Dealing with Orthodoxy, Justification, and exegesis of James
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июл 2024
- In this edition of the program today starting off with a discussion of Hank Hanegraaff's video in response to John MacArthur leading to a lengthy (though somewhat concise) exegesis of James 2;14-24.
All production and credit belongs to Alpha and Omega Ministries
If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/
I’ve always been taught that our works are not the _means_ by which we are saved (which would be a works-based salvation). We are saved by faith, but our works are the _evidence_ of our faith. Through His grace God gives us faith, and our response is a life of works motivated by our love and gratitude for the God who gave us our faith because of His grace.
24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. Justified people stand upright (righteous) and walk the just path with their cross.
Very interesting, please do upload more videos!
Glad I seen this video I was thinking of asking you to speak on James 2
This has been helpful beyond words; clearing up the massive confusion about over the means by which I am saved. Clearing up James 2 verse 2 (having been a reference to the previously mentioned faith), and textual meaning of James 2 verse 24 (text says empty faith, NOT “only” faith) is clearly what I needed addressed, and he did so very clearly. James 2 can be very dangerous when read incorrectly.
Really liked james white’s honest insight to this. Also liked the exegesis
Hi hector
@@calebmarquez7295 hey brother!!!
Considering J.Mac quote, that was a in a middle of a regular sermon, there is this sermon recorded somewhere on GTY channel.
Good teaching
“The just shall live by their faith” Habakkuk 2:4
Amen! I love your explanation of James and Paul.
Is practical sanctification guaranteed?
BY grace alone, THROUGH faith alone. Prepositions matter. Spurgeon does a lovely job explaining the gift of grace through faith.
Dr White you need to teach us westerners on orthodox understanding so as to be not enemoured by them when they say things consistant with evangelical understanding.
Agreed. Evangelicals are woefully unprepared to answer the orthodox claims. Most are woefully unprepared to even respond to the catholic claims
It's easy to understand if you turn it into an equation. Regarder la....
1)Saving faith=salvation=good works ✔️
VS
2)faith+works=salvation❌️
00:10:25: "Hank gives the standard, Reformed answer: Faith alone saves, but saving faith is never alone. But that's not a meaningful response within Eastern Orthodoxy..."
100% true. When I was an Orthodox catechumen, I spent 2 years working with two different priests to understand Orthodoxy. I literally asked both priests the following question: "What is the difference between saying we're justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone -- and the Orthodox view that we're simply 'justified by faith and works' full stop? Because they sound exactly the same to me?"
One priest (Romanian Orthodox) said a lot of stuff that was probably more symbolic and metaphorical (the Orthodox stay in right-brained, narrative, symbolic thinking) He finally came to: "We just don't say it that way because 'justification' for us isn't primarily a legal or forensic decree to begin with.'
So, Dr. White is right: Our Reformed "faith alone saves but saving faith is never alone" explanation does not work for Orthodox Christians.
Other Orthodox thinkers, like Fr. John Whiteford, are a bit more nuanced. I've heard him say that faith and works are never separated. i.e., for the Orthodox, if there is just faith sitting on the couch doing nothing, then you really don't have 'faith' at that moment, because there is no work.
Another way to put it, 'faith' in Greek is 'pistis'. The Orthodox are more tied to the original languages perhaps than we are. Words in Koine Greek ending in "-is" often connote an ongoing process, not a one time event. So, for the ODX, 'faith' is really conceived more like 'faithfulness' -- a state that can only be established by demonstrations, over and over, across a span time. Well, are you being faithful if you're not doing anything? So, they aren't works based in the sense that they believe that works earn or merit salvation. But they are works based in the sense that the energeia of faith is contained in the ergon of works (of love). You'll find a lot of busyness in Orthodox churches. They are ALWAYS doing something, planning a festival, having a liturgy, a matins, an extra service here, there, gatherings, food prep. So much so that a buddy of mine calls the Orthodox Church a "Martha Church." All that work contains faith, for them. Doctrine is subordinate. Pray. Fast. Give alms, Worship, as often as you can, for the Orthodox, because those ergon contain the pistis.
For the ODX, it's more like: the works _contain_ the faith. This makes more sense when you realize that for the ODX, faith (and all the 'theological virtues') are actually energies of God. So, for the Orthodox who have thought through this a bit more. They don't like Sola Fide because to them, the work is where the faith is located. When they do anything towards God in the body, they see that as -God already energizing me and moving me within (synergeia, co-laboring).
Yeah, it's deep. Complicated. I found myself wondering often: "Where did the simplicity of the Gospel go?"
The second priest (Antiochian) said, "We don't believe in justification by faith alone because we don't believe in 'once saved always saved'."
Huh?
What you find as you go on in Orthodoxy, is that they really don't do theology. Prayer is theology. Also, the ODX prefer to say less and be true. "We're justified by faith and works and not by faith alone because that's what St. James said and we're not going to actually question or worry that St. James and St. Paul seem to be contradicting each other on our view because we employ dialetheistic/paraconsistent logics whenever we need to."
I was once (briefly) an Eastern Orthodox catechumen also-which church did you end up landing in?
If the faith that saves is never alone, then faith alone does not save, bc if the faith is alone, it is not that faith that saves.
We Orthodox do have dogmas, namely the decrees of the Seven Holy and Ecumenical Councils, but what this MacArthur guy was citing is in no way dogma; in fact, most of what he cites comes from a time when the Eastern Bishops were trying to wrap their heads around the theological questions of the west that were brought up through the reformation and relied on a philosophical and theological framework dating from the time of Anselm and Aquinas (namely Scholasticism and Aristotelianism) that was (and, to a large degree still is) utterly foreign to us. It's not the scriptures that we've ever had a problem with, it's the philosophical framework the west uses to interpret scripture, which would have been equally foreign to the United Church of the first millennium. If you look at what is said through the Patristic framework, it makes sense; but it will make far less sense when viewed through the lens of Scholasticism.
I still can't wrap my head around how Protestants can believe both Sola Gratia and Sola Fides at the same time, they are mutually exclusive propositions; we Orthodox would accept the former but would find the latter to contradict the former. If you are saved by grace alone, how can you also be saved by faith? If you are saved by faith alone, how can you also be saved by grace? That simply contradicts the plain meaning of the world 'sola' or 'alone/only'. If you're saved by both grace and faith, you're are saved neither by faith alone nor by grace alone, but by both faith and grace. Now, one can say as the Scriptures do and as we would agree, that one is saved by grace through faith, but we're still only being saved by grace, not by faith, faith is merely the vehicle of salvation, not the source of salvation, grace, which we would view as an uncreated energy (i.e. 'action') of God, is the source of salvation. Salvation is a gift from God, freely given, it is the participation in his Divine Nature through the hypostatic union of the human and Divine natures through the Divine Person of Jesus Christ; there is nothing I need or, indeed, even can do to effect this hypostatic union, to effect this grace, Christ did this for us already and it is the only path to salvation, for as it is written the only way to the Father is through the Son.
I do agree that Hank Hanegraaff's explanation is a bit unsatisfying from an Orthodox perspective, it tries to use western, Scholastic categories and, thus, misses out on a lot of the nuance of the faith; but, at least from my understanding of those scholastic categories, he's not entirely wrong in what he said IN THAT CONTEXT. The bigger problem is that we don't see such a clear dividing line between faith and works, as this video mentioned Faith is a gift of God, but so are good works, we cannot do good works on our own any more than we can have faith on our own, both must come from God, both are operative examples of Divine Grace. For as Paul also said, 'For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.' Faith and Good works are just forms of Grace given to us by God (and I'm not even sure they are different forms of Grace), just as understanding and knowledge of divine things or love or mercy or the Holy Mysteries or prophecy are likewise forms of Divine Grace (which is simply those Divine Energies or Actions that work towards our salvation). There is no contradiction between James and Paul, they're saying the exact same thing; this Scholastic need to divide, separate, rank, and even set against each other the Grace of God according to the forms in which we receive it is baffling.
In any case, I think this was at least a fair attempt to portray the Orthodox position, I do not detect any guile or deceit, but I think the speaker's understanding of the Patristic framework is even more lacking than my understanding of the Scholastic framework he is employing and so we continue to speak past each other.
Thank you!
Thank you for your response. As a Protestant, I would like to provide an explanation for believing in Sola Gratia and Sola Fide at the same time. Scripture explains to us that faith itself is a gracious gift from God that we actually are unable to perform ourselves. Yes, we actively have that faith, but our ability to even respond in faith is a gift from God. Ephesians 2:8-9 actually also refers to faith as well being the gift of God, so that no one may boast. You are probably thinking of the popular concept of decision theology that is found in popular evangelicalism, where they have "altar calls", asking people to make a "decision for Jesus."
And I absolutely agree with what you are saying about our good works actually being God's works. The distinction we are making however, is that these good works which God prepared for us to walk in from before the foundation of the world in no way justify us before God. If they did justify us, then we would all be in deep trouble, since James also says in verse 10 of chapter 2 "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point becomes guilty of all of it." None of us can honestly say at the moment of our death, "I have perfectly kept the law." James is saying that there are two different kinds of "faiths." There is dead intellectual belief that demons have, and we say in answer to his question "can THAT faith save?" that absolutely NO it cannot save. James is distinguishing just paying lip service to having faith is not what saves. He is in absolute agreement with Paul that true SAVING faith ALWAYS is accompanied by works. In such a way as faith is proven to be real by our works. Hopefully this clarifies things, and God bless!
@@bethanyann1060 I think you and I at least are on the same page as to the fundamentals, if not the terminology. The consensus seems to be that it is only by the Grace of God that we are saved and not by any thought or word or deed of man and I would agree with that. But I'm still a bit confused as to why the emphasis in Protestantism is on faith vs. works as opposed to the Operations and Energies of God vs. the operations and energies of man?
In Orthodoxy we never had the faith vs. works debate but we had a very extensive debate on the Divine Energies vs. human energies and the relation of these Energies to the Essence, in fact this was the focus of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and the interpretation and understanding of that council remained a central issue through the 15th century and the Palamite controversy. It remains the biggest theological disagreement between the Orthodox and Catholics to this very day.
The Catholics do not distinguish between the Divine Energies and Essence, so they do not believe we can participate in Divine Grace because we cannot directly participate in the Divine Essence. This has led them to believe that the grace we experience is itself created and thus that grace is just like faith or works or any other 'good thing', a created blessing. And this has led them to deemphasize the role of Grace as something unique.
It seems to me that it is this very heresy of Rome that the likes of Luther (and Hus and Wycliffe, etc.) were seeking to overthrow, to emphasize that there is something Divine and uncreated in Grace. That Grace plays a unique role not only in our salvation but in the world itself. And this is good, these teachings of Rome were and are heretical, they were condemned in AD 681 at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, so I am not entirely unsympathetic to their plight. Clearly they were using the philosophical categories that were popular at the time to articulate their position, but I still don't fully understand why these particular philosophical categories were chosen.
Costa Keith Yeah I gotta admit that I am very ignorant on Eastern Church philosophy. And I definitely have it on my to-do list to go over the first seven councils of the church, and now you’ve made me especially curious to look over the sixth one. It really is fascinating, albeit in a sad way, how the Great Schism caused such a divergence in our ways of thinking. What little I have seen and read about the Eastern Church, I honestly have to say that I also don’t see that much disagreement between the East and Protestants, compared to our disagreements with Rome. The major issue that I have seen in the Eastern Church is that there is so little emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the crucifixion of Christ. Y’all might say it’s because you aren’t as influenced by Anselm, but I believe the Bible teaches this very clearly. But that isn’t to exclude the Christus Victor concept of the atonement either (or ransom theory for that matter), which from my understanding is a major focus of the Eastern Church. I would also like to add that I am a confessional Lutheran, so as an added bonus I am happy to admit that I also don’t see much of a disagreement between the Eastern and the Lutheran concept of the Eucharist. Body and blood are truly physically present, but we do not use the Aristotelian concept of transubstantiation to explain it, therefore we also confess that the bread and wine also remain.
@@bethanyann1060 It's very much fair to say we have different areas of emphasis, it might even be fair to go far as to say we emphasize the incarnation over the crucifixion as the seminal event in the history of our salvation, which is often the source of confusion in both directions. But that doesn't mean that all the other aspects aren't true and valid, just look at the plethora of examples in the Old Testament that prefigure Christ, from kings to prophets to a city to the angels, some of great standing and some lowly, and yet they all point to Christ.
Since you bring up Anselm in particular, I will say that most Orthodox probably do take some issue with the notion of penal substitution, though not with the idea of Crucifixion as a sacrifice. The Crucifixion was a sacrifice and this is very much emphasized in the theology of the Eucharist. However, I think Anselm misunderstood what sacrifice in the Old Testament, of which Christ's sacrifice was a fulfillment, fundamentally was. Sacrifice was not the animal taking the punishment for sins that was due to the one offering the sacrifice. Rather it was placing one's sins upon the animal and destroying ones sins though the act of sacrifice; in other words, it was medicinal, not juridical, it was to destroy the sins themselves so you can be free from them and continue to grow closer to God, not to merely escape punishment for them.
And, likewise, in Isaiah 53 where the prophet was directly talking about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, but as has long been regarded as a prefiguring of Christ. There the prophet said, 'Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.' God did not destroy Jerusalem to punish Israel, but to destroy the sins of Israel so that she again could come close to God.
But, of course, it was all for naught, bulls and goats cannot take upon themselves the sins of the men. And even if Jerusalem could take upon itself the sins of Israel, it was but a temporary solution for a time. This is why the psalmist famously said 'For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.' And later the Apostle made clear 'For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.'
But Christ, through the incarnation, took on human nature itself, something goats and bulls could never do; He, in actuality, could take the world while remaining innocent of them. Thus, his death could be a death without any form of punishment involved, a true sacrifice. And He did take upon Himself the sins of the world and through his death sin (and death itself, which is the consequence of sin) was destroyed.
Sorry, I didn't think I'd go on nearly so long when I started writing this out, but I hope this to some extent explains why we tend to steer away from this issue in general. There's simply too much historical baggage that takes paragraphs to explain away, so most don't bother. Our disagreement, not with the Crucifixion as a sacrifice, this we accept, but with the doctrine of penal substitution is very subtle. It has to do with Christ actually destroying sin itself rather than merely taking upon Himself the responsibility for and consequences of our sins. In the end it leads to the same conclusion, that we are forgiven our sins. But at the same time, there's a big difference between saying we are not judged for our sins because we have no sins, for Christ has destroyed them, one one hand; and, on the other hand, saying we are not judged for our sins because God has accepted the punishment of an innocent man in lieu of the punishment of the guilty, which would be profoundly unjust.
So in short: You are saved by Faith alone, but the evidence of faith is works?
This is the most common Protestant view.
Yes but the works don’t earn salvation. You do good works because you are saved! See the difference? A new person with a new heart with new desires! Old things have passed away behold all things are new! If however I was not transformed- born again, and I was doing good works for favors from God this is filthy in the eyes of God. This is because nothing you do is good and it comes from a corrupt nature. You are unholy and everything you do comes from evil motives no matter how sincere you are! The most important thing is to get right with God! Repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ!
In short there are 2 types of faith, both use the same word "faith" and one of them is bullshit
Understand the difference between being justified by MEN who only sees our external actions, and being justified by GOD who can see our heart and intention.
Then you can compare James 2 to Romans 4.
Romans Chapter 4
:2-5:
"For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."
@@dubbelkastrull Seems to me that 2:14 is a problem for the harmonization approach presented in your comment.
"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? *can faith save him?"*
Do you maintain there being some external component to this "justification by MEN" that involves salvation? In what sense? Or, how does the view you are positing deal with verse 14?
James I believe the orthodox understanding of works and faith is that faith alone saves and is accompanied by works as evidence for the faith and if you claim faith but have no works then you must not have faith. I believe no matter how little your works are if you can see changes in your behavior, and doing things because you feel the spirit of Christ. You got the Holy Spirit in you. As you gain faith in Jesus Christ you become more and more like Jesus Christ. The perfect man on Earth is who we ought to emulate even if it is unattainable, it’s what he would want evident by his teachings. Faith alone saves because if you didn’t truly believe then why would you continue to do wrong? I do wrong and believe in Jesus, but great guilt comes upon me when I do and I beg for mercy. His mercy is infinite. Sometimes I stop and say, why am I begging for mercy? He has died for me, and as long as I recognize this and strive for holiness then I know I will be saved because his mercy is righteous to the unworthy. I would think that those who die sinning without remorse will see the pit. Do not forsake the Lord’s mercy for The Lord has reserved his wrath for those very people. I love you all. Christ has saved me.
A better description, in my understanding, is that the works are a consequence of our faith in Christ. Good works are righteousness, but since they are a consequence of the Spirit's conforming me the believer into Christ's image, they do not exactly constitute *my* righteousness but Christ's righteousness effected through me.
This is Theosis, 'becoming God.' Not that you yourself become 'a God,' but by submitting your own will to do as the Holy Spirit requires us through Christ's commandments, we ourselves by the means of our good works, become the instruments through which God works in the world.
It's like, "Yes, it is I who am doing these good things in the world, but it's not like it's my idea. It's a consequence of my faith in Christ. And Christ, at the final judgment, will look for them as a prerequisite for justification."
(Which I know, the Reformed doctrine around Justification requires a very poor misreading of Romans 4. Can go into all that if you'd like, but it's wordy.)
@@DevinMork I agree. Jesus Christ commanded us to do The Father’s will and it would just be hypocritical to not follow the moral law. I think that it’s important to recognize that it’s more about abstaining from doing bad rather than doing works which are righteous. I would consider it a righteous work perhaps in its self to abstain from evil. Which could just be considered an act of repentance. Which Jesus commands we do of course.
do you know what the doctrine of regeneration is? and to say that works justify us in ANY way or portion is false, our works are like filthy rags and contribute nothing to our salvation
you don't seem to understand the difference between someone who believed and someone who is believing
James 2 literally answers your questions, faith that doesn't produce works is a dead faith, it will not save
True faith produces works
That true faith ALONE saves, it is because of salvation by TRUE faith that we do works
The "works" beyond Biblical works which are the fruit of living faith, added are those of the 7th Ecumenical Council, called Nicea 2. In that anyone who will not affectionately "venerate" icons is annually ritually anathematized, long with all other Christians. And hen there are the prayers to and for the dead, etc. You have to allow yourself to be talked into a lot of things to become either R Catholic or E Orthodox. The Catholics and the Orthodox were still one church at that point (8th, 0th century) until roughly 1054 when the "Great Schism" occured over the Filioque. The councils are binding on both. One hot mess. IMO.
The problem with james is most people do not understand That the subject is different than that of Paul. James subject is not eternal salvation. It is talking about temporal salvation Of our physical lives. That is the subject of the whole book of james.
Can’t cherry pick scripture and take it out of context. To say our works justify us before God contradicts Paul’s teachings, specifically Romans 4. The Bible doesn’t contradict itself, so obviously this interpretation is incorrect. I think most people who believe this works justification do not really read the Bible. Look at the time difference in the different chapters of Genesis Paul uses vs James. Paul talks about the saving faith of Abraham when he believed in God and it was counted to him as righteousness. James is addressing this saving faith in Abraham’s life YEARS later. Where this saving faith was justified, the second meaning of the Greek word he uses means evidence, when he offers his son. Again, we cannot cherry pick to fit scripture into our own image of God. Put the James verse back into the context of his letter, and see the question he is literally addressing, which is how can a man, who claims to have saving faith, be justified before MEN? James is addressing the very real and applicable situation where there will be people proclaiming to be Christians, but there are no good fruits to see. No works that justify their claim of saving faith. Paul’s’s question he is addressing in Romans 4, is how can an unjust man stand before a just and holy God?
Or perhaps the works James and Paul are speaking of aren’t the same. Paul seemed to be speaking of works of the law, Jewish rites and ceremonies. Whereas James seems to be speaking about good deeds and charitable action. They could be speaking of works in a different sense.
James is a crank. I got no time for that.
E. Orthodox is high ritual. That can appeal to silent prayer. Its true they generally do not encourage people to study.
Study is not DIScouraged, but your prayer life is given much more emphasis. Reading theological books or Holy Scripture will not help you if you are not praying and living out the faith.
24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. This is the PROCESS of justification.
12:45 inner gaia
14:45 eo better than catholicism in his view
17:01 jms 2 breakdown; pericape
Since James (the author of the book) brings up demons' belief, isn't his main point that a simple, mere belief that Jesus exists and is God's Son futile? Because a demon doesn't have a belief that is combined with a trust and love in Christ. They merely believe- which is far different than an authentic faith; and is a belief that many people have, thinking it will save them because they heard John 3:16 once at a football game. "All I have to do is hold a belief" is their thinking- a simple belief like that of demons that book of James is addressing.
I’ve been Orthodox for 10 years now and it was never controversial until an Evangelical rock star converts.
Hopefully, after these videos, you can now see why it’s controversial.
Human beings everywhere are controlled by status
@@KristiLEvans1😂
@@KristiLEvans1 these videos don’t show why it’s controversial. They just show false dialectics, misrepresentations of the orthodox faith, and improper exegesis of scripture.
@@rossoliver4198 ah… yes, we disagree. Justification is not faith +. Any other exegetical conclusion that WE can add to Christ’s work, is false.
“Decree 13 of their dogma” 🤣
He's referencing canon 13 of the synod/council of Jerusalem from 1672.
He phrased it a bit odd but he is correct that that council is normative and binding on the eastern orthodox.
The origin of that council is actually because the patriarch (Cyril Lucaris) of Constantinople at the time was a Calvinist. He was sending clergy to reformed seminaries to be educated, he had years of correspondence with reformers, he wrote a confession of faith that was overtly Calvinist and he gifted the priceless, irreplaceable Codex Alexandrinus to King Charles 1, which is now in the British Library in London.
That man rediscovered the Gospel because of the reformers and his church buried him alive for it.
@@FTWbiology this notion of having to rediscover the Gospel, which is the universal Protestant predicate, is nothing short of a statement about the reformer’s disbelief in Christ’s promise of the Holy Spirit to lead the church into all truth, and that the gates of hades would not prevail. If this “blackout” theory isn’t a blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, I don’t know what is.
@@LightOfAllMankind It is not blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The gates of Hades have not prevailed against Christ’s church. However, that does not mean that there were still not times of trial and darkness.
@@gch8810 I agree, the Apostles, and later the Church, were told that there would be persecutions, false teachers, and in-fighting. Heresies served a purpose in a good way; it provoked responses (the patristic witness and the councils) out of the Church as seen in her history, in order to clarify the faith, to tell Christ’s sheep what lanes to stay in and which lanes not to venture off to. Like for example the infallibility of one man, ie the Pope, Christianity’s first Protestant, an office of individuals who would go on to dogmatize one heresy after another. Out of this aberrant branch, would sprout many more in the 16th century. So in conclusion the whole entire church was not lost or fallen, it became such for Rome and later Protestantism, however.
I have noticed a common theme in the comments. And that is ppl asking questions and naking claims that were directly answered in the video lol. It's as if they didn't even bother watching 😂.
The mistake in the western view is an oversimplification of the term "justification." A building that has been justified has its walls standing up straight. A cart whose wheels have been justified rolls straight on the road. A just man stands upright (righteous) and walks the straight path. It is his nature...it is the nature of justification. The west only retains the legalistic sense of the term justification which means to be "straight" with the law, or the court. The court system is analogous to God's system. Justification in court is in the image of God's justification which is complete restoration of human nature. God's justice is not in the image of human court systems. God's justice is the archetype as as usual, the west sees fundamental reality as being in the image of earthly things, and sees the reality of the Church as merely symbolic (the Eucharist symbolizes the last supper for them instead of the Eucharist being the highest level of reality). They put God into human terms instead of seeing human terms in their relationship to God's archetypes. Justification is a complete transformation, not a statement of legal status. You can be set up straight, and put on the straight path, but if you sit down, or stand still or walk off the path you are not upright, nor on the straight (just) path. Justification is standing upright (righteousness) and walking the just path.
In Orthodoxy, Christ's death and resurrection created a Passover from death back to life for mortal flesh. He shared our human condition (took out place) died (took the place that we were bound to) went to the place of the dead (the place which was OUR place bound by fallen human nature caused by sin, not punishment FOR sin). Descending into Hades through the cross, that He might fill all things with Himself, He loosed the bonds of death. He rose on the third day, having opened a path for all flesh to the resurrection from the dead, since it was not possible that the Author of life would be dominated by corruption. So He became the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep, the first born of the dead, that He might be Himself the first in all things. He took our place as an incarnate human, but he didn't replace us, he made a Passover for FLESH by becoming flesh. IT is the true Passover that the Passover of old prefigured. Being human, he went to death, but being divine he connected death to life, and restored human nature to enable the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Do Orthodox pray to Mary like the Catholics? All I know is that I have one Advocate with the Father.
Yes, they do venerate and pray to Mary.
We honor the mother of Christ and ask her to pray for us, like we would any love Christian on earth
We do not pray to her. We pray to God. We ask the panagia (mother of god) for her intercession. That’s different.
@Phil Andrew I think you’ve mistaken veneration and asking for intercession with praying.
@Phil Andrew That might be true but I think there’s a danger in mixing terminologies nowadays since for orthodox it was always clear that only god is the one we worship and the saints who are in the state of theosis are still not god and that we only ask them for their intercession while they receive our veneration. I don’t know how people perceived the word prayer in the past but to me it sounds like something reserved for god Only. The Protestant mindset is confusing to me, to be honest, since most of them don’t believe in sainthood.
Orthodoxy is the true church. Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me a sinner. Faith working through love in no way gives us ability to boast. Gods Grace is the independent variable by which our works are made possible. Works of the law of the Jews avail nothing, but works through Christ do!
Amen
Why can't it just be *A* true church? Why so factious even towards your own brothers? You may want to read 1 Corinthians 3.
@@EricBryant there is no such thing as a truth only the truth. Protestants have no standard to judge what views are heretical and which ones are just errors except for speculation. Are Mormons and Jehovah’s witnesses your “brothers”?
He's making the doctrines of Calvin his starting point and influence of his "exegesis" aka eisegesis
No, he's making the doctrines of the Apostles his starting point
“What good is it brothers…..”
@@TheBluntNinjaThe apostles did not believe in saved by faith alone. Everyone in the early church accepted baptismal regeneration.
Could it be that justification here has been confused with sanctification. Even Eastern Orthodox believers understand that salvation, (justification),is by grace alone. But it is grace alone THROUGH FAITH. Not faith ALONE because James clearly says that we are not saved by faith alone, (James 2:24). But then again, it does use the word, "justified" in the ESV and KJV. Our ultimate salvation is Christ and Christ alone, (I am wrestling with Orthodox theology, but studied reformed theology for a long time- I am trying to understand EO theology). From what I understand so far, the Eastern Fathers hold less to a judicial view of salvation and more to the gospel doing a progressive healing of our terminal sinful condition, rather than sin being a judicial satisfaction view. I can see both but it is hard for me to reconcile the two from my head and my heart to trying to convey it with speech or words. But again, the Orthodox hold a view of progressive theosis which is similar to sanctification but it is a take of salvation as to say that we cannot be prideful with our salvation but hold tight to the fact that we are saved sinners who are being cured from sin.
Josh Alicea yea I’m going through the same thing right now wrestling in my mind about these issues. I’m also well studied in reformed theology, but I’ve been studying Eastern Orthodox view on salvation lately. Your right it seems like the judicial view of salvation wasn’t much held by the early church/Eastern fathers until the reformation. And that’s where the struggle comes in
Josh Alicea my homie put me on to this collection of all the writings of the early church fathers, I’m gonna get studied up and see for myself, pray for me in my research and I’ll pray for you too.
Don’t just believe what people say about the church fathers, read the primary sources of the church fathers(especially the apostolic fathers)for yourself, and see what they actually said. God bless
@@ReformedMunk agreed. I started with Ignatius of Antioch and then went on to Polycarp. I still need to read Irenaeus. There is still more. But just by reading Ignatious, it was enough to spark my journey. Christian's from back then just did not have the same view that we have today. They saw the necessity for our thoughts and words and actions to be United in Truth. I come from a non-denominational church that keeps it very bland. I love my Pastor and everyone there but there is a limit that they are willing to go regarding deeper matters. That's where Orthodoxy came in. Something more genuine seems to be there.
How has the journey been?
@@redroses9053 at a stand still at the moment
So an unauthentic faith.
Watch Josiah Trenham, M.Div. He also studied at Reformed Theological Seminary, used to be a pure Calvinist who converted to Orthodoxy, I recommend reading Rock and Sand
Definitely a recommendation!!
Orthodox go to hell,they are preaching fake gospel,gospel of eucharist,man made tradition,gospel of baptism,gospel of pagan mother God rome
@@ManlyServant What a joke, a "Christian" telling another Christian to goto hell. The Orthodox church was founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles who who gave us the bible. Baptism and the eucharist were all biblical practices performed by the apostles, not man made traditions. Orthodox church originated from the East, not from Rome (West). You are ignorant and uneducated. You are the fake believer, you have no church, go worship calvin, he is your God
Amen
@@ManlyServant no, Rome is not the predecessor. Most of Rome's ideas and ideals came after the schism. I recommend you not say people like Peter, Paul and even before and after are going to hell.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
II Thessalonians 2:15 NKJV
James 2:24 doesn’t that go against sola fide?
Minute 41:00 discussed it. Most of the video is an exegesis of the chapter. Enjoy 🙂
Understand the difference between being justified by MEN who only sees our external actions, and being justified by GOD who can see our heart and intention.
Then you can compare James 2 to Romans 4.
Romans Chapter 4
:2-5:
"For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."
As an orthodox christian attending the non-denominational church, I believe that you need faith to be saved, but a faith that is alive, --> that is a true saving faith; a faith that produces good works. As Christians, we already have faith and we were created FOR good works as per Ephesians 2:10, It is not the works that saves you, but a true saving faith that is justified automatically produces good works. God knows if a person truly has faith vs someone who just says they believe in God and have "faith" but do not bear fruit--> that is the faith of the demons. Demons believe that Jesus Christ is the Lord, but do not love God. True faith that produces love (love is always demonstrated by action/not an emotion) is what saves us, but believing that Jesus Christ is Lord and not loving Him is a dead faith. You need to be in a loving relationship with God in order to be saved. Proper reading of English of Ephesians refers to Grace as the gift, there is no boasting in love; God initiates a man's faith by showing his grace. Paul, who is the same author of Romans, explains in Romans 3:23-25
that GRACE is the gift.
You are not saved by the works you do (ex-giving money to the poor as what Catholics believe), but God commands us to show our faith by our works, just as He told Abraham.
I noticed that Protestants believe that we should only have faith in Christ and that we are saved by His grace and that we should not do anything else. Orthodox believe that because we love Christ, we will live that faith and produce good works throughout our lives. We are disciples and need to carry our cross and abide IN Christ. Jesus wanted to teach us an example and make us His disciples. If you read the entire book of Acts, the disciples are exactly doing the same miracles that Jesus was and were being persecuted like Christ. We need to show AND act our faith just as the disciples did if we love God. Galatians 5:6 explains how faith is expressed by love (which is a work). Orthodox have completely different views when it comes to the sanctification process and justification. We believe in Theosis, (orthodox version of perseverance of the saints) we have to partake in the divine nature of God as stated in 2 Peter 1:4. Orthodoxy (being IN Christ) vs Protestants (believing in Christ); it is different theology
I also noticed that the way that Calvinists read Romans 8 and 9 is completely out of context, leading to heretic conclusions such as predestination of humanity and unconditional election in Romans 8, where in the orthodox view according to early church theologians such as John Chrysostom and John of Damascus explained that Christians are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ according to God's foreknowledge of who would be saved. The verse after that of being called is read backwards by Calvinists. In orthodoxy, all who were sanctified and justified WERE called. Not all who are called will be sanctified, and justified as many are called and few are chosen (Matthew 22:14). Non-Christians are not predestined to become like Christ; this is why predestination applies within the context of Christian believers. Also, in Romans 9, sovereignty and God's election (Calvinist) vs Orthodox view of God's sovereignty over his elective faithfulness to the nation of Israel (Clay in Romans 9 is drawn from Jeremiah 18 referring to the house of Israel, rather than all of humanity as the Calvinists believe because they often take that verse out of context). There is a synergy that exists, God works with man. Man is willing and God knows how to use man's will for his purpose. God draws and grants salvation to whoever is willing to receive it. (Whoever is unwilling to come to God is a reprobate, ex-Sodom & Gomorrah; man DOES have free will because he is responsible for his sins. In the beginning, no one is willing to come to God, however, once God reveals himself, some become willing and some become reprobates) The bible has to be consistent with other passages despite different authors because the Holy Spirit is what is writing these books, not the author.
Protestants need to understand that the word "alone" was not in the original Greek Text; it was added by Luther after the word faith in Romans 3:28, A person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. and I understand he did that to counter the heretic teachings of the Catholic church that believed that their works saved them. However, this contradicts James 2:24; it changes the word of God and deceives many people into making them not want to repent from their sins. We are saved by Faith, but true saving faith is never "alone", true faith is justified by love which produces good works. But believing that Jesus Christ exists and that he is Lord and not loving him/meaning it from your heart--> that is a DEAD faith and that is a false doctrine that leads people to hell.
James white agrees with you he calls that saving faith
Not faith and works, nor faith without works but a faith that works.
The Reformed interpretation of Romans 8 and 9 is the correct interpretation of those passages based on sound exegesis.
With respect bro. you have no understanding of the Orthodox church. You have no understanding of what it means to enter an Orthodox temple. You with have to explain why you dis the church created by our Heavenly Father on the day of Pentecost. Hey! I was like you for 14 years, keep studying the New Testament and by the grace of God you will be set free.
Here we go again with delusions! Indeed the Eastern Orthodox is the same as the Catholic Church. The church was created in the Old Testament with the Jews. In the New Testament, the gentiles were added to the existing church. In Pentecost, God gave his Spirit as prophesied to guided us to truth, and be the seal of our salvation and know who is the true church. The Eastern Orthodox is clearly not!
Well Dr. White, I am former EO guy and I'm about to say that you are trying to overcomplicate EO core believes. In essence they claim that Jesus does not save anyone He only opened the door and everyone has to go it's way and pass through that door by his own efforts. So in schematic evaluation J. Mac is correct cause EO and RC are full blown "work salvation" things, that was the point in his sermon.
That’s a huge portion of bullshit.
@Phil Andrew Exactly. Salvation is a continuous process and not just a triggered switch.
@Phil Andrew Yes, but I think it’s difficult to argue with Protestants if the denomination ist unknown. I know a lot of them who think that since they believe in Christ they can sin even without repentance. Because Christ already saved them. Lots of them believe in rapture and so on and so forth. But yeah you’re right. I think the problem with most Protestants is that they’re somehow afraid of the church as an institution with a clear hierarchy, since their past relationship with the Roman Catholics. Most of their disbelief to the Orthodox Church is due to PTSD, since there is not a lot to argue against the church. 🤣
What you say is completely false.
@@nikolaj4925 Isn't it odd how all the bad things end in ism? And schism started with the one that ends the same pronunciation as Schism, Catholicism.
Bravo for Hank converting, Mr White and MacArthur need to get up to speed!!
This entire discussion falls into the errors of internal consistency versus external consistency.
What White achieves here is internal consistency, a proof akin to accurately describing the functioning of the Millennium Falcon's warp drive.
The trouble is, hyperspace propulsion requires the apparatus of the Star Wars Universe to make any sense. You've explained a technically complicated principle well but that doesn't mean the technically complicated principle should be taken seriously.
In this example, the Star Wars Universe represents the Reformed theological tradition, evident in the sleight of hand as Dr. White inserts particular categories and definitions from his tradition.
To see if his assumptions make sense in the 'real world,' an analogous test would be to observe if the earliest Christians - using the Scriptures much closer to their original manuscripts and taught most recently by the Apostles themselves - develop doctrines that align with Dr. White's conclusions.
As you read the early church fathers directly, they don't. They unanimously present a theological world that sounds a lot like the Orthodox and nothing like the Reformed.
Amen brother. Very well said. Reformed and other modern Protestants tend to do this all the time. They read, teach, understand, and explain the scripture only through their own presuppositions. To find truth you have to step outside of that and look at things objectively. Church history and scripture alike. Then it becomes apparent.
Mark 7:8-9,13
[8]For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
[9]And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
[13]Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
E.g. Matthew 23v9,
Luke 20v46,
Matthew 1v25+12v47+Luke 1v47,
1 cor 11v14,
1 Peter 3v 20,21.
John 5v24.
Regarding the video's explanation of James 2:14 to 2:24, this means that no Protestant is saved because Protestants believe they can never be sinless or perfect. Saving faith must be accompanied by good works and not sin. If you say, you have faith but continue to sin, you do not have saving faith.
Monergism leads to inconsistency in relation to James 2:14 to 2:24 because according to Monergism, God gives the grace for saving faith which is naturally accompanied by good works. But since Protestants believe that all will continue to sin, then no one has saving faith since sin is the evidence of lack of saving faith.
Understand the difference between being justified by MEN who only sees our external actions, and being justified by GOD who can see our heart and intention.
Then you can compare James 2 to Romans 4.
Romans Chapter 4
:2-5:
"For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."
@@dubbelkastrull Your emphais on "MEN" is moot because my agrumnent is that James White states that both Paul and James teach that "faith alone saves but a saving faith is never alone." See minute 35:00. This means that no Protestant is saved because they believe that they will always commit sin which means their faith is alone. Therefore they do not have saving faith.
It is hard for me to accept Protestantism because its foundational doctrine of Sola Fide is contradictory and self refuting.
@@heb597 James White is not my master but I can tell you to carefully read Romans 4:5 again.
Who says that we become sinless because we have good works?
How can there be a scenario as stated in Romans 4 were someone doesn't work but get justified because of his faith, if it's impossible according to you?
@@dubbelkastrull I understand james white positiobn but not clear on yours.
Are you saying that Paul and James are teaching different things? if they are what is or are the diferences?
Thanks
@@heb597 as I previously mentioned, there is a way to harmonize them.
Let's look at two verses:
James 2:21
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?"
Romans 4:2
" For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God"
People can say that this is a contradiction, but I think the text is pretty clear and a way to harmonize them is to interpret it that James isn't talking about being justified in the eyes of God, while Paul is.
In Leviticus 19:18, loving your neighbour is defined as a work of the Mosaic law. This means that justification cannot be by faith and works of grace.
No it's not? Leviticus 19:18 is a command to love your neighbor. Are you suggesting justification can be achieved through the law?
Right in principle of not in verse of I may say so. Jesus summarised the Law in the two great commandments, the second of which is Love your neighbor as yourself. We can therefore see that even love is a work and one which man cannot do since he cannot keep the Law of God.
Those who claim that any work of man precedes salvation and pleases God and thus merits grace are wrong, heretics and seriously in error.
Grace precedes good works because it precedes faith from which they flow.
@@TheBluntNinja Of course justification can be achieved through the Law. Keep the Law and you will be justified by it. It is God's perfect Law. Jesus kept it and was justified by it. There is nothing wrong with the Law.
@@Phill0old "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” Galatians 2:21
@@TheBluntNinja And? I'm more than amused by your apparent opinion being that the verse means what you mean and anyone reading it most therefore agree with you. Some might call that ignorance, arrogance and stupidity. I won't call it that, I'll just assume you can't explain what you mean, don't care about context and think you know more than I do but are woefully inconsistent.
Ah, the “biblicist”…. It’s been a rough couple of years for ol’ James.
8.00 cuz Orthodoxy does not hold to a 6 century manichian doctrine, that place man in an unknown state and makes god a monster.
So in summary, explaining something really slowly doesn’t change the fact that it says what it says and means what it means 🤣
I would say that the understanding of the church fathers on this, holds more weight to me (recently converted to Orthodoxy) I rely the church to interpret the bible for this very reason. If the Holy Spirt leads us to all truth, then why does everyone have their own truth? see St. Chrysostom and St Symeon.
Which Fathers and at what time? You may think the fathers all believed the same thing but they didn't. Some of then turned out to hold heretical beliefs. Did you want to mention Cyprian? Was he not an Anabaptist? So are you an anabaptist as well?
@@Phill0old all the church fathers where men and made some mistakes thats why we rely on the consensus of the fathers. The orthodox church has problems with things that st augistine wrote but still believe him to be a saint. Just not everything he wrote. It's not just one church father. It's the church.
@@grantguikema9821 The consensus? There isn't one on anything that makes the Orthodox distinctive. You have gone to a church that can't even do communion right. Which consensus of the Fathers taught the abomination that you make of the Eucharist? None. What church tradition taught it? None. Two imaginary sources.
@@Phill0old your Right! It was Jesus that taught that in John chapter 6. Do you think he would let his followers walk away over a symbol? " come on guys its not really eating flesh, it's just smbolic"
@@grantguikema9821 So it isn't just a symbol yet you feel free to treat it any way you like? Your profession doesn't match your practice. Very Orthodox of you.
Eastern Orthodoxy is so frustrating! When you attempt to discuss theology with them they immediately go to "you don't understand the Church" or "you misunderstand the Church fathers". It really seems like a programmed response. The exegesis of James 2 is pretty obvious and in harmony with Paul. I'm not a calvinist but Scripture is clear that salvation is by faith alone. If a guy was stranded on a deserted island and found a Bible and believed the Gospel and repented and believed in Jesus and then died would he be saved? Of course he would! Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would say he wouldn't be because he hasn't partaken in sacraments. That's clearly anti-biblical and all I need to know about both churches.
First of all, define „saved“, so well have a mutual understanding. Second of all, I’m an orthodox but never heard of anyone saying that only orthodox can be saved. That’s nonsense. What we orthodox can say, is that we have the apostolic succession. Meaning, that it is the historical church with the authority given by Christ to the apostles. With that regard, the Bible/New Testament that you guys are reading was put together by this church. I also want to add that we claim, that to really know Christ, you have to become part of the living body of the church, with its head being Christ. I don’t mind if you think I’m cocky. You can do your own research on the topic of church history. I may suggest the writings of Alexander schmemann and Nikolaj velimirovic.
By the way, I’m an ex Muslim, so no, I wasn’t born in this faith and I did my own research. Christ be with you and God bless.
@@nikolaj4925 I define saved the way it is clearly defined in the New Testament. Salvation through Christ is the avoidance of eternal damnation and the wrath of God. Christians are saved from the consequences of their sins which is being "cast into outer darkness". I agree that part of knowing Christ is becoming a part of His Church but this church is not an institution. It's the collection of all believers around the world. It's pretty clear from studying church history that the early "Church" quickly became a human ran governmental system. Jesus even said that His kingdom was "not of this world". The Jews expected a Messiah that would lead a powerful government but Jesus made it very clear that systematic control was not part of His plan. It's also pretty clear that the traditions in the Orthodox Church are not nearly as old as they are claimed to be.
@@Kase5883 So you say, God is angry against everyone and whosever does not believe in him will suffer his wrath? Pretty old testamentarian understanding. And pretty interesting to me, how you are able to judge the institution of a church of which clearly had since it’s beginnings a structure with a clear hierarchy and along with it, the sacramental authority. You might want to reconsider your position, because from what I’m hearing, you’re suggesting that Christianity should be chaotic. Chaos is pretty much a trait of the Devil, my friend.
@@nikolaj4925 have you read Revelation? The wrath of God is as much New Testament as Old Testament. Orthodox and Catholics often mischaracterize Protestantism as "chaotic". It really isn't. There is more chaos within Catholicism at this point than anyone. The Orthodox also claim to get all of their extra-biblical traditions from the church fathers and their writings are often the definition of chaotic. This is why Protestants believe in sola scriptura. The Bible is the only way to cut through the chaos caused by people.
@@Kase5883 So you claim to understand the revelation? If I remember correctly, you protestants don’t even know the author. For you, the teachings of the church fathers might be chaotic, because I never heard anyone else before you, claiming that this was the case. You might want to highlight that point! I might have to remember you, that the church came first. And that same church brought you the Bible. They put all of those books of the New Testament together, approximately 300 and some years after Christ’s ascension. One might think, how the Christians in between those centuries carried their lives without the complete collection! Having said that, you might be right on one point. Not every orthodox is a saint and no, the Orthodox Church is not a club for saints, but a hospital for the sinners. Let me tell you, that no church hierarch claims to be a saint. We are all human, we do not claim to be infallible, such as the pope of Rome. As you might know, the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church split around 1000 somewhat ad. Because of issues such as the above mentioned. So please do not try to Brand everything as if it’s the Same. Because it’s not.
Poor deluted protestants. Keave the medieval man made theology and embrace the faith of the apostles.
Essence and energies separation is a 12th C. invention. The Bible is older than that.
James, there's no way around it, even in reformed theology. Even if faith is given to us by God, you can't say one is justified by "faith alone". Seriously, how can you say "faith alone" then turn right around and say "a saving faith is never alone?"
It’s not hard to understand. You’re initially justified by faith alone. Works slow afterwards. I don’t see why people can’t grasp this.
@@florida8953 They don't correctly know how to interpret Scripture.
He is the just and the justifier. It’s about who He is. We work from the cross, not to it. You aren’t slowly born again. You are supernaturally born again!
@@florida8953 it’s easy to grasp it’s just wrong.
@@rossoliver4198 Says a guy who's entire religious worldview revolves around nothing more concrete than "my priest says so."
You all will get occupied in distractions concerning East versus West. The Bible text, please. Jesus personally assumed our identity as sinners and He personally was hit by God's wrath which was deserved by us, so that we might assume His Name as righteous. Some of you will call this unjust on both ends. Which is true. But this is grace, not justice. Jesus accepted what was undeserved so that we can accept what is undeserved. The terrible justice due to us was put on Jesus. Unfair? Yes! Praise Jesus! But as Romans chapter five clarifies, we are now counted righteous (justified) because of the one obedience, because of the one righteousness of the One. Our works of obedience righteousness are therefore rejected in the category of our justification. Romans 4:5 rejects and refuses our works in true justifying faith. James is wrong.
James, just please stop reacting to Eastern Orthodoxy. You don't seem to have any special insight into that tradition, and so by reacting, you can only bring discredit to your otherwise important ministry to save souls.
It's okay to not understand something.
This French theology just doesn't work.
Please go watch someone who is Orthodox who know what they are talking. Fr Josiah trenham is a very start. This is 40 minutes of unknowledgeable rambling.
If your faith is that hard to explain, the simplicity of the Gospel as explained by Paul, is lost. And by the way, White spends most of his time explaining why WE believe Lordship salvation. It wasn’t negative about EO. But the fact remains, you DO have a differing set of beliefs about justification and the sinful *nature* of man than we do.
@@KristiLEvans1 yes so simple paul spent months and sometimes years teaching each church. So simple he sent many letters to address specific issues that were hundreds of words long. Where did "Lordship salvation" originally come from as a concept?
@@charlesthehammer5616 he said the gospel was simple. People aren’t. They’re fallen - as demonstrated by Peter attempting to Judaize the Gospel, even though he knew the Lord, personally. WHY add tons of doctrines and ceremonies on top of that, until at least the 12th C. AFTER Jesus Christ’s ministry?
@@KristiLEvans1 you didn't answer my question. You say we added doctrines to what Jesus taught. Let me ask you where your worship service came from in scripture? There's no detailed instruction on how service should be structured and it definitely doesn't say to sing hyms or rock music for 30 minutes followed by a 40 min sermon.
@@charlesthehammer5616 the Didache and Scripture. We are Sola Scriptura, which actually means that we check Scripture against any practice or tradition. If we can’t at least support it, we abandon it.
This guy seriously needs to not act like he's in any authority as a branch off of Catholicism.