Is Redeemed Zoomer Right About Evangelicals? Engaging Operation Reconquista

Curiously I found myself agreeing with Trent's categories more than Reformed Zoomer's. The idea that some sort of arbitrary set of assumptions about who can legitimately claim to be part of the historic "mainline" is somehow such an essential quality that it should be preferred to faithfulness to the Gospel of Christ is baffling to me.
The very reason Calvin could say there were 'true Churches and Christians among Rome' while also engaging in harsh polemics against the Papacy is because he prioritised the faithfulness of those congregations and individuals over and against their failure to remove themselves from the "Whore of Babylon".

If RZ wants to be consistent he must at least consider the 'retreatist schismatics' as real churches who practice real Presbyterian theology etc. Does it look like a duck?
Speaking of Presbyterians is it just me or does he speak more like an Episcopalian?
Would a faithful Presbyterian not be most concerned with the preservation of a Gospel-centered, Westminster affirming, regenerate caucus of ruling elders in the Presbytery?

The Core-Anabaptists were pacifists

Protestants are like lost sheeps that refused to have a shepherd or single authority that would lead them to the correct path. They assumed to have have their own authority and independence that's why they are scattered and ununited.

Yes they are the problem.

I would say that it's is very difficult to tie yourself to someone such as him who continuously spouts wrong information. We cannot live the Christian life based on a perceived church history, we need to remain biblical so therefore there are those who need to be cut off and RZ is one of those ... By his logic we should just all be Catholics and the reformers were wrong in separation.

I just finished Carlos Eire’s giant tome “Reformations” and he tends to lean on the main theological issue between Calvinists and Anabaptists being adult rebaptism? I was shocked by the violence against something we regularly do today - was I reading that wrong?

for all of those who are disappointed or confused when RZ is critical of low churches/evangelical churches- theres a reason. from the perspective of coming from a nondenominational mega church for 15 years and having friends at many more non-denoms in my area (in the northeast) the theological liberalism is rampant! Theres no respect for old/high churches, church fathers, anything older than a hundred years ago. And everyone is critical based on their opinion, not Historical or even theological truth of what Catholics and other denominations believe. You can go 30 minutes into a sermon before you open the Bible and see a Bible verse because the whole entire message is based on a pop psychology book for an outline and adding the Bible. We went in search of some more theologically sound teaching… Only defined it’s not even in smaller church because smaller churches are trying to mimic the bigger churches and trying to gain more attendance.
2, I would love both of their thoughts on a strange Pattern and phenomenon that is in modern day, evangelical churches where people want to read the Bible and get something new out of it. It seems the more novel the concept you can pull from the Bible, the more spiritual you are. I was at several women’s Bible studies where this would happen, when women mentioned the parable of the 99 and the one sheep, and she said it convicted her to think “ What did those 99 sheep do to drive the one sheep away? Am i driving others away- I need to be more loving and accepting!” And everyone thought it was so deep and so groundbreaking-

And again- this is the theological liberalism and how bad it is - its the norm now :(

"You can't have a Christian Church if there are sinners within it."
I used to think that most heresies were at least somewhat rational to hold on to (not in the sense that I think they are right, but in the sense that "I can see where you might think this" kind of way). THIS is the most absurd heresy that I have ever heard and is totally tone deaf to Scripture, history, and reality. There are only at most 2 human beings that walked this earth free from sin: Jesus (because He was God and unable to sin) and Mary (because of God electing to grant her the graces of her Son's death and resurrection early at her conception due to her role as the mother of His Son.).

Your second point was the first thing I thought of.
Anti-Pope Francis was WOKE, so are many catholic bishops, so are some entire Protestant denominations, so are some Protestant pastors, so are some para-Christian organizations like Christianity today.
The problem isn’t denominations or labels. The problem is Sin and Satan.

Thinking the view of the sacraments is more important than sola fide is a wild take

The only things I think are worth saving in the mailine denominations (other than the people) are the buildings. Conservative Protestants should consider it a scandal that our oldest and most beautiful houses of worship are in the hands of apostates.

The point about missionaries is HUGE and often overlooked.

It seems like you’re giving him too much benefit of the doubt. Grouping all of the people you disagree with together to make them appear the same and then smearing them is a classic technique. I would argue that is not a Biblical approach to those we disagree with

​The biblical kingdom of Israel split into the Northern kingdom and Judah...so there was a schism....​also God had remnant Northern kingdom who where faithful...

Anabaptism is DIFFERENT than Evangelicals. There are definitely problems in the "low" church, but anarchism is not the most common one.

The idea of RZ thinking you shouldn't go to a more theologically correct church because it isn't institutional seems more cowardly to me?

I am praying that you get some day a chance to reunite with lake and fuller at a conference. This would seem to be a decisive time in lakes maturity from its struggles during covid. This could launch the evangelical grounding to revive foundational health from the various ailments of late. Please work with Mathew J to reconnect and bring dialogue to fuller. There is now hope and a clear vision of health that you are communicating that hasn't been seen in decades.

The little smug junior is on a mission to save the abominational mainline churches. He belittles those Christians who depart from the apostate churches.
He calls pastor John MacArthur a heretic not worthy of "restoration" because he doesn't venerate (worship) Mary - an idolatrous practice by any measure.

What happened to the churches of Asia Minor: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea? They all disappeared over time. Institutional churches, such as Catholic and Orthodox churches, Protestant mainline denominational churches, and non-denominational churches, will rise and fall, too.

Apostle Paul warns in Romans, "Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done." Romans 1:28

Because of corruption and apostasy, many churches (congregations) will experience schisms and scandals that will not leave "one stone upon another."Judgment starts in the "house of God" (the Church).

Even ancient Israel was split into two kingdoms, never to reconcile. As a result of continued unbelief (rejecting the Messiah), since 70 AD, biblical temple Judaism does not exists today.

"I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down." Gospel of Matthew 24:2

Even in Jeremiah 7:16, God commands Jeremiah not to pray for the people because of their widespread idolatry and rejection of God's covenant.

These biblical and historical examples serve as a reminder of the transient nature of even the most established institutions and the importance of faithfully dividing the WORD of TRUTH (Holy Scriptures) and adhering to the core biblical principles of the Christian faith - the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (SAVE BY GRACE...THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES)

Thank you, Gavin, for highlighting this conversation started by Reformed Zoomer and Trent Horn. It is most definitely an important topic for Christians, because it really underlines the biggest cause for division within the Body of Christ today. We need to talk, and pray, more about these issues.

So, with the above being said, I agree 100% with Reformed Zoomer (RZ), and I honestly think that "modern" Evangelicals are some of the biggest promoters of disunity within Christianity because their focus is not on Christianity but on their understanding of social values. Evangelicals, and so-called conservative Christians, are more concerned with issues like whether women can become leaders in the church, what the gays do in their bedrooms, and abortion amongst making sure to vote for Republicans. Sadly, to my Evangelical friends and brethren, Jesus didn't address ANY of those topics in the Gospels. All of those topics come from the interpretation of a mix-mosh of Old Testament and - albeit fewer - New Testament texts. None of those items I previously mentioned, that Evangelicals and so-called Conservative Christians create new churches for have anything to do with the CORE Gospel message. So what is the CORE Gospel message? The answer is simpler than we like to make it. In essence it is Belief in the need for redemption from sin, Faith that Christ became man, suffered, died, was buried, and rose again for the forgiveness of sins. If you have this faith - regardless of your social beliefs - you are part of the body of Christ. Everything else is just up for discussion.

Apart from belief, how should we act as Christians? The answer is simple as well, "We should love one an other as Christ has loved us." From my reading of the Gospels I don't recall Jesus excluding anyone from his fellowship. And the only harsh words he had for anyone was for the very CONSERVATIVE religious leaders of his day (i.e. the Pharisees who believed in complete inerrancy of their scriptures, and that all the Scriptures - minus the prophets and the writing - were received at once by Moses upon Mt. Sinai through simple dictation - sound familiar?).

So, does the passage in 2 Corinthians 6 talk about Christians need to split from one another based upon social values? Or is it's focus on whether someone professes Christ crucified for our sins, Christ risen from the dead, and Christ's eventual return in glory? I think it's clear the apostle is speaking of the latter.

Now, I know there will be a lot of people that think because I am socially more liberal than they are that someone like me, other liberals, all support lawlessness and an anything goes hedonistic morality. Let me tell you that such a presumption wold be grossly untrue. And while I agree that faith should inform morality, the two are not the same and one does not presuppose the other. And, to take it one step further, I would say that there are some actions that are both immoral and sinful (sin being defined here classically as an action which separates us from God and God's grace). However, there are actions that some may consider immoral, but are not sinful. Gays getting married, in itself, in a church is not sinful. I wouldn't even say it is immoral - but my point is that some people would say that it is. And my counter to that is, "Well, it's a matter of how one constructs their social values. We can disagree on that, but it doesn't reach the level of our Christianity." In other words...Do not Conflate social and moral discussions as Theological discussions. Again, there are intersects here, but morality and faith are not identical...And the Christian faith is far more concerned with one's faith in Christ and doing "good works" (defined as treating others as we ourselves would like to be treated - or how Christ treats us).

Evangelicalism, especially the modern manifestation of it, seems to care more about one's politics than their faith in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Let us continue to pray for one another, for ourselves, and for sufficient grace to work towards the fulfillment of our Lord's very own prayer in John 17:23.

Does 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 mean that if a bunch of people in Corinth believe the local church is not conservative enough in their interpretation of Christian morality, then Paul says, "yes, break away and start a new community"? That's simply absurd. The text here is talking about walking away from unbelievers, and at the time this was written it meant separating from Pagans and Pharisaical Jews. It didn't mean create the Free Bible Church of Corinth. Again, very clearly, it meant to separate from those who do not believe in Christ (i.e. UNBELIEVERS).

When will we learn that women ministers and married gays can be believers in Christ? People who listen to sermons from women ministers, receive prayer from women ministers and even receive sacraments from women ministers can also be believers. How does one get saved in Christianity - see Acts 16:29-34. It's not too complicated really. Also, notice there is no mention there of what else one must do. No mention of gays (and in a Roman household and garrison I'm sure that was happening) or mention of having to avoid women ministers.


What must Christians do, though, and how should a believer act? Mark 12:28-34, Matthew 22:34-40 and John 13:34-35 says it all. These are the commandments that Christians are obligated follow (again, no mention here of the Mosaic law or anything as specific as one would read on an Evangelical Church's website listed as their statement of faith). Everything else is commentary. For those who say it is more complicated that what the Scriptures teach, I refer you to Chapter 23 of Matthew's Gospel.

Wow what a great response

Amen, very helpful and important response, Gavin.

In the Bible, did Jesus want us to be one church?

Dr. Ortlund, in the beginning of the Reformation and still in Europe, the term "Evangelical" was used for Lutherans. I am interested in what you consider "heresy," "schism," and "orthodoxy."

The few times I’ve listened to RZ I get the impression that he’s majoring in the minors. 

Church architecture? Sure there are some gorgeous cathedrals in Europe. We’ve paid $7-8 per head for my family and friends to tour them and post pictures on European trips. That’s fine. But Zoomer needs to think more carefully about what these buildings really are. The money to build them came from different sources, most of them vile. In medieval times the catholic church was able to levy church taxes and fines because they had control of the civil courts. And for around the equivalent of $53 per person the faithful could line up and view a bone from a saint! Upon modern dna testing it turned out to be a pig bone. And for the low, low price of around $1200 a priest would say a mass for your deceased relative and spring them from purgatory. Now who wouldn’t do that for your poor mama?

My point is that these beautiful buildings are actually the physical manifestations of greed, deception, and extortion. Today they remain a source of arrogance and pride, especially among the “trads,” who are among the most arrogant of all voices on social media. Satan is not stupid; the fact that they are beautiful obscures their source, and causes us to overlook the vice of their very existence. I’m NOT saying the RCC is in itself satanic; I’m saying the RCC has long been a channel for Satan to manifest his vision into the world. He uses other churches as channels to manifest into the world too, but almost none more than the RCC. These buildings stand as testaments to greed, lies and deception. It can be complicated though, because these buildings served as models for later buildings that were funded in more ethical ways. Everyone, including evangelicals, loves a pretty building but buildings are themselves irrelevant. RZ maybe needs to internalize that truth.

And he thinks he shares a “high view of the sacraments” with catholics? RZ if you become catholic you’ll need to completely change what that “high view” is. For catholics the communion wafers are actually efficacious for salvation. Last I heard Presbyterians believe in salvation by faith. You may say that both the reformed church and the catholics have a high view of the sacraments, but they are not at all the SAME view. Open your eyes!

You said Jesus Christ never said thou shall attend an institutional church. He also never said thou shall split from the church if it gets taken over by liberals. Jesus promised that the gates of gell shall not prevail over His Church. There is only one Church and we are never to abandon it.

The problem with splitting off when you believe that thr authorities have gone against God is that it's all subjective. Who has the authority to say what is being done is heretical? You're making yourself you're own authority.
As far as the example with St. Peter and the Jewish authorities, at that point the Jewish authorities had no authority. It was the Apostles who were the authority.

I think it would be a good moment to introduce to your viewers the work of David Bercot. He wrote a book dealing with the relationship between the beliefs of evangelicals today and those of the pre-Nicene churches. Of course, since he perseveres in Christianity within an anabaptist tradition, it would be beneficial to have him of the channel some day! He is also a patristic scholar and the editor of the Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (which he edited while he was an anglican priest if I’m not mistaken).

Here's Fr Paul Trubenbach graciously explaining Orthodox view of Sola Scriptura. It seems very rational and also very spiritually connected to God, the Holy Spirit, the church and scripture. I would like to hear you respond to each of his points. Thank you , Gavin for all you do.

So what do I do as a former member of the United Methodist Church and current attendant of a global Methodist Church. We already tried to convince them to come back to the Bible and they refused

one of the greatest injustices committed by modern protestants is failing to recognize that many of the criticisms and condemnations directed at the anabaptists in the 16th century were actually aimed at the pacifist anabaptists — such as Menno Simons, Dirk Willems, and Jakob Hutter — particularly regarding their positions on:

the rejection of infant baptism (advocating believer’s baptism)

the separation of church and state

the refusal to participate in government, hold public office, or bear the sword, following the principle of non-resistance

the radical ethics based on the sermon on the mount — such as not swearing oaths, not resisting evil, and loving one’s enemies — which also included refusing military service. This last point was extremely sensitive for both Catholic and Protestant churches in a time of growing political and military tensions, since mass conversions to Anabaptism could lead to a shortage of soldiers, thereby weakening their respective states

Luther called himself an evangelical.

He would not say to go to the liberal first pres. He would say that most are not like first pres and thats why its cowardly to flee when theres just a little bit of liberalism. Like when the GMC left the UMC despite winning the vote to retain theological Orthodoxy.

Separation of church and state is a myth. It's not in the constitution or the bill of rights. It was invented by renegade judges in the early 1900s.

As someone who grew up anabaptist I can tell you that there are evangelical anabaptists, liberal anabaptists, and fundamentalist anabaptists. Christianity in America is defined as anabaptist. Their theology as worked its way into the broader culture. However, today I attend a mainline church and I thank God He called me there. And Gavin, separation has yielded over 30,000 denominations/independent churches. I am glad to be out of that division.

Great comments, but as a pulse on how the word 'evangelical' is commonly used today, listen to the most recent episode of Christianity Today's The bulletin, "Habeas Corpus ...Nicene creed" minute mark 34. There, evangelical is used closer to redeemed zoomer than Gavin, as desirable as Gavin's definition is, usage determines meaning.

Evangelicals have been incredibly successful at winning souls . John Wesley and the methodists utterly transformed England where millions of souls, especially amongst ordinary low income people, experienced salvation. This then carried over to America and the rest of the British empire. Later the campaigns of Torrey and Moody and Graham reached millions and millions of People. Pentecostal churches are numerous throughout the world and although there are some excesses especially amongst "Word of Faith" churches , most of them contain serious, saved people. So do many others churches like Calvary Chapel . There are those churches where they have priests outside of " the priesthood of all believers "who dress up in old testament gowns and are bogged down in dreary liturgical ceremonies, where The Holy Spirit leaves after 5 minutes or just leaves the church to stay sleeping. What is required is the strong presence of The Holy Spirit . It has to be said that you can have a Pentecostal church which is very modern with much dancing etc where the Holy Spirit leaves after 5 minutes especially where the worship is all about themselves and is too irreverent. I have listened to Redeemed Zoomer and wish him well and he has his own reformed perspective. I feel sorry for some of those growing up in reformed churches because they often have twisted perspectives.

We have so much more in common than what is dividing us.

Mr Ortlund, I believe it is a mistake to look solely at what Calvin or Luther said about the Anabaptists, without looking at what the Anabaptists taught in their own words. Read Balthasar Hubmaier. He very plainly was in support of government and even said they should be Christian. The Anabaptists took issue with the violent nature of the Reformation.

I thing Redeemed Zoomer as a person without kids doesn't understand the dangers of raising your kids in a church that believes what the liberal mainline does, if you are a parent you can't fight to retake the church and male sure they don't indoctrinate your kids in the kids ministry. His movement should be for young childless Christians that can fight.

It is in discussions like these where we see the wisdom, power, conciliarity and the work of the Holy Spirit through the Ecumenical Councils. The example of the Arians in this video is a good one: the Church was nearly conquered by the Arian heresy, and even when this was the case and when it seemed that Arius would foist his lies on the Church, the Holy Spirit worked through the bishops, priests, deacons and lay people who met in Nicea in 325 AD, heeding the call of St Constantine the Great, and the truth was revealed and recognized. While Arianism continued to exist after this First Ecumenical Council, it was this assembly that ultimately defeated the Arian heretics, who have for all intents and purposes disappeared from the world, leaving behind only modern attempts at resurrecting their long-rejected lies. Without a Hierarchy working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, there is no way to accurately address heresy as a whole within the Church. RZ has the right notion: attempt to reassert the truth in the midst of those who are being taught (or teaching) heresy and lies. But how can you do this without apostolic succession, without bishops and a proper hierarchy and without Church order that is able to "rightly divide" what is true and what is false? All you end up is with endless schism.

Do you have a video on why you agree with separation of church and state?

It seems like there’s so much valuable conversation and debate that can be had, I wish the institutions would take inspiration for the Laity and engage one another in discussion , I pray the pope will call a council with the denominations and the Catholic Church

The American Evangelical church is on trial and has been found wanting 😊

We need to remember that not too long ago, Evangelicalism dominated the American conservative culture for decades. It's only relatively recently that they've lost their hold on America, thanks primarily to the New Atheists. The resurgence of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy has only happened in the last 10-odd years, so it could be just a temporary trend that will rise and fall, or maybe it's here to stay, and it was Evangelicalism that was just the fad. My point is that there's a lot of cultural pressure in right-wing circles to join a non-protestant Christian denomination, and I'm pretty sure that means that we've got a lot of people joining those groups that are only doing it for optics and community, not necessarily true conviction and belief. Then again, the same was probably true about Evangelicals in the '80s, '90s, and 2000s. All that to say, I still respect people like Redeemed Zoomer who are trying to make mainline denominations more conservative so that people who don't want to become Catholic/Orthodox will still have the option for a traditional, non-modernist church environment.

P.S. I think one of the primary issues with Evangelicalism is the hyper-contemporary environment and "worship" services that make the church into a glorified country club with cringeworthy concerts. This, along with the increasingly anti-intellectual attitude among many Evangelicals, is the primary reason the Evangelical movement is bleeding members so badly.

Gavin is right. Institutionalism with its promises of security and stability has a lot of appeals specifically to RZ's demographic: Young and smart recent converts. And RZ has a lot of smarts regarding historical protestantism and theology in general, but he's been captivated by institutionalism and is naive to the real-world effects of apostsy.

influencers and celebrity pastors are the problem. imagine a world were we cared about the neighborhoods around us as much as we cared about money made on social media.

As always, let’s keep our comments honorable and focused on arguments not ad hominem. Thanks for engaging everyone.