.

What conservative Christians must watch out for, however, are the subtle tricks of the liberal redefinition of terms. What RZ is effectively communicating is this: "Of course I believe in God as a creator! He made all the bacterial life and which began the very natural process of evolution and after a long natural process humanity emerged."

He wants to look like a "creationist" and appeal to liberal minded evolutionists. Yet when he says he is a creationist, he means something entirely different then what God's children have believed since Abraham. There is much danger here.
 
John Nyberg said:
I am not sure this is the point. I am not trying to make a judgment call either way about RZ. I do not know him.

What conservative Christians must watch out for, however, are the subtle tricks of the liberal redefinition of terms. What RZ is effectively communicating is this: "Of course I believe in God as a creator! He made all the bacterial life and which began the very natural process of evolution and after a long natural process humanity emerged."

He wants to look like a "creationist" and appeal to liberal minded evolutionists. Yet when he says he is a creationist, he means something entirely different then what God's children have believed since Abraham. There is much danger here.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, this is reasonable. I agree there is much danger there.
[automerge]1744897115[/automerge]
alexanderjames said:
Perhaps I can share my issues with this ministry.
  1. As far as I understand he is not qualified to be a public teacher in the capacity he operates in.
  2. He teaches unbiblical viewpoints like this thread demonstrates.
  3. His online materials and approach is from an unsanctified perspective, combining sacred matters with worldly terms/ideas - "redeemed zoomer" being one example. One look at the YouTube thumbnails demonstrates this to me.
I can understand listening to what he has to say about the history of the church.
When it comes to doctrine I think it should be a hard "no".
For me this isn't about being snobby, this is about honouring the Lord with due reverence.
Click to expand...
This is helpful, thanks for clarifying. This makes me more sympathetic to where you are coming from. He is amusingly, pitifully click-bait, there is nothing to distinguish his videos from the influencer peddling skin cream. But again: given he teaches the actual gospel I'm largely going to celebrate the fact a man with 500k followers isn't preaching salvation by works, for instance.
 
Last edited:
John Nyberg said:
@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?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, although theistic evolution is a grave error, there are some forms (such as those that acknowledge that Adam and Eve are **uniquely** created beings, created in the image of God and separate from all other living things and those that believe in no animal death before that fall) that are not as dangerous as others.

As a generation-Z person, I believe that many of RZ's Twitter antics are shameful and that his support for evolution (particularly his Dawinistic conception of theistic evolution) is extremely concerning. That being said, his theology is also extremely inconsistent - from what I know about him:
- Affirms original sin and the sin of concupiscence
- Strident iconoclast
- Strict particularist on the atonement (that is, he doesn't actually fully endorse Barth's view of Christ as the "elect one" and the "reject one"). Rejects Hypothetical Universalism/Amyraldianism/Davenant
- Said that if he left the PC(USA), he would join the RPCNA since it's "technically mainline"
- Seems to have an otherwise orthodox Christology (although inconsistent with his borderline heretical Darwinism)
- Affirms justification by faith alone

I do not support him, but his theology is a mixed bag and highly inconsistent.
 
Sam Jer said:
really?
That's probably the best thing that could happen to him.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I heard it in one of his videos. His wife is from Kansas (and seems significantly more orthodox than him) and he visited an RPCNA church. If the PC(USA) ends up forcing ministers to affirm LGBTQ and proclaim heresy from the pulpit (which almost happened last year, see: Olympia overture will “narrow us” writes The Fellowship Community), he will leave and "schism" to a "non-schismatic" denomination like RPCNA or ARP.

For some context: The Olympia overture was an overture submitted from the Olympia Presbytery in Washington state (one of the most liberal Presbyteries in the PCA). It originally proposed mandating "non-discrimination" against LGBTQ+ as a criterion for ordination.
1. Shall F-1.0403 be amended as follows:“The unity of believers in Christ is reflected in the rich diversity of the Church’s membership. In Christ, by the power of the Spirit, God unites persons through baptism, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, sex, [gender identity, sexual orientation,] disability, geography, or theological conviction. There is therefore no place in the life of the Church for discrimination against any person. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall guarantee full participation and representation in its worship, governance, and emerging life to all persons or groups within its membership. No member shall be denied participation or representation for any reason other than those stated in this Constitution.”

2. Shall G-2.0104b be amended as follows:
“b. Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (F-1.02). The council responsible for ordination and/or installation (G-2.0402; G-2.0607; G-3.0306) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of ordered ministry. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.0404) [and in the principles of participation, representation, and non-discrimination found in F-1.0403]. Councils shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.
Click to expand...

The overture was amended to only require candidates for ordination to affirm "the Historic Principles of Church Order (F-3.01), and in the principles of participation and representation found in F-1.0403" which is a gray area and does not (necessarily) require LGBTQ affirmation. While the overture was not entirely defeated, it was amended sufficiently for "conservatives" in the Fellowship Community to fight on another day, at least until the 2026 GA where a stronger overture is likely to be introduced.

Although I attend a PCA church, the PC(USA) is near to my heart, as there are many people I know that attend conservative Korean PC(USA) churches (generally: non-confessional, broadly evangelical, orthodox, hold to creationism, etc.) and my father was saved in a Korean PC(USA) church. I am not sure how much longer Bible-believing Christians can remain in the PC(USA) though.
 
Last edited:
RamistThomist said:
And for anyone who consistently uses "Based," trying to be edgy, I subtract 40 IQ points.
Click to expand...
That's just how it is. It isn't anyone trying to be edgy. Why would we expect him to talk like a Boomer? He a Zoomer.

Accusing someone you've never met, that confesses the Westminster standards nonetheless, as having a low IQ is in my (based) opinion a tad uncharitable. The kingdom of heaven doesn't consist in the intelligent and well-spoken, anyway. Why judge a brother in Christ for that?
 
Pomopu said:
That's just how it is. It isn't anyone trying to be edgy. Why would we expect him to talk like a Boomer? He a Zoomer.

Accusing someone you've never met, that confesses the Westminster standards nonetheless, as having a low IQ is in my (based) opinion a tad uncharitable. The kingdom of heaven doesn't consist in the intelligent and well-spoken, anyway. Why judge a brother in Christ for that?
Click to expand...
True. Being "based" is a good thing, actually, and I would not consider it a sign of being unintelligent or not well-spoken.

There is something to be said about the constant "ragebaiting" that occurs on right-wing / Christian Twitter - RZ is not the only one guilty of this. I would also take anyone on social media says with a grain of salt. You can find plenty of more conservative/confessional Gen-Z men on Twitter that engage in ragebaiting, hot takes, etc. It is a part of Gen-Z culture, for better or for worse.
 
Last edited:
Pomopu said:
The kingdom of heaven doesn't consist in the intelligent and well-spoken, anyway.
Click to expand...

He actually is intelligent and well-spoken. That's the problem. And in any case, I spoke tongue-in-cheek.
Pomopu said:
that confesses the Westminster standards nonetheless
Click to expand...

Except on evolution

Pomopu said:
Accusing someone you've never met,
Click to expand...

Not personally met him, no. Having followed him indirectly for years, I can speak on him.

And to praise his strengths: he is very good on Roman Catholic apologetics. But keep in mind: he views all of us as schismatics in rebellion from mainline Protestantism. That means we are in sin. Unless you are in the RPCNA or ARP. He allows that they aren't in sin.
 
All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it:
the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be;
and that which is done is that which shall be done:
and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new?
it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
There is no remembrance of former things;
neither shall there be any remembrance of things
that are to come with those that shall come after.

Ecc 1
 
No Other Name said:
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.
Click to expand...
I, for one, "liked" it because of the last sentence criticizing him. I appreciated your OP drawing his nonsense to our attention.
 
Pomopu said:
That's just how it is. It isn't anyone trying to be edgy. Why would we expect him to talk like a Boomer? He a Zoomer.

Accusing someone you've never met, that confesses the Westminster standards nonetheless, as having a low IQ is in my (based) opinion a tad uncharitable. The kingdom of heaven doesn't consist in the intelligent and well-spoken, anyway. Why judge a brother in Christ for that?
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • PEbased2.jpg
    PEbased2.jpg
    60.9 KB · Views: 3
MAN, this thread resonates with me. My own legacy of weakness and all comes from an obsession of "making an impact" on culture. We reformed folks do it. Mainline evangelicals do it. It is a siren call to "adapt" to trendiness in order to "win" people. This is especially alluring when the contrast in our minds is some stale, boring, person who seems to be intent to tire us to death by an encyclopedic recitation of truth in the most lifeless form imaginable. We go for the zippy, bouncy, vigorous because -in my opinion- our goals are wrong... at least MINE are wrong and I assume we are all like me. However, I think the rxn is every bit as bad. I am either wanting to become a fashionable Instagram influencer Christian, or am scoffing and denigrating in the name of orthodoxy, but am secretly jealous that I am not the center. That may not be you. It is certainly me. Frankly, most of my "ministry" in the past has been about me, in the name of Jesus. I can smell it in them because it is at the core of who I am. This is the way I view the whole internet Christian thing. That is the way I view the culture, and this is the way I view much of the church today. in my opinion, this is a deep sin in the church. It certainly is for me. I can't repent for the culture, nor the church. I can repent for me.

I think my goal should be to use all my might (this includes all my personality, intellect, vigor, communication abilities, tech gizmos) to enthrone THE GOSPEL in a manner that I hope God uses, but am willing to be completely forgotten, have zero notable cultural impact and maybe just pour my life into one person (more if I have more gifts). Count Zinzendorf (sic?)'s stated goal to "preach the gospel and be forgotten" has a beauty in it that shines in this age of obsession with flashy, trendy, influencing in a surface well crafted slick manner. That is what I want. I am frankly just ignoring the Redeemed Zoomer types. They will be gone in a year or so. I want true depth and a part of revival. I would be happy to be unrecognized and forgotten if I could be a part of that.

A campus minister I knew back in the day was like this. He was well connected, flashy, trendy, a great communicator, and about as shallow as one could imagine. Long term he has had none of the influence he tried to project. I think he is a stock jockey somewhere today. I am sure he has done well in business.

I think that I am not going to try and "do battle" with these folks in the sense that I am not going to go out and seek to enjoin them, but rather find a small group of people, seek to learn what the gospel really is (I knew it better as a brand new Christian... or so I think some times), and learn together how to swim in the scripture, pray for revival, and forgive each other. The minute I say that, I disgust myself by sounding like some pious peacock who DOES THE SAME THING as the glitzy podcasting shallow stuff I hate, but just in the name of piety and an affected lowliness. Eventually I have to just laugh at myself, ignore the endless circle and envision myself seating Christ on my own throne inside, and say "ok, where were we again?" That is freedom, and leads to joy.

Every time I see a "redeemed zoomer" type (x, instagram, etc are full of them) I want to pray that God would not let me give in to that lust for notoriety, and (weirdly enough) raise up men who are full of Christ to replace the celebrity Christians. We have them out there. I want a whole stable of them..... I am just not at all sure I want to *BE* one anymore. Even if I had those gifts of communication, celebrity is a dangerous status. It has ruined a whole crowd of men better than myself.

Wow! what a ramble. lol
 
So having never met the guy, I actually had several private conversations with him. One was productive, the other not. I gave him some pointers on Shedd and he thanked me. He then proceeded to misrepresent Shedd, thinking Shedd held to evolution. The other conversation was on Hodge and Nevin. I pointed out several philosophical defeaters that destroy Nevin's system. He said, "God can overpower that." So yeah...
 
RamistThomist said:
So having never met the guy, I actually had several private conversations with him. One was productive, the other not. I gave him some pointers on Shedd and he thanked me. He then proceeded to misrepresent Shedd, thinking Shedd held to evolution. The other conversation was on Hodge and Nevin. I pointed out several philosophical defeaters that destroy Nevin's system. He said, "God can overpower that." So yeah...
Click to expand...
Could you share your'e arguments contra Nevin? I have watched his (RZ's) videos regularly in the past, though it's been a while since I stopped
 
Last edited:
Sam Jer said:
Could you share your'e arguments contra Nevin? I have watched his videos regularly in the past, though it's been a while since I stopped
Click to expand...
Here is the difficulty with Nevin. This is what I was looking for. if we accept Nevin’s platonic essentialism, especially with regard to the Eucharist and Christology, then we run into huge problems. If Christ assumed the universal humanity, then he also assumed the rules of predicating of genus: the more universal a genus, the less specific it is. If Christ is the universal humanity, then there is nothing specifically human about him.

RZ told me that God can overpower that problem.

I responded: Back to your original claim: I'm not sure what God overpowering the genus would even look like, or if that is even coherent. Also, be careful saying people are trying to put logic over God. It sounds pious, but I do hope the law of non-contradiction holds true when I get to propositions like "God loves me." But if Nevin is right, his position ends up saying Christ simultaneously has the most specific and most abstract human nature.
 
RamistThomist said:
Here is the difficulty with Nevin. This is what I was looking for. if we accept Nevin’s platonic essentialism, especially with regard to the Eucharist and Christology, then we run into huge problems. If Christ assumed the universal humanity, then he also assumed the rules of predicating of genus: the more universal a genus, the less specific it is. If Christ is the universal humanity, then there is nothing specifically human about him.

RZ told me that God can overpower that problem.

I responded: Back to your original claim: I'm not sure what God overpowering the genus would even look like, or if that is even coherent. Also, be careful saying people are trying to put logic over God. It sounds pious, but I do hope the law of non-contradiction holds true when I get to propositions like "God loves me." But if Nevin is right, his position ends up saying Christ simultaneously has the most specific and most abstract human nature.
Click to expand...
are you referring to Nevin Climenhaga or is Redeemed Zoomer's name Nevin? I am a bit confused trying to follow.
 
tanstaafl72555 said:
are you referring to Nevin Climenhaga or is Redeemed Zoomer's name Nevin? I am a bit confused trying to follow.
Click to expand...
I don't think his name was Climenhaga, but we are discussing a theologian that disagreed with Hodge about the nature of the supper and had a higher view of it (or at least that's how RZ presents it)
 
Sam Jer said:
I don't think his name was Climenhaga, but we are discussing a theologian that disagreed with Hodge about the nature of the supper and had a higher view of it (or at least that's how RZ presents it)
Click to expand...
I think we're talking about this guy:

John Williamson Nevin ⬩ Confessional Presbyterian

Confessional Presbyterian curates key writings of American Presbyterianism from the 17th century to the present.
www.logcollegepress.com www.logcollegepress.com
 
RamistThomist said:
The guy who’s going to based recapture the mainlines is a 1969s liberal
Click to expand...
True - some of his friends seem more conservative though. I'm talking about Zoomer ragebaiting. He's able to sidestep his liberalism through right-wing political takes as well as some inconsistencies (like being a strict particularist, iconoclast, and being passionate about Protestant apologetics despite his ecumenism).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ed Walsh
  • Locked
This is NOT a Planned Parenthood Video
Replies
8
Views
2K
Ed Walsh
Ed Walsh
VictorBravo
  • Locked
Can someone tell me what pepper this is?
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
Houchens
Houchens
NaphtaliPress
  • Locked
What rule of logic is this referencing?--UPDATE: found it.
Replies
10
Views
3K
jwright82
jwright82
jaybird0827
  • Locked
Can Anyone ID This
Replies
20
Views
5K
Scott Opalsky
Scott Opalsky
ChristianTrader
  • Locked
New YEC book
Replies
6
Views
3K
ChristianTrader
ChristianTrader
Back
Top