What I’ve Learned from Dead Guys (Podcast Interview)

What I’ve Learned from Dead Guys (Podcast Interview) August 16, 2017

Podcast Cover

My new friend, Ryan Cagle invited me to come on his podcast, Lessons from Dead Guys, to chat about my journey from Answers in Genesis and Calvinistic fundamentalism to the progressive Anabaptist space I currently inhabit.

Along the way, we talked about Christian views on hell, non-violence, inerrancy, and church structure; Eastern Orthodoxy and theosis; C.S. Lewis, St. Athanasius, and George MacDonald (the dead guys I’ve learned so much from); some still-living guys I’ve learned from, like Brad Jersak and Brian Zahnd; and much more.

I had a blast on the show, and I think you’ll enjoy listening. Thanks so much, Ryan, for having me on!

"My philosophy in doing the Mirror Bible is reflected in the following example:I do not ..."

Mirror Bible by Francois du Toit ..."
"Thank God for the simplicity of the Gospel!When I first began to discover the dimensions ..."

Mirror Bible by Francois du Toit ..."
"Not too far from where I stand on the matter. I call God the Father ..."

On the Gender of God & ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Scooter

    Just caught the program-very interesting and thought-provoking. The discussion left me with some questions however. For example Ryan mentioned his inability to imagine eternal conscious torment in hell. But can we likewise imagine eternal heavenly bliss? Also, I didn’t hear any word on the necessary attribute of the justice of God which has to included with the love of God or else love becomes a diminished attribute of God. I was also wondering about your comment about the “contradictions” in the Bible? I had a Muslim student some years ago hand me a pamphlet titled “101 Contradictions in the Bible” I went through them all and found none to be legitimate. I’m also wondering what you mean by having a high view of scripture but seeing error in them? Is this “high view” then not the highest view? Would the highest view become your personal interpretation of the scriptures? if so, I would suggest that there is much room for your personal error and this would be very dangerous as many liberals have gone this route.