I use to be a big Catholic hating Protestant. I was brought up in a Pentecostal church and later on went Non denominational so I can go to any church I chose. The more I listened to Calvinists, the more I started to question why I'm a protestant. Their venom towards anyone not reformed and mellow megalomania made me quite turned off. So I started actually listening to Catholic and Orthodox apologetics and fast forward 3 years, I started going to a Orthodox church!
3 big reasons for me leaving Evangelical Protestantism were 1. Communion being just something you do, neither the Classical Protestant view or the Orthodox view. Open Chalice regarding that. 2. As much as we read Scripture few people in my congregation really lived Scripture. 3. Inconsistency in belief and insistence on being "One Body". All three of these are answered and fulfilled in the Orthodox Faith.
@@tomtemple69 Icons aren't Idols. They don't meet the Biblical Definition of Idols as we do not Worship them. Maybe we actually believe what we believe. And Icons are a natural outflow of these three Points, we are in Communion with the Saints that are depicted, they are examples of the Scriptures being lived, and they are still part of the One Body of Christ as they are Alive in Christ.
@@acekoala457 communion with dead people? That doesn't sound like necromancy at all😒 Id happily be orthodox if it wasn't for the multiple heresies they teach
@@tomtemple69 Well if you believe that the Saints are dead then you aren't Christian. Because if the Saints are dead then Christ never Conquered death. And by what mechanism do you determine Heresy? Because you don't even follow the Bible.
Jay was the catalyst that started me on my road to becoming Orthodox. It culminated in my baptism during Pascha this year, April 8th. I was a Calvinist leaning Protestant prior to my conversion. I was pretty ignorant on a lot of the stuff Jay brought up. Fr. Trenham was helpful in my journey as well.
I was a staunch calvinist when i was younger, then i had issues that made me doubt i was part of the elect! I was miserable, and eventually i was open to looking into all the criticism of the system, and found out how flawed it was! Soon i tossed my calvinism in the trash where it belonged!
I find it amusing that there are so many Calvinists here saying you are misrepresenting them, but none have given any example of that. As a former DEVOUT Calvinist (if there is such a thing, since Calvinism is just an intellectual position checklist) I agree with what you are saying. Calvinism is an ideology that only kinda-sorta makes sense if you don't think about it too much. There is no way to know you are elect, and it is a depressing worldview, end of story.
This is so good to watch. Me and my wife are going to visit an Orthodox church this Saturday to speak to a priest because we want to convert to Orthodoxy from a baptist church. Thank you, Luther.
It is fascinating to me how Sola Scriptura is ultimately saying that the Apostles were such horrific teachers that their students can only use what the Apostles wrote down and we can verify for sure.
@@abneraguilar9116 scripture doesn't teach Sola Scriptura, and you didn't address JLeppert's argument at all. The Apostles never told us to only follow their written teachings, and no one had this idea until over 1000 years after Christ and His Apostles taught.
Everyone has a different interpretation when it comes to all literature written throughout history. Even a simple sentence can be construed as matter of fact or have an esoteric meaning. Sola Scriptura fails because it allows every Protestant to interpret statements in the Bible the way they see fit, which lends to a thousand different ideas of the text. It’s the main reason I left Protestantism for Orthodoxy. There’s no consensus in Protestantism on what Scripture actually means. I went to a Bible church once where the pastor straight up said that the “Our Father” prayer wasn’t meant for us to be said but only the disciples and he referenced some obscure passages several books after the passage in Scripture, and when I asked him about it he couldn’t even give me a straight answer to why he thought that. These types of teachings are very problematic. This is not a presenting issue in Orthodoxy because there is a consensus on what the passages mean. Teachings that are based on interpretations lent by the Church Fathers who dedicated their whole lives to the study of Scripture.
It’s even worse than that. Protestants basically say the Apostles formed a Church which almost immediately failed and was corrupted, then people were in total darkness for 1500 years until Luther and Calvin came along to set the record straight. It’s absurd.
Really awesome video. Towards the end where Jay talked about Orthodoxy being unique in that it actually changes you was so powerful. That's been my favorite thing about Orthodoxy
Dyer is really well read. I only heard him debating Erick Ybarra, but he knows his stuff. I'm unconvinced of Orthodoxy, but I'm glad that there is a voice like his defending apostolic truth.
I relate to so much of this! I was also reading Bahnsen, Dooney, Leithart, Jordan, and Wilson and was so close to joining a CREC before deciding to go Orthodox.
I remember the moment I fully understood calvinism and tried to accept the "fact" that I'm nothing but a marionette. What a strange feeling, that no other calvinist seemed to be bothered by
@@andys3035 if the calvinist doctrine that, "God sovereignly decrees all things which come to pass" is true, in the way they understand it which negates human freewill, making our choices merely illusory; it makes men no different from a puppet on a string with God pulling the strings. Most calvinists would not concede this way of describing their doctrine but it is 100% what they teach. They'll obscure the language so it sounds nicer, but this is what it amounts to. So when I realized this, I was imagining myself as a puppet, with God determining every word I spoke and every thought and feeling I had. It was extremely weird.
My dad was a calvanist theological student who never taught me anything about theology. No surprise when I tried to learn about it later I life I couldn't make it make sense. I'm a guest at a very nice orthodox church now.
I was atheist/agnostic before discovering Orthodoxy, and Calvinism seems just as dumb to me now as it did then. How did Calvinism ever become popular? It just seems so obviously, dreadfully false on the face of it that I was content to simply deny their additional premises and thereby ignore the argument. Was it the case that the Roman Catholic church was so bad that Calvin presented a desirable alternative?
I can answer it from my perspective. I grew up wacky oneness Pentecostal. They roll on the floor, speak in "tongues," have crazy worship services and its all disconnected from ancient Christianity. When I hit my mid 20's, I started to question it all. When I began researching, Reformed theology was all over the internet. A couple of websites like CARM (Matt "Cringe" Slick) and Got Questions, both Cavinist websites, and resources like the John MacArthur Study Bible, were ubiquitous. So I basically got into that because of its rigorism in comparison to the loosey gooseyness of oneness Pentecostalism. One attempted to take the Bible seriously and the other twisted it. That was my experience. I am Orthodox now but it was a long road for me.
There was a big push towards Conservative Presbyterian/Baptist movements in the 90s and a lot of what we are seeing now is the fruits of that. And most of the big names from the 90s are still around, Wilson, James White, the guys from TCG. Realizing that the ground is ever shifting one should run to God’s Church.
I agree. It's unbelievable how many people believe in Calvinism, considering how perverted and dark it is, and the mental yoga needed to interpret scripture that way.
Love me some Jay Dyer. Im a die hard papist myself and while i’m not trying to take away from Jay’s experience with confession, I must say its the exact opposite for me. I was a calvinistic methodist for most of my life but realized at one point i was drowning in sin. For me, if i was elect, my sins didnt matter anymore. When i was investigating and being convinced of catholic theology, i realized very starkly that i had sooooo much attachment to sin and i began attempting to rid myself of it before i even hit RCIA. It was an abysmal failure but i didnt give up. After my first confession i felt like the weight of the world was off my shoulders. Ive gone to confession every single week since then and it’s been astounding at how effective its been in reducing or ridding myself entirely of mortal sin. Every week my priest listens to me and gives me incredible advice and references for reading. When Jay talks about a holistic approach, i feel like thats exactly whats happening in my experience. I can’t even describe how good it feels to have hope that i can reduce my attachment to sin through the sacrament of reconciliation. I feel like reducing the experience to going in and checking a box, getting my hail mary count, so i can go back to my business is such a protestant notion. In fact, my best friend is a mon denom and he makes this exact argument. He says how is that not an excuse to continue to sin knowing you can just go in there and mechanically say your sins, get your penance, and somehow that saves you from hell? Of course i told him the same things im saying here. I could go into the theology of the sacrament but that’s not what Jay or my friend’s issue really is. Just an extremely uncharitable opinion….. like i said Jay’s experience is NOT to be discounted but nor should mine. In previous discussions Jay said he attended a TLM and everyone i know who attended the latin mass, have similar experiences to mine. I can imagine a novos ordo clown service where the priest is like that but it seems so unlikely in a TLM where they treasure the sacraments so much but hey, if we didnt have terrible latin mass priests, Francis wouldnt be shutting them down. Just go listen to Father Altman call for Francis to be murdered by drowning. I cant even imagine what kind of advice someone like that would give in the confessional. So thats why i dont discount Jay’s position but he even says himself quite often that there are bad orthodox churches. Its sad to me that catholics arent given that same grace. Anyway…. Love the content no matter how much you bash the pope. Peace be with you guys.
The righteousness of Christ covering the person is basically Jesus putting an invisibility cloak onto the person and sneaking then into the house against their father's will.
May I request Jay Dyer to have a dialogue with Matthew Joyner and Joshua Schooping both former Eastern Orthodox priests. They argued the fathers were tainted by pagan influence which necessitate reformation.
That's such a bad take on their part. It requires them to believe the church apostatized until the reformation which is ridiculous. Instead, what we see in history is heresies popping up and being dealt with and Orthodoxy winning out time and again, by the providence of the Holy Spirit and as promised by Christ himself.
@@andys3035 @acekoala457 Gavin Ortlund addressed that question head on. He said around 2nd to 3rd century. That's why Protestants can accept Nicene creed but can never accept Nicene canons. Gavin Ortlund argued not everything discussed at Ecumenical Councils even the first four that Protestants accept are infallible for Protestants. Rather Protestants accept those four Councils in so far they're in agreement with Protestant's interpretation of Scripture. So when you asked how Protestants address St Cyril's 7 Marian homilies at Ephesus and Akathist to Theotokos at the closing of the Council of Ephesus, Protestants easily retort St Cyril was influenced by pagan worship to Artemis/Diana that crept into the early Church cult of saints in the form of veneration of Mary as Theotokos. This is why it's imperative for Jay Dyer to actually interview Matthew Joyner and Joshua Schooping because many Protestants don't know that Great Apostasy is a necessary dogma in Protestantism. In fact it's impossible to be Protestants unless one believes the Church had lapsed into Great Apostasy in 2nd to 3rd century when the fathers due to syncretism brought paganism into the Church.
Jay is a smart guy, and I wouldn't want to accuse him of intentionally misrepresenting another position. But I have NEVER seen a Calvinist theologian replace the gospel (death, burial, and resurrection of Christ) with TULIP. EDIT: I kept listening, its all misrepresented or misunderstood. Calvinists see God's view of death not as an enemy but as a tool?! What are you talking about? Is the "secret will/decreed will" of God vs the revealed will of God (the commandments) really that hard to understand? It's right off the page of scripture. Its all over the text. Surely you have to say something about it. Ex Josephs brothers sinned against God in selling him to Egypt (violated God's will). Scripture also says (Ps 105:17) that God sent Joseph to Egypt to save many people (God's will). Many other examples. Its kind of easy to just dismiss the idea out of hand as laughable, but it's just away of expressing what's right in the text. What would be a better way to describe it?
I'm not defending Jay. Not qualified. But Calvinism just isn't defendable even if you just look at scriptures alone. That's why I jumped from being a Calvinist to a Methodist (Arminianism). Now I'm thinking more Orthoodx.
Ironic. PCA saying you can’t worship God in a way not stated in scripture but have “worship” bands with electric guitar and drums. I guess strange fire is whatever you want it to be
Great discussion! Luther actually was mentored by William Ockham, who was the father of nominalism in the medieval period. Discovering that fact sealed the deal in me rejecting Protestant (Lutheran) theology.
Nice discussion! I'm an ex-protestant, not yet formally Orthodox but leaning strongly eastward in my theology. As I see it, the biggest problem with protestant theology is that they have a _truncated_ view of salvation centered on external forgiveness (i.e., forensic "justification") rather than complete inner healing (i.e., theosis and substantive justification / sanctification). Consequently, protestants typically view "salvation" as an one-time event rather than a lifelong process. The culmination of the typical evangelical worship service is thus not the Eucharist but the "altar call" where people are invited to "pray the sinner's pray" and "get saved". Once you've done that, you have a "get out of hell free" card and sanctification becomes a non-essential and therefore optional afterthought. This is a thin view of the gospel that promotes a thin spirituality. Even where God, in His mercy, does a lot of good through protestant churches, it's often _in spite of_ bad theology.
@@TheTransfiguredLife, thanks! As I've researched and reflected on the East/West Church split, it seems to me that the Western (post-Augustinian) commitment to absolute divine simplicity (ADS) was a key behind-the-scenes driver. Wrt to the Trinity, ADS entails that the Persons can only be relations of the divine essence to itself. The only way to distinguish between the Persons, then, is to arrange them in a _linear_ hierarchy, with the Father being the divine essence itself, the Son being a second-order reflection of the divine essence back on itself, and the Spirit being a third-order reflection of the Son back on the Father. ADS + trinitarianism, therefore, leads straight to the filioque. Wrt to soteriology, ADS entails that there can only be 'created grace'. Since creatures cannot participate in the divine essence, they cannot participate in God's uncreated energies (which ADS collapses into God's essence), so all grace must be created. Consequently, for Rome, salvation is 'polyergistic'-God gives us a created 'infusion' of grace and then we have to do our part with it (e.g., go to mass and confession, avoid mortal sin, etc.). It's God and us "taking turns" rather than working together in synergy. The Reformers rightly reacted against this as implying a kind of "works" salvation, but because they continued affirming ADS, they had no choice but to go to the opposite extreme (i.e., monergism). Only the East, with its essence-energies distinction, is able to avoid this dialectic in favor of a truly 'synergistic' soteriology.
@21:30 "people are encountering the Church Fathers for the first time" 🙋 THAT'S ME! Having been in MANY denominations, I am finally making time to dig beneath the surface 🧐YIKES!! You mean to tell me that AUGUSTINE is BASICALLY the author of nearly ALL of the world's Christian beliefs?!? That when "Sola Scriptura" is used it DOESN'T really mean that? That when you boil it all down, instead of the Biblical God of Mercy, Love and Patience, we have created (AND WORSHIP)a Vengeful, Angry god?!?😢 I'm just shocked 😮 All my family is at a Reformed church. I join them but haven't Joined the church. I've been thinking, "Hmmm...why is there a niggling sense that something is wrong? Look at all these great people! Big families! Hearty hymns!" But the unsettledness continued...SO, here I am, going down the 🐰 hole and trying to look back, BEFORE Augustine--to understand the context of Western Christianity AND how it's been hijacked 😠
I like the rehab analogy. So when we overcome an addiction we are “rescued, saved” and not before, during the struggle. Why is not salvation, righteousness, etc. obtained only after the rehabilitation process/struggle is successful? When sin is put to death?
49:14 Why assume that it would mean that the will of the Father and the Son are in conflict, if the Son *Willingly* took the punishment? Remember, Christ said "let your will be done". 1:06:51 bookmark
I never pass an opportunity to thank Jay for leading me to Orthodoxy. He gets a lot of undeserved hate from some in the Orthodox camp but they need to take stock and acknowledge that many of those new faces in their parishes are likely due to Jay.
This is a very useful discussion. I am journeying from a calvinist church to Holy Orthodoxy. My wife is going to sic some christians on me. But whay can they say that is relevant once you accept the church of the first millenia. Once you read thae councils and once you hear the lives of the saints.
Funny what Luther said about preaching through the Sermon on the Mount, I had the same issue, it was a real struggle to preach in a way that was in harmony with Sola Fide, in fact, I apparently didn't do a good enough job as the primary teaching elder followed me up with a mini sermon to water down my sermon and take the edge off Jesus words. 🤣
They claim that they really work on vice in orthodoxy,,,, proceeds to call a man a goblin,,, then praises him for it. Behold the holiness of the orthodox
@@charlesheck6812 what is obstinance in a debate, of course Matt was obstinate, they were debating, but Jay is vey obstinate too I have listens to a few debates from him, he acts like a child. He is disrespectful and uncharitable unreasonable, he is obstinate in the idol worship of Eastern heterodoxy, but there is no good in calling him a goblin. It just show a chasm in spiritual maturity and maturity intellectual godliness
it does seem orthodox online at least are quite smug and cocky acting. Kind of "holier than thou" as they exclude literally everyone outside of their particular faith structure. And really hearing them describe monergism, it makes sense they deny it because they dont actually understand it in the first place.
Former Orthodox Priest, who’s an apologist also points out your church does not have apostolic succession. I admire the problems with Calvinism. But I have a much bigger problem with the practices and claims of Roman Catholics & Orthodox churches. Everyone is trying to appeal to church fathers to show we are the true church! Then look at scripture and see the contrast. Then you get into word games about icons etc.
There's no contrast between scripture and the consensus of the Father's. If you think so you're more than welcome to make a case. As for ex-orthodox priests that left the historic faith for a 16th century innovation it's unfortunate. May the Lord have mercy on him. ☦️
@@TheTransfiguredLife you need more than the ambiguous, empty appeal to false authority. Saying 'church fathers' isn't an argument. It seems most of these videos are a reaction to 'failure of eastern orthodoxy' due to the fact that said video gained 60k views in 5 months and absolutely ahhnialates these claims. The argument is really over man. Plus you're black dude, let's not pretend true EO isn't super hardline ethno-nationalist. If you went to Russia you would not be accepted, period. Don't kid yourself. All these anglo saxon American converts, let alone the black ppl, you're all just larping in a costume you really have no clue about, because you like the aesthetics of it. It's pretty sad. Abandoning generations of black American protestantism for something that honestly is not friendly to non whites is a shame. They'll accept the non Eastern Europeans, and the non eastern Europeans will tell you you're accepted, but it's all a sham.
The apostles never set up a church that was governed by bishops at the top, that structure is too segmented and has played out as being too fracturing. The true church will have apostles and prophets just as the original apostles said.
@@boltrooktwo The argument that the apostles never set up a church governed by bishops (ἐπίσκοποι, episkopoi) at the top is refuted by scriptural evidence showing the appointment and roles of bishops, presbyters (πρεσβύτεροι, presbyteroi), and deacons (διάκονοι, diakonoi). In 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9, Paul provides qualifications for bishops and presbyters, using these terms interchangeably, indicating an established hierarchy. Additionally, Acts 14:23 describes Paul and Barnabas appointing elders in every church, while 1 Timothy 3:8-13 outlines the qualifications for deacons, showing a distinct and organized structure within the early Christian communities. This scriptural foundation demonstrates that the early Church had a clear and hierarchical governance system. The writings of early Church Fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome, further emphasize this hierarchical structure. Ignatius consistently urges the faithful to follow the bishop, presbyters, and deacons, highlighting their divine institution and essential roles in maintaining church unity and orthodoxy. Clement, in his letter to the Corinthians, underscores the apostolic tradition of appointing bishops to ensure continuity and prevent strife, thus affirming the hierarchical framework established by the apostles. Historical practices, including apostolic succession and the decisions of early Church Councils like Nicaea in 325 AD, reaffirm the importance of this structured governance for preserving doctrinal integrity and unity within the Church. The Trinitarian belief, as all Christians understand it today, is deeply rooted in the decisions made by these early councils and the structured body of church governance comprising bishops, presbyters, and deacons. The Council of Nicaea, guided by the episcopal leadership, articulated the doctrine of the Trinity, affirming the consubstantiality (ὁμοούσιος, homoousios) of the Son with the Father. This foundational doctrine, along with subsequent affirmations by Church Councils, necessitates the crucial role of the established hierarchical structure in shaping and preserving core Christian beliefs. Thus, the organized governance by bishops, rooted in scriptural and historical precedence, has been instrumental in defining and maintaining essential Christian doctrines like the Trinity. So the physical body of Church and these roles are all Apostolic.
Reformed always identified three marks of the church 1 right preaching of the word 2 right use of sacraments 3 exercise of church discipline ie excommunication
Ok I have a question. I am currently a Pentecostal Christian. One with so many questions. I have watched hundreds and hundreds of hours of video searching for the truth. I guess for me it comes down to this. What did church look like in 33 AD. When church was underground or in homes what did it look like. Was it liturgical? When did veneration begin? If not when did it begin. If the claim is made that the Orthodox Church was formed by Christ in 33. AD please make it make sense. Because from what I can see Protestants may have the the Eucharist wrong, as well as other things however Paul talks about prophecy in the church something that can break out in a pentacostal church so are we right about that?
I love your quest for the truth. That pursuit of the truth is quite honorable. We would love to discuss further with you. Feel free to email: thetransfiguredlife@gmail.com and we would love to set up a brief call sometime to discuss questions concerning the Ancient Faith.
There is no way to refute monergism (Calvinism), as no sect believes in predestination, but rather in free will. The Bible presents Paul (Gl 1.15) and many others (Is 49.1), who were already predestined for eternal life, an indisputable fact. Marcos Lopez - Apologetic Ministry Brazil
It is like going before a judge for murder, you plead guilty knowing the penalty. Your attorney steps to the judge and says, I have taken the penalty for this person and his future transgressions. Therefore they must be set free.
One thing I can’t get on board w is icons and infant baptism. Open to the latter but there’s original writings of first century Christian’s against icons. I just stick with church of Christ to be safe they practice just as the churches in acts. If orthodoxy is true the church of Christ is it in infant form The other hang up I have is calling the priest “father” the Bible is clear as day on that issue and that just puts me off. I am exploring and trying to be open minded though due to the churches history
Paul calls himself father. What’s wrong with icons or paedo-baptism? Have you read anything about the 7th council and the condemnation of iconoclasm as a heresy?
@@triggered8556 ya I actually became down with it till I found that out lol that is def adding to the gospel 100% imo having a member who can draw for the congregations shouldn’t be a determining factor for salvation. They didn’t have time for all that during the persecution years. Also don’t see how there was even debate to begin with so early if the church was that cohesive in things. And y’all can never backtrack and make it right and have to stick with what is added to y’all’s gospel because y’all’s “infallibility”
Rom 2:28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. Someone should tell Paul he is a minimalist before his time. Here he is talking about an invisible Israel distinction from the visible covenant community
In the parable of the sower, only one of the analogies represents a saved person. The one that withers and never recovered was never saved. Either it will thrive again or never again. Doesnt mean you can lose salvation, as that diminishes the power of sovereignty of God. If God has you in His hand, He cannot drop you if you try to wriggle out. There seems to be confusion with regeration and sanctification. The scripture says that those who endure until the end will be saved. I think this is where some take this as being you can go in and out of being saved, whereas I believe it means if you didnt endure then you just weren't ever saved, simply. The problem Jay had was going all in to Calvinism. These belief structures aren't 100% accurate in representing the Scripture. The best thing to describe the difference in orthodox and otherwise is Monergism vs. Synergism. Monergists still believe we must live out the Truth, but that comes with being saved. Example, baptism does not save you, but IF you are saved, you will naturally go be baptized. Works do not save, but IF you are saved, you will do the works. I dont think the orthodox seem to grasp what is meant with election and predestination. Dont narrow it down to things like the TULIP, just go by scripture. Letters written to the elect...you know there can be people in a church who aren't saved. So you can write to the elect in a church and not be writing to the whole church. This is where you differ as well, because I believe the church only includes the elect, regardless of the building they attend for worship. There are unsaved in probably every church type. It would be nice to see Jay debate an actual educated theologian who is monergist instead of when he just debates call-in RUclips viewers. Because there things that I never hear monergists claim that he attributes to them. No one denies Christ going to Hades. If it is in the scripture, thats what we go by. There are others as well but just maybe debate a monergist theologian who can hash out these topics the best way.
Galatians 3:10-11 10For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Jay misunderstands the meaning of cirumcision. Yes circumcision is a work of the law but what does the rite mean covenantally ? To bind someone to all the law not just the ceremonial arbitrary division, moral works are represented in The ceremonial work. To break one law is to break all the works of the law
I can't pray to dead people. I believe in soul sleep. We are asleep till Christ's return. Jesus is the only way to petition God the Father. Nowhere is anyone asking someone dead to petition God. Other than the adoration of dead saints, I appreciate the Orthodox world view.
Rom 4:17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”-in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. There is nominalistic Paul before his time saying God declared him and named him the father of a multitude but he only has Isaac. But Jay said all of Gods word is performative in a simple sense so Abraham was already perfectly the father a multitude in full telos at the moment in genesis 12. Like Abrahams prophecy and our salvation it must be properly understood in the biblical paradigm of inaugurated eschatology of indicative imperative of history of salvation and Ordo salvation. Of already and not yet.
Ask someone who has been Evangelical for many years but is now learning that the salvation messages skewed in the Protestant arena My biggest problem with tradition equaling scripture is one has to be ahead of the other and if the tradition contradicts the Bible I'm taking the Bible every time! I have no problem with tradition as long as it doesn't cut out the Bible and especially if it shows a cohesiveness in a way of bringing the congregation together. Speaking about scripture that can be contracted Jesus said call no man father for you have one father he's in heaven why do we call Catholic priests and Orthodox priest Father This is not to rag on you it's just our sincere question?
I've learned Joy studying the Greek. The Byzantine scribes were in my opinion the majority text accuracy.. I seriously doubt the alexandrian and sonaticus condex.
i’ve read it. Basically you would have to believe in determinism which Calvin ultimately got from Augustine and Augustine got from his Manichean influence. Christ receiving punishment from the Father is a Nestorian heresy and destroys the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Reformed theology’s Christology is heretical in its implications for sure.
right, they make these sweeping claims about "all" protestants that are usually not very accurate. For example, we believe that works dont save you, but if you are saved you will do works. They just flip words around that take away the power of Christ.
Early church pronouncements & councils at the very least are true… because they were written by people who directly or 2nd hand knew the Apostles & what they didn’t have time to write down or was lost to time… the vast majority of church doctrine was set up during these early centuries BC & the later centuries is mostly just staying consistent with that (the same way protestants try to stay consistent with scripture alone)… which ofcourse Roman Catholicism later departed from… protestants would just say the most early days foundational doctrines & practices of Catholicism have zero basis in the Apostolic instructions & practices… which is kinda silly
I don’t understand the problem of penal substitution. Didn’t Jesus die of in my place so that my sin could be forgiven? I was raised Baptist but have never heard that Jesus was damned. That’s news to me! I did find the Apostles Creed that He descended into hell to be problematic. I now understand the Peter passage to mean Jesus proclaimed victory over hades and death, not that he suffered in hell. His death and resurrection was enough.
Fr. John Whiteford and Craig Truglia have a good video on the Orthodox view of the Atonement. The issue with the Protestant understanding is that it begins with Soteriology and Christology becomes a secondary issue, wherein Orthodoxy we believe that without Proper Christology you cannot have proper views on Salvation. Which is why in many Pop Protestant Circles you will either have people believing in Nestorian Christology or Arian Christology knowingly or unknowingly. John MacArthur teaches Nestorianism openly in his sermons. Ultimately it's an incomplete Gospel to lean only into one aspect of what Christ did for us on the Cross.
Christ died to restore humanity to what it was originally meant to be by defeating death and reconciling humanity with the divine, not to pay for our sins. His grace and forgiveness are infinite as long as we repent and seek Him. That is the power of Baptism, Confession, and the Eucharist. I could barely understand until I experienced those sacraments, and I still don't understand fully, but I have experienced that what the Church teaches is true. I would definitely talk to a priest about it for a better explanation.
@tammywilliams- anchor… yes, please look into this. For 1500 years the church was in unity about salvation. It was believed for 1500 years “vicarious substitution” verses penal atonement . What penal atonement is today is different. And it is what is causing the once saved always saved belief. It causes people to believe that they can sin, and still be saved, because Jesus took not only our sin, which he did , but every drop of punishment and or consequences of our sins, even after we have received the gospel. (Hebrews 10:26) The reformation changed this and other definitions of key doctrines that were never believed in all of church history up until then. Yes, please, call and make an appointment with a priest. Just tell them you are not a Catholic, but you have questions and you would like to speak with a priest. And if one parish isn’t friendly, or if a priest doesn’t seem very interested, call another parish . ❤ 🙏🏻 do not let anything discourage you . The Lord will guide you ! blessings to you on your journey !🙏🏻😁
@@acekoala457 i think its kind of a semantics thing honestly. Saying Christ was fully man and fully God, some say two persons. God can do things we dont comprehend metaphysically. God can be fully human and fully God through Jesus and I dont see why orthodox get so hung up on making these strange distinctions in things. Death is separation from God, and Christ had to experience that at least briefly to atone for the elect.
Jay is totally wrong in rejecting Penal Substitution at 43:50 and on. There's an Orthodox form of Penal Substitution without the baggage of limited atonement or double imputation. The Scriptures teach it and the Fathers affirm it. Galatians 3:13 and Deuteronomy 21:23 show us that Christ bought us from the curse because God cursed _Him_ instead. St. Athanasius says in _Letter to Marcellinus_ that Christ bore the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression. St. Proclus of Constantinople says that He was a substitute that bore the penalty instead of everyone bearing it. St. John Chrysostom, St. John of Damascus, and Blessed Theophylact say it was like as though someone were condemned to death and then Christ took that punishment instead. St. Isidore of Pelusium says Christ drank the cup of God's fury of punishment on the tree, turning it into a cup of sweetness for us. St. Ephraim the Syrian says Christ's death paid our debt. St. Philaret of Moscow says that His death, as the death of one sinless, was a fund of infinite merit that allows God to save sinners without it being against justice. St. Isaiah the Prophet says "the chastisement of our peace was upon Him" (Isaiah 53:5) and the Orthodox Study Bible explains that this means He "took our chastisement." Fr. Josiah Trenham says the Lord bore our judgement on Himself. Fr. John Whiteford says Christ took upon Himself in our place the penalty that was due to us.
The penalty was death, bro. Not legal standing. Colossians 2. Read it and try to follow Paul. The debt was erased along with any standing that the law could throw against it. Meaning the legal debt is not being held accountable to anybody. And in so doing that, in making the legal debt null and void, and nobody paying it, and God being fine with that, the devil can no longer accuse. But nothing was paid. What was substituted was our death. Hence the need for the resurrection. Which is what Father John whiteford actually says. He says Jesus took our place in death, not God's wrath. He makes that very clear. Do not misquote him. Isaiah 53 clearly says that we assumed God was punishing him, but we were punishing him. On the cross the only wrath Jesus faced was ours. Because we hated the sinless man. You are suffering from the word concept fallacy. Jay is denying calvinist PSA. Not Orthodox substitution.
@@JLeppert You say that "Nothing was paid," and that "The only wrath Jesus faced was ours," but the the Fathers (and the Scriptures) teach that Christ paid the debt and bore God's wrath for us. I mentioned examples above, and will quote a couple directly below, and there are many many more. "He suffered for us, and bore in Himself *the wrath* that was the penalty of our transgression." --St. Athanasius, Letter to Marcellinus "His death *paid* the debt." --St. Ephrem the Syrian, Hymn 14 on the Nativity "I *paid* back what I took not away" --Christ in Psalm 68 "Against Me is Thine *anger* made strong." --Christ in Psalm 87
@@orthodoxensign If we understand the Cross in any way that says the Father damned the Son, it is wrong. I can understand the language of debt, the language of law, the language of wrath, the language of victory over sin and death, trampling down death by death. The Cross is foolishness to the perishing because it is victory in "defeat."
@@icxcnika2037 Obviously Christ was not sent to Hell for torment. The Saints don't teach that. But He was willingly condemned with our punishment _on the Cross._ He bore our judgement, to heal us.
@@icxcnika2037 God certainly does punish us for our sins. It's clear in the Bible and in the Fathers. Let's look at an example and then we'll go on to Athanasius as you requested. "Also one must bear in mind that God's original wish was that all should be saved and come to His Kingdom (1 Timothy 2:4). For it was not for punishment that He formed us but to share in His goodness, inasmuch as He is a good God. But inasmuch as He is a just God, His will is that sinners should suffer punishment." --St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition, Book II, 29 This is why Christ tells us to "fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell" (Matt. 10:28) and the Psalmist tells us that "to such as act with exceeding pride, He rendereth them their due" (Ps. 30:24). God actively destroys and renders just judgment to sinners. Try to tell Sodom and Gomorrah, the world at the time of the Flood, Onan, Egypt smitten with plagues, Korah, Israel plagued with snakes, Israel wandering in the wilderness, Israel crushed by Babylon, Ananias and Sapphira, and all the others whom God actively punishes, that God does not punish. Now, you wanted to look at Athanasius on the Incarnation. Very well: "And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father." --St. Athanasius the Great (+373), On the Incarnation, Chapter 8 And while we're at it: “Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all. ” --St. Athanasius, First Discourse Against the Arians. (See? As I said, He bore the judgement we deserved for breaking the moral law) And more Athanasius: “Psalms 87 and 68, again speaking in the Lord's own person, tell us further that He suffered these things, not for His own sake but for ours. 'Thou hast made Thy wrath to rest upon me,' says the one; and the other adds, 'I paid back what I never took.' For He did not die as being Himself liable to death: He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression, even as Isaiah says, 'He Himself bore our infirmities' (Is. 53:4).” --St. Athanasius, Letter to Marcellinus Concerning the Interpretation of the Psalms
Also what is this business of claiming reformed to be Nestorian because they deny that the divine nature did not die yet the human nature did and that these are spoken of only the one person without mixture or confusion, this is the historic doctrine of the communication of attributes
Talk about Protestants after orthodoxy here in ethiopia its unlike any where eles,seems like they have lost it that they don't get to device people as they used to. its surprising to know this thing is universal
Well, Ethiopian Tewahedo isn't part of the Holy Orthodox Church, that's being discussed here. They are what is called Miaphysites, part of the Oriental communion.
The reason Paul references genesis 15 is because that is the actually ratification of of the covenant proper. Ie walking between the parts while he was asleep! MONERGISM
@@boltrooktwo We have a series on Apostolic Succession that you may find helpful on this topic. But yes the office of Bishop is absolutely Apostolic. St.Clement of Rome: “Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80])"
I don't know about Jay. He's obviously well read, yet. Yes, God says we are justified, righteous. And sure, from His point of view we are. Yet for me it definitely does not necessarily at all follow that He combines this with giving us the faith to believe Him. Two very different things. And then the issue of the two gospels. Does Jay even know this basic truth? A lot of learned people do not. Thee most correct cutting of His word is that between the gospel of Jesus and the gospel of the risen Christ. The gospel of the GLORIFIED brighter than the noon day sun Christ. Only Paul knew Him. Definitely not Saul, His teachings, that is. All Paul is is the teaching of the risen Christ. And these radically different gospels are NOT to be mixed because doing so just causes chaos and confusion and brings great joy to Satan. And I hear Jay not only mixing them but really not even aware of them. Very sad.
Yea if you say the Calvinist centers on tulip and the gospel of resurrection and ascension is not significant. But that is a false assertion. Biggest problem thing said above, Jay assumes the divine decree is soteriology, when the divine decree is a matter of theology proper in reformed theology Dude please stop Jay you are a slanderer, saying reformed theology does require holiness.
How about Reid scripture? Just God justify the ungodly. And I'm sure you would hate to hear about dispensationalism's view of Matthew are covenant. People called the repent the prepare for the Kingdom preparatory. You're talking a ministry before Paul. None of you must be very simple or need grace that much
The greatest mysterious creation in all of God's glorious creation is human beings created in "the image and likeness of God" with the mystery of having a free will to freely choose to love or not love God and be like Christ who loves all His creation and died to reconcile His whole creation! Please read and study Colossians 1:15-23 because this is what it says! Calvinists do not know what free will is because they have no explanation for why Adam was created good and lived in a perfect environment and yet chose to sin! Yet they base their Calvinism on their ignorance! Calvinists simply do not believe in free will. They love Calvinism because God chose them to be Christians and they had no say in the matter and to hell with everybody else who had no chance to believe. And they call this a loving God? I used to have a Howdy Duty puppet and I know puppetry when I see it! "Jesus went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them!" John 6:65 The "enabling" is grace for all, not regeneration for some! It is not regeneration for some > forced faith It is Enabling Grace for all > faith by free choice > regeneration "The grace of God has appeared that offers salvation for all men!" Titus 2:11 "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that BY BELIEVING" you may have LIFE in his name!" John 20:31 "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people!" 1 Timothy 2:3-6 A Calvinist has to be smart to explain these verses and most of the Bible away! Why do I believe? Because I fell in love with Jesus Christ who loved me a sinner and loves everybody else and died so he could raise from the dead to destroy Death, Sin and The devil for everybody. Hebrews 2:9, 14-15 God did not pour out wrath on God the Son as Calvinists teach which splits the Trinity! Proverbs 17:15 As in Adam all died, so in Christ all are made alive!" 1 Corinthians 15:22 Limited atonement is a heresy. In fact check it out in Luke at the last supper where Jesus explicitly says he died for Judas Iscariot! So much for Calvinism! The Johnny come lately doctrine of demons not grace! See 1 Timothy 4:1 People should check out the Orthodox Church which has been here since 33 ad Matthew 16:18 Jude 1:3
I'm a Calvinistic Baptist, grew up in a country where Eastern Orthodoxy is its official religion. I debated many of them and all the time is the same thing... straw men arguments. Please do your research and stop misrepresenting the gospel that we preach. People please listen to the defence of biblical calnivism and true gospel from those who believe it. These are wolves in sheep's clothing!
We've don our research and many converts have spent time in Reformed Calvinism, we know what we're talking about. There's no defense for Calvinism being "biblical" because it simply isn't and can't be defended.
I'm a former calvinist and converted to orthodoxy, so idk what you think you're proving. I know what they teach. Their foundation is Sola scriptura, supposedly, but scripture doesn't teach Sola scriptura. So it quickly unravels from that point
I've listened to it, studied it and lived as a Calvanist Baptist heretic. It's ridiculously stupid and illogical. It contradicts Scripture and teaches vile, disgusting heresies. It didn't exist for well over a thousand years, making it no different than Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, or any number of modernist pseudo-Christian cults. If you want to see wolves in sheep's clothing, look at the people teaching you another gospel, a perverted, demonic one.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Jay's argument at 41:00 where he says that no one including the apostle Paul thought that someone could have a different declaration of being from their actual ontologic status. Romans 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, Paul clearly states here that those being counted as righteous are ungodly. Their ontological status is "ungodly", and yet they are counted as "righteous" (a declarative statement about them). I would say Paul disagrees with Jay's statement. Also regarding penal substitution Col 2:13-14 states there is at least some component of this at the crucifixion: And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. As well as Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us-for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”
@jdoe97 You're right about Penal Substitution. The Orthodox Church through her scriptures and saints teaches that Christ bore our penalty in our stead. But this is without the baggage of limited atonement or double imputation or any division of the Trinity. As for your first point, note that Paul in Romans 4 does not use "faith" to mean mental assent to some thesis, but rather later on he speaks of walking in the steps of faith (Romans 4:12). When we are faithful to Christ He works in us and through us transformitively so we can LIVE in faith, having graciously forgiven our ungodliness through the Cross.
God justifies the ungodly by making them righteous by grace through faith in Jesus Christ; They are no longer ungodly, and that is the miracle of God's grace. The legal fiction nonsense has to go.
Orthodoxy is not a joke. Orthodox Theology is the salvation of sinners through participation in the righteousness of God. The unrighteous are justified by faith in Jesus Christ and made righteous. There is no other way.
I use to be a big Catholic hating Protestant. I was brought up in a Pentecostal church and later on went Non denominational so I can go to any church I chose. The more I listened to Calvinists, the more I started to question why I'm a protestant. Their venom towards anyone not reformed and mellow megalomania made me quite turned off. So I started actually listening to Catholic and Orthodox apologetics and fast forward 3 years, I started going to a Orthodox church!
3 big reasons for me leaving Evangelical Protestantism were
1. Communion being just something you do, neither the Classical Protestant view or the Orthodox view. Open Chalice regarding that.
2. As much as we read Scripture few people in my congregation really lived Scripture.
3. Inconsistency in belief and insistence on being "One Body".
All three of these are answered and fulfilled in the Orthodox Faith.
What about the "iconography" aka idolatry?
Based
@@tomtemple69
Icons aren't Idols.
They don't meet the Biblical Definition of Idols as we do not Worship them.
Maybe we actually believe what we believe.
And Icons are a natural outflow of these three Points, we are in Communion with the Saints that are depicted, they are examples of the Scriptures being lived, and they are still part of the One Body of Christ as they are Alive in Christ.
@@acekoala457 communion with dead people? That doesn't sound like necromancy at all😒
Id happily be orthodox if it wasn't for the multiple heresies they teach
@@tomtemple69
Well if you believe that the Saints are dead then you aren't Christian.
Because if the Saints are dead then Christ never Conquered death.
And by what mechanism do you determine Heresy? Because you don't even follow the Bible.
Jay was the catalyst that started me on my road to becoming Orthodox. It culminated in my baptism during Pascha this year, April 8th. I was a Calvinist leaning Protestant prior to my conversion. I was pretty ignorant on a lot of the stuff Jay brought up. Fr. Trenham was helpful in my journey as well.
All of these reasons saved me from Calvinism. God Bless Jay and the Transfigured Life channel for putting out such edifying content 🙏🏻☦️🙏🏻
God's decree saved you from Calvinism. Lol.
I was a staunch calvinist when i was younger, then i had issues that made me doubt i was part of the elect! I was miserable, and eventually i was open to looking into all the criticism of the system, and found out how flawed it was! Soon i tossed my calvinism in the trash where it belonged!
I never felt worse thatm to study with people constantly kicking the legs out from under my salvation .
Same! Ultimately converted to rcc but open to orthodox understanding of the faith.
I find it amusing that there are so many Calvinists here saying you are misrepresenting them, but none have given any example of that.
As a former DEVOUT Calvinist (if there is such a thing, since Calvinism is just an intellectual position checklist) I agree with what you are saying.
Calvinism is an ideology that only kinda-sorta makes sense if you don't think about it too much. There is no way to know you are elect, and it is a depressing worldview, end of story.
Facts!! It's a coping mechanism when there's no rebuttal. ☦️💯💯
Calvinism is like scientology they want you in their cult until you know too much of the crazy stuff they profess.
This is so good to watch. Me and my wife are going to visit an Orthodox church this Saturday to speak to a priest because we want to convert to Orthodoxy from a baptist church. Thank you, Luther.
How did it go?
It is fascinating to me how Sola Scriptura is ultimately saying that the Apostles were such horrific teachers that their students can only use what the Apostles wrote down and we can verify for sure.
Sola Scriptura just is following apostolic clear teaching. Not false dogma created by homosexual priests
@@abneraguilar9116lm😂
@@abneraguilar9116 scripture doesn't teach Sola Scriptura, and you didn't address JLeppert's argument at all.
The Apostles never told us to only follow their written teachings, and no one had this idea until over 1000 years after Christ and His Apostles taught.
Everyone has a different interpretation when it comes to all literature written throughout history. Even a simple sentence can be construed as matter of fact or have an esoteric meaning. Sola Scriptura fails because it allows every Protestant to interpret statements in the Bible the way they see fit, which lends to a thousand different ideas of the text. It’s the main reason I left Protestantism for Orthodoxy. There’s no consensus in Protestantism on what Scripture actually means. I went to a Bible church once where the pastor straight up said that the “Our Father” prayer wasn’t meant for us to be said but only the disciples and he referenced some obscure passages several books after the passage in Scripture, and when I asked him about it he couldn’t even give me a straight answer to why he thought that. These types of teachings are very problematic. This is not a presenting issue in Orthodoxy because there is a consensus on what the passages mean. Teachings that are based on interpretations lent by the Church Fathers who dedicated their whole lives to the study of Scripture.
It’s even worse than that. Protestants basically say the Apostles formed a Church which almost immediately failed and was corrupted, then people were in total darkness for 1500 years until Luther and Calvin came along to set the record straight. It’s absurd.
Really awesome video. Towards the end where Jay talked about Orthodoxy being unique in that it actually changes you was so powerful. That's been my favorite thing about Orthodoxy
Amen! ☦️
Jay living the life, meeting new people and doing cool tings, haha
"you are in a cult, you are not in a church, you invented your own church - you're a goblin" XD
One of his best.
EXCUSE ME
That’s my favorite lol
Classic
Another great discussion! Thank you.
Dyer is really well read. I only heard him debating Erick Ybarra, but he knows his stuff. I'm unconvinced of Orthodoxy, but I'm glad that there is a voice like his defending apostolic truth.
I relate to so much of this! I was also reading Bahnsen, Dooney, Leithart, Jordan, and Wilson and was so close to joining a CREC before deciding to go Orthodox.
Which Jordan were you referring to? Was it cooper? How's the journey been so far?
James Jordan and Cooper. I’m loving Orthodoxy! Thriving in a ROCOR
Mm thanks! Thats good to hear. I'm an inquiring protestant atm, but what has helped you to make that jump or convince you in summary?
I actually did a video about my conversion on this channel! Check out the episode “Protestant inquire goes east”
@@aliyamathiesen7290 I just seen it haha and thanks. May god bless you on your journey, Merry Christmas/ happy holidays! 🙏
One of the best discussions I've seen. Thanks!!
Great conversation!
I remember the moment I fully understood calvinism and tried to accept the "fact" that I'm nothing but a marionette. What a strange feeling, that no other calvinist seemed to be bothered by
Can you explain the Marionette part of your comment? I'm a former Calvinist and now Orthodox. Just curious. Thanks!
@@andys3035 if the calvinist doctrine that, "God sovereignly decrees all things which come to pass" is true, in the way they understand it which negates human freewill, making our choices merely illusory; it makes men no different from a puppet on a string with God pulling the strings. Most calvinists would not concede this way of describing their doctrine but it is 100% what they teach. They'll obscure the language so it sounds nicer, but this is what it amounts to. So when I realized this, I was imagining myself as a puppet, with God determining every word I spoke and every thought and feeling I had. It was extremely weird.
@@WoodchuckNorris.8o oh ok. I agree. Thanks for sharing
@@WoodchuckNorris.8o
If we get down to it, it's downright blasphemous, because that says God is the author of sin.
🤮🤮🤮
My dad was a calvanist theological student who never taught me anything about theology. No surprise when I tried to learn about it later I life I couldn't make it make sense. I'm a guest at a very nice orthodox church now.
Hello Brother Luther, thank you for this livestream I am looking forward to the next.
Thanks Brother! ☦️
Enlightening. God bless.
Great video! Really appreciate the conversation.
But I must say jay looks half as smart without his book shelf 😂😂
Haha he recently moved! But I'm sure the books will eventually come back.
I was atheist/agnostic before discovering Orthodoxy, and Calvinism seems just as dumb to me now as it did then. How did Calvinism ever become popular? It just seems so obviously, dreadfully false on the face of it that I was content to simply deny their additional premises and thereby ignore the argument. Was it the case that the Roman Catholic church was so bad that Calvin presented a desirable alternative?
I can answer it from my perspective. I grew up wacky oneness Pentecostal. They roll on the floor, speak in "tongues," have crazy worship services and its all disconnected from ancient Christianity. When I hit my mid 20's, I started to question it all. When I began researching, Reformed theology was all over the internet. A couple of websites like CARM (Matt "Cringe" Slick) and Got Questions, both Cavinist websites, and resources like the John MacArthur Study Bible, were ubiquitous. So I basically got into that because of its rigorism in comparison to the loosey gooseyness of oneness Pentecostalism. One attempted to take the Bible seriously and the other twisted it. That was my experience. I am Orthodox now but it was a long road for me.
Short answer: It makes midwits feel like they can understand the mind of God.
There was a big push towards Conservative Presbyterian/Baptist movements in the 90s and a lot of what we are seeing now is the fruits of that.
And most of the big names from the 90s are still around, Wilson, James White, the guys from TCG.
Realizing that the ground is ever shifting one should run to God’s Church.
I agree. It's unbelievable how many people believe in Calvinism, considering how perverted and dark it is, and the mental yoga needed to interpret scripture that way.
@@andys3035Orthodox is even further removed from Christianity than charismatic and Calvinists are
Heavy hitter today.
So informative thank you! So happy you had Jay on! You have to have a stream with Church of the eternal logos
haven't heard of them, will have to check em out
Love me some Jay Dyer. Im a die hard papist myself and while i’m not trying to take away from Jay’s experience with confession, I must say its the exact opposite for me. I was a calvinistic methodist for most of my life but realized at one point i was drowning in sin. For me, if i was elect, my sins didnt matter anymore. When i was investigating and being convinced of catholic theology, i realized very starkly that i had sooooo much attachment to sin and i began attempting to rid myself of it before i even hit RCIA. It was an abysmal failure but i didnt give up.
After my first confession i felt like the weight of the world was off my shoulders. Ive gone to confession every single week since then and it’s been astounding at how effective its been in reducing or ridding myself entirely of mortal sin. Every week my priest listens to me and gives me incredible advice and references for reading. When Jay talks about a holistic approach, i feel like thats exactly whats happening in my experience. I can’t even describe how good it feels to have hope that i can reduce my attachment to sin through the sacrament of reconciliation.
I feel like reducing the experience to going in and checking a box, getting my hail mary count, so i can go back to my business is such a protestant notion. In fact, my best friend is a mon denom and he makes this exact argument. He says how is that not an excuse to continue to sin knowing you can just go in there and mechanically say your sins, get your penance, and somehow that saves you from hell? Of course i told him the same things im saying here. I could go into the theology of the sacrament but that’s not what Jay or my friend’s issue really is. Just an extremely uncharitable opinion….. like i said Jay’s experience is NOT to be discounted but nor should mine. In previous discussions Jay said he attended a TLM and everyone i know who attended the latin mass, have similar experiences to mine.
I can imagine a novos ordo clown service where the priest is like that but it seems so unlikely in a TLM where they treasure the sacraments so much but hey, if we didnt have terrible latin mass priests, Francis wouldnt be shutting them down. Just go listen to Father Altman call for Francis to be murdered by drowning. I cant even imagine what kind of advice someone like that would give in the confessional. So thats why i dont discount Jay’s position but he even says himself quite often that there are bad orthodox churches. Its sad to me that catholics arent given that same grace. Anyway…. Love the content no matter how much you bash the pope. Peace be with you guys.
I would love to see Jay in a discussion format with Gavin.
I don't Gavin would agree to that.
Thank you for defending the Orthodox church
God bless 🙌 🙏
The righteousness of Christ covering the person is basically Jesus putting an invisibility cloak onto the person and sneaking then into the house against their father's will.
May I request Jay Dyer to have a dialogue with Matthew Joyner and Joshua Schooping both former Eastern Orthodox priests. They argued the fathers were tainted by pagan influence which necessitate reformation.
Lolz
That's such a bad take on their part. It requires them to believe the church apostatized until the reformation which is ridiculous. Instead, what we see in history is heresies popping up and being dealt with and Orthodoxy winning out time and again, by the providence of the Holy Spirit and as promised by Christ himself.
@@andys3035
And when you ask people "when did that happen?" They get upset at you for asking them to defend their beliefs.
@@andys3035 @acekoala457 Gavin Ortlund addressed that question head on. He said around 2nd to 3rd century. That's why Protestants can accept Nicene creed but can never accept Nicene canons. Gavin Ortlund argued not everything discussed at Ecumenical Councils even the first four that Protestants accept are infallible for Protestants. Rather Protestants accept those four Councils in so far they're in agreement with Protestant's interpretation of Scripture. So when you asked how Protestants address St Cyril's 7 Marian homilies at Ephesus and Akathist to Theotokos at the closing of the Council of Ephesus, Protestants easily retort St Cyril was influenced by pagan worship to Artemis/Diana that crept into the early Church cult of saints in the form of veneration of Mary as Theotokos. This is why it's imperative for Jay Dyer to actually interview Matthew Joyner and Joshua Schooping because many Protestants don't know that Great Apostasy is a necessary dogma in Protestantism. In fact it's impossible to be Protestants unless one believes the Church had lapsed into Great Apostasy in 2nd to 3rd century when the fathers due to syncretism brought paganism into the Church.
@@acekoala457Exactly!! They can never tell you when! 🎯🎯
THE ORTHODOX FINAL BOSS @JayDyer
"He's firing his Meanie Ray!!!!"
@@acekoala457😂
And then Perry Robinson is the secret hidden final boss
Another great listen! Thanks. Trying to break out of the rut of listening to secular music like Taylor Swift by putting on Fr Jonathan instead! ❤
Jay, I Truthfully See Similarities Between The Divine Liturgy And First Corinthians Chapter Fourteen!!
Jay is a smart guy, and I wouldn't want to accuse him of intentionally misrepresenting another position. But I have NEVER seen a Calvinist theologian replace the gospel (death, burial, and resurrection of Christ) with TULIP.
EDIT: I kept listening, its all misrepresented or misunderstood. Calvinists see God's view of death not as an enemy but as a tool?! What are you talking about?
Is the "secret will/decreed will" of God vs the revealed will of God (the commandments) really that hard to understand? It's right off the page of scripture. Its all over the text. Surely you have to say something about it. Ex Josephs brothers sinned against God in selling him to Egypt (violated God's will). Scripture also says (Ps 105:17) that God sent Joseph to Egypt to save many people (God's will). Many other examples. Its kind of easy to just dismiss the idea out of hand as laughable, but it's just away of expressing what's right in the text. What would be a better way to describe it?
I'm not defending Jay. Not qualified. But Calvinism just isn't defendable even if you just look at scriptures alone. That's why I jumped from being a Calvinist to a Methodist (Arminianism). Now I'm thinking more Orthoodx.
@@liquidh5226 Sounds like you weren’t much of a Calvinst
@@dylanwagoner9768 Thank God I'm not. But I went to a church that was for close to a decade. It's not healthy. Trust me.
Ironic. PCA saying you can’t worship God in a way not stated in scripture but have “worship” bands with electric guitar and drums. I guess strange fire is whatever you want it to be
Great discussion! Luther actually was mentored by William Ockham, who was the father of nominalism in the medieval period. Discovering that fact sealed the deal in me rejecting Protestant (Lutheran) theology.
thanks
Nice discussion! I'm an ex-protestant, not yet formally Orthodox but leaning strongly eastward in my theology. As I see it, the biggest problem with protestant theology is that they have a _truncated_ view of salvation centered on external forgiveness (i.e., forensic "justification") rather than complete inner healing (i.e., theosis and substantive justification / sanctification). Consequently, protestants typically view "salvation" as an one-time event rather than a lifelong process. The culmination of the typical evangelical worship service is thus not the Eucharist but the "altar call" where people are invited to "pray the sinner's pray" and "get saved". Once you've done that, you have a "get out of hell free" card and sanctification becomes a non-essential and therefore optional afterthought. This is a thin view of the gospel that promotes a thin spirituality. Even where God, in His mercy, does a lot of good through protestant churches, it's often _in spite of_ bad theology.
You named a ton of key points that we plan to explore in depth in future episodes. You're spot on. Well said! 💯💯
Btw, we wish you well in your pursuit of the Truth of Christianity! ☦️
@@TheTransfiguredLife, thanks!
As I've researched and reflected on the East/West Church split, it seems to me that the Western (post-Augustinian) commitment to absolute divine simplicity (ADS) was a key behind-the-scenes driver. Wrt to the Trinity, ADS entails that the Persons can only be relations of the divine essence to itself. The only way to distinguish between the Persons, then, is to arrange them in a _linear_ hierarchy, with the Father being the divine essence itself, the Son being a second-order reflection of the divine essence back on itself, and the Spirit being a third-order reflection of the Son back on the Father. ADS + trinitarianism, therefore, leads straight to the filioque.
Wrt to soteriology, ADS entails that there can only be 'created grace'. Since creatures cannot participate in the divine essence, they cannot participate in God's uncreated energies (which ADS collapses into God's essence), so all grace must be created. Consequently, for Rome, salvation is 'polyergistic'-God gives us a created 'infusion' of grace and then we have to do our part with it (e.g., go to mass and confession, avoid mortal sin, etc.). It's God and us "taking turns" rather than working together in synergy. The Reformers rightly reacted against this as implying a kind of "works" salvation, but because they continued affirming ADS, they had no choice but to go to the opposite extreme (i.e., monergism). Only the East, with its essence-energies distinction, is able to avoid this dialectic in favor of a truly 'synergistic' soteriology.
@21:30 "people are encountering the Church Fathers for the first time" 🙋 THAT'S ME! Having been in MANY denominations, I am finally making time to dig beneath the surface 🧐YIKES!! You mean to tell me that AUGUSTINE is BASICALLY the author of nearly ALL of the world's Christian beliefs?!? That when "Sola Scriptura" is used it DOESN'T really mean that? That when you boil it all down, instead of the Biblical God of Mercy, Love and Patience, we have created (AND WORSHIP)a Vengeful, Angry god?!?😢 I'm just shocked 😮 All my family is at a Reformed church. I join them but haven't Joined the church. I've been thinking, "Hmmm...why is there a niggling sense that something is wrong? Look at all these great people! Big families! Hearty hymns!" But the unsettledness continued...SO, here I am, going down the 🐰 hole and trying to look back, BEFORE Augustine--to understand the context of Western Christianity AND how it's been hijacked 😠
Ignatius, iranaeus, Clement, Justin Martyr are some great church fathers pre Nicea.
I like the rehab analogy. So when we overcome an addiction we are “rescued, saved” and not before, during the struggle. Why is not salvation, righteousness, etc. obtained only after the rehabilitation process/struggle is successful? When sin is put to death?
49:14 Why assume that it would mean that the will of the Father and the Son are in conflict, if the Son *Willingly* took the punishment?
Remember, Christ said "let your will be done".
1:06:51 bookmark
I never pass an opportunity to thank Jay for leading me to Orthodoxy. He gets a lot of undeserved hate from some in the Orthodox camp but they need to take stock and acknowledge that many of those new faces in their parishes are likely due to Jay.
This is a very useful discussion. I am journeying from a calvinist church to Holy Orthodoxy. My wife is going to sic some christians on me. But whay can they say that is relevant once you accept the church of the first millenia. Once you read thae councils and once you hear the lives of the saints.
Thank you.
Funny what Luther said about preaching through the Sermon on the Mount, I had the same issue, it was a real struggle to preach in a way that was in harmony with Sola Fide, in fact, I apparently didn't do a good enough job as the primary teaching elder followed me up with a mini sermon to water down my sermon and take the edge off Jesus words. 🤣
They claim that they really work on vice in orthodoxy,,,, proceeds to call a man a goblin,,, then praises him for it. Behold the holiness of the orthodox
Jesus called the self righteous and obstinate “swine” and “dogs”…behold the solipsism of the critics
@@charlesheck6812 what is obstinance in a debate, of course Matt was obstinate, they were debating, but Jay is vey obstinate too I have listens to a few debates from him, he acts like a child. He is disrespectful and uncharitable unreasonable, he is obstinate in the idol worship of Eastern heterodoxy, but there is no good in calling him a goblin. It just show a chasm in spiritual maturity and maturity intellectual godliness
@@charlesheck6812 are you Jesus?
it does seem orthodox online at least are quite smug and cocky acting. Kind of "holier than thou" as they exclude literally everyone outside of their particular faith structure. And really hearing them describe monergism, it makes sense they deny it because they dont actually understand it in the first place.
This is just me but we’re all sinners and there’s a lot worse sins than calling someone a goblin. God bless!
Former Orthodox Priest, who’s an apologist also points out your church does not have apostolic succession. I admire the problems with Calvinism. But I have a much bigger problem with the practices and claims of Roman Catholics & Orthodox churches.
Everyone is trying to appeal to church fathers to show we are the true church!
Then look at scripture and see the contrast. Then you get into word games about icons etc.
There's no contrast between scripture and the consensus of the Father's. If you think so you're more than welcome to make a case.
As for ex-orthodox priests that left the historic faith for a 16th century innovation it's unfortunate. May the Lord have mercy on him. ☦️
@@TheTransfiguredLife you need more than the ambiguous, empty appeal to false authority. Saying 'church fathers' isn't an argument. It seems most of these videos are a reaction to 'failure of eastern orthodoxy' due to the fact that said video gained 60k views in 5 months and absolutely ahhnialates these claims. The argument is really over man. Plus you're black dude, let's not pretend true EO isn't super hardline ethno-nationalist. If you went to Russia you would not be accepted, period. Don't kid yourself. All these anglo saxon American converts, let alone the black ppl, you're all just larping in a costume you really have no clue about, because you like the aesthetics of it. It's pretty sad. Abandoning generations of black American protestantism for something that honestly is not friendly to non whites is a shame. They'll accept the non Eastern Europeans, and the non eastern Europeans will tell you you're accepted, but it's all a sham.
The apostles never set up a church that was governed by bishops at the top, that structure is too segmented and has played out as being too fracturing. The true church will have apostles and prophets just as the original apostles said.
well said
@@boltrooktwo The argument that the apostles never set up a church governed by bishops (ἐπίσκοποι, episkopoi) at the top is refuted by scriptural evidence showing the appointment and roles of bishops, presbyters (πρεσβύτεροι, presbyteroi), and deacons (διάκονοι, diakonoi). In 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9, Paul provides qualifications for bishops and presbyters, using these terms interchangeably, indicating an established hierarchy. Additionally, Acts 14:23 describes Paul and Barnabas appointing elders in every church, while 1 Timothy 3:8-13 outlines the qualifications for deacons, showing a distinct and organized structure within the early Christian communities. This scriptural foundation demonstrates that the early Church had a clear and hierarchical governance system.
The writings of early Church Fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome, further emphasize this hierarchical structure. Ignatius consistently urges the faithful to follow the bishop, presbyters, and deacons, highlighting their divine institution and essential roles in maintaining church unity and orthodoxy. Clement, in his letter to the Corinthians, underscores the apostolic tradition of appointing bishops to ensure continuity and prevent strife, thus affirming the hierarchical framework established by the apostles. Historical practices, including apostolic succession and the decisions of early Church Councils like Nicaea in 325 AD, reaffirm the importance of this structured governance for preserving doctrinal integrity and unity within the Church.
The Trinitarian belief, as all Christians understand it today, is deeply rooted in the decisions made by these early councils and the structured body of church governance comprising bishops, presbyters, and deacons. The Council of Nicaea, guided by the episcopal leadership, articulated the doctrine of the Trinity, affirming the consubstantiality (ὁμοούσιος, homoousios) of the Son with the Father. This foundational doctrine, along with subsequent affirmations by Church Councils, necessitates the crucial role of the established hierarchical structure in shaping and preserving core Christian beliefs. Thus, the organized governance by bishops, rooted in scriptural and historical precedence, has been instrumental in defining and maintaining essential Christian doctrines like the Trinity. So the physical body of Church and these roles are all Apostolic.
Faith is a work of God, Philip 2:13 and it is God who both wills and works in us for his good pleasure
Reformed always identified three marks of the church 1 right preaching of the word 2 right use of sacraments 3 exercise of church discipline ie excommunication
Man, here I thought my 4+ year (and counting) catechumenate was a lot 😂😅
Ok I have a question. I am currently a Pentecostal Christian. One with so many questions. I have watched hundreds and hundreds of hours of video searching for the truth. I guess for me it comes down to this. What did church look like in 33 AD. When church was underground or in homes what did it look like. Was it liturgical? When did veneration begin? If not when did it begin. If the claim is made that the Orthodox Church was formed by Christ in 33. AD please make it make sense. Because from what I can see Protestants may have the the Eucharist wrong, as well as other things however Paul talks about prophecy in the church something that can break out in a pentacostal church so are we right about that?
I love your quest for the truth. That pursuit of the truth is quite honorable. We would love to discuss further with you. Feel free to email: thetransfiguredlife@gmail.com and we would love to set up a brief call sometime to discuss questions concerning the Ancient Faith.
There is no way to refute monergism (Calvinism), as no sect believes in predestination, but rather in free will. The Bible presents Paul (Gl 1.15) and many others (Is 49.1), who were already predestined for eternal life, an indisputable fact. Marcos Lopez - Apologetic Ministry Brazil
Sure but what abt the overwhelming majority of the Yous and yes everyone who is in the book of life was know before and after
there is no way to refute what has been refuted countless times?
Jay… the PCA is not “conservative.”
It is like going before a judge for murder, you plead guilty knowing the penalty. Your attorney steps to the judge and says, I have taken the penalty for this person and his future transgressions. Therefore they must be set free.
One thing I can’t get on board w is icons and infant baptism. Open to the latter but there’s original writings of first century Christian’s against icons. I just stick with church of Christ to be safe they practice just as the churches in acts. If orthodoxy is true the church of Christ is it in infant form
The other hang up I have is calling the priest “father” the Bible is clear as day on that issue and that just puts me off. I am exploring and trying to be open minded though due to the churches history
Go ask any local priest those questions after you visit a Divine Liturgy 👍☦️
Paul calls himself father. What’s wrong with icons or paedo-baptism? Have you read anything about the 7th council and the condemnation of iconoclasm as a heresy?
@@triggered8556 ya I actually became down with it till I found that out lol that is def adding to the gospel 100% imo having a member who can draw for the congregations shouldn’t be a determining factor for salvation. They didn’t have time for all that during the persecution years. Also don’t see how there was even debate to begin with so early if the church was that cohesive in things. And y’all can never backtrack and make it right and have to stick with what is added to y’all’s gospel because y’all’s “infallibility”
@@unknown-zy6dp what are you talking about? How did that address anything of what I said?
@@triggered8556 did they back track on it during the seventh ? Just see what you stated I’ve never heard that interesting I’ll look into it
Rom 2:28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
Someone should tell Paul he is a minimalist before his time. Here he is talking about an invisible Israel distinction from the visible covenant community
In the parable of the sower, only one of the analogies represents a saved person. The one that withers and never recovered was never saved. Either it will thrive again or never again. Doesnt mean you can lose salvation, as that diminishes the power of sovereignty of God. If God has you in His hand, He cannot drop you if you try to wriggle out. There seems to be confusion with regeration and sanctification. The scripture says that those who endure until the end will be saved. I think this is where some take this as being you can go in and out of being saved, whereas I believe it means if you didnt endure then you just weren't ever saved, simply.
The problem Jay had was going all in to Calvinism. These belief structures aren't 100% accurate in representing the Scripture. The best thing to describe the difference in orthodox and otherwise is Monergism vs. Synergism. Monergists still believe we must live out the Truth, but that comes with being saved. Example, baptism does not save you, but IF you are saved, you will naturally go be baptized. Works do not save, but IF you are saved, you will do the works. I dont think the orthodox seem to grasp what is meant with election and predestination.
Dont narrow it down to things like the TULIP, just go by scripture. Letters written to the elect...you know there can be people in a church who aren't saved. So you can write to the elect in a church and not be writing to the whole church. This is where you differ as well, because I believe the church only includes the elect, regardless of the building they attend for worship. There are unsaved in probably every church type.
It would be nice to see Jay debate an actual educated theologian who is monergist instead of when he just debates call-in RUclips viewers. Because there things that I never hear monergists claim that he attributes to them. No one denies Christ going to Hades. If it is in the scripture, thats what we go by. There are others as well but just maybe debate a monergist theologian who can hash out these topics the best way.
Galatians 3:10-11 10For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”
Jay misunderstands the meaning of cirumcision. Yes circumcision is a work of the law but what does the rite mean covenantally ? To bind someone to all the law not just the ceremonial arbitrary division, moral works are represented in The ceremonial work. To break one law is to break all the works of the law
The gospel is the good news. What a whirlpool of thoughts humans have. We see through a glass dimly, and then we shall see face to face.
Where are you in this whirlpool?
I can't pray to dead people. I believe in soul sleep. We are asleep till Christ's return. Jesus is the only way to petition God the Father. Nowhere is anyone asking someone dead to petition God. Other than the adoration of dead saints, I appreciate the Orthodox world view.
Rom 4:17
as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”-in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.
There is nominalistic Paul before his time saying God declared him and named him the father of a multitude but he only has Isaac. But Jay said all of Gods word is performative in a simple sense so Abraham was already perfectly the father a multitude in full telos at the moment in genesis 12. Like Abrahams prophecy and our salvation it must be properly understood in the biblical paradigm of inaugurated eschatology of indicative imperative of history of salvation and Ordo salvation. Of already and not yet.
Ask someone who has been Evangelical for many years but is now learning that the salvation messages skewed in the Protestant arena My biggest problem with tradition equaling scripture is one has to be ahead of the other and if the tradition contradicts the Bible I'm taking the Bible every time! I have no problem with tradition as long as it doesn't cut out the Bible and especially if it shows a cohesiveness in a way of bringing the congregation together. Speaking about scripture that can be contracted Jesus said call no man father for you have one father he's in heaven why do we call Catholic priests and Orthodox priest Father This is not to rag on you it's just our sincere question?
I've learned Joy studying the Greek. The Byzantine scribes were in my opinion the majority text accuracy.. I seriously doubt the alexandrian and sonaticus condex.
If Calvinism was true i wouldn’t be a christian i’d most likely be damned there would be no way to know if God loves me
37:45 ? What about The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen?
i’ve read it. Basically you would have to believe in determinism which Calvin ultimately got from Augustine and Augustine got from his Manichean influence. Christ receiving punishment from the Father is a Nestorian heresy and destroys the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Reformed theology’s Christology is heretical in its implications for sure.
right, they make these sweeping claims about "all" protestants that are usually not very accurate. For example, we believe that works dont save you, but if you are saved you will do works. They just flip words around that take away the power of Christ.
Early church pronouncements & councils at the very least are true… because they were written by people who directly or 2nd hand knew the Apostles & what they didn’t have time to write down or was lost to time… the vast majority of church doctrine was set up during these early centuries BC & the later centuries is mostly just staying consistent with that (the same way protestants try to stay consistent with scripture alone)… which ofcourse Roman Catholicism later departed from… protestants would just say the most early days foundational doctrines & practices of Catholicism have zero basis in the Apostolic instructions & practices… which is kinda silly
Paul was a coworker after God step in his life and basically took over
I don’t understand the problem of penal substitution. Didn’t Jesus die of in my place so that my sin could be forgiven? I was raised Baptist but have never heard that Jesus was damned. That’s news to me! I did find the Apostles Creed that He descended into hell to be problematic. I now understand the Peter passage to mean Jesus proclaimed victory over hades and death, not that he suffered in hell. His death and resurrection was enough.
Fr. John Whiteford and Craig Truglia have a good video on the Orthodox view of the Atonement.
The issue with the Protestant understanding is that it begins with Soteriology and Christology becomes a secondary issue, wherein Orthodoxy we believe that without Proper Christology you cannot have proper views on Salvation. Which is why in many Pop Protestant Circles you will either have people believing in Nestorian Christology or Arian Christology knowingly or unknowingly.
John MacArthur teaches Nestorianism openly in his sermons.
Ultimately it's an incomplete Gospel to lean only into one aspect of what Christ did for us on the Cross.
Christ died to restore humanity to what it was originally meant to be by defeating death and reconciling humanity with the divine, not to pay for our sins. His grace and forgiveness are infinite as long as we repent and seek Him. That is the power of Baptism, Confession, and the Eucharist. I could barely understand until I experienced those sacraments, and I still don't understand fully, but I have experienced that what the Church teaches is true.
I would definitely talk to a priest about it for a better explanation.
@tammywilliams- anchor… yes, please look into this. For 1500 years the church was in unity about salvation. It was believed for 1500 years “vicarious substitution” verses penal atonement . What penal atonement is today is different. And it is what is causing the once saved always saved belief. It causes people to believe that they can sin, and still be saved, because Jesus took not only our sin, which he did , but every drop of punishment and or consequences of our sins, even after we have received the gospel. (Hebrews 10:26) The reformation changed this and other definitions of key doctrines that were never believed in all of church history up until then. Yes, please, call and make an appointment with a priest. Just tell them you are not a Catholic, but you have questions and you would like to speak with a priest. And if one parish isn’t friendly, or if a priest doesn’t seem very interested, call another parish . ❤ 🙏🏻 do not let anything discourage you . The Lord will guide you ! blessings to you on your journey !🙏🏻😁
@tammywilliams-ankcor, oh, and I wanted to mention Jesus was not damned, he descended to set the captives free. 🙏🏻😃❤️
@@acekoala457 i think its kind of a semantics thing honestly. Saying Christ was fully man and fully God, some say two persons. God can do things we dont comprehend metaphysically. God can be fully human and fully God through Jesus and I dont see why orthodox get so hung up on making these strange distinctions in things. Death is separation from God, and Christ had to experience that at least briefly to atone for the elect.
Jay is totally wrong in rejecting Penal Substitution at 43:50 and on. There's an Orthodox form of Penal Substitution without the baggage of limited atonement or double imputation. The Scriptures teach it and the Fathers affirm it. Galatians 3:13 and Deuteronomy 21:23 show us that Christ bought us from the curse because God cursed _Him_ instead. St. Athanasius says in _Letter to Marcellinus_ that Christ bore the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression. St. Proclus of Constantinople says that He was a substitute that bore the penalty instead of everyone bearing it. St. John Chrysostom, St. John of Damascus, and Blessed Theophylact say it was like as though someone were condemned to death and then Christ took that punishment instead. St. Isidore of Pelusium says Christ drank the cup of God's fury of punishment on the tree, turning it into a cup of sweetness for us. St. Ephraim the Syrian says Christ's death paid our debt. St. Philaret of Moscow says that His death, as the death of one sinless, was a fund of infinite merit that allows God to save sinners without it being against justice. St. Isaiah the Prophet says "the chastisement of our peace was upon Him" (Isaiah 53:5) and the Orthodox Study Bible explains that this means He "took our chastisement." Fr. Josiah Trenham says the Lord bore our judgement on Himself. Fr. John Whiteford says Christ took upon Himself in our place the penalty that was due to us.
The penalty was death, bro. Not legal standing. Colossians 2. Read it and try to follow Paul.
The debt was erased along with any standing that the law could throw against it. Meaning the legal debt is not being held accountable to anybody. And in so doing that, in making the legal debt null and void, and nobody paying it, and God being fine with that, the devil can no longer accuse. But nothing was paid.
What was substituted was our death. Hence the need for the resurrection. Which is what Father John whiteford actually says. He says Jesus took our place in death, not God's wrath. He makes that very clear. Do not misquote him.
Isaiah 53 clearly says that we assumed God was punishing him, but we were punishing him. On the cross the only wrath Jesus faced was ours. Because we hated the sinless man.
You are suffering from the word concept fallacy. Jay is denying calvinist PSA. Not Orthodox substitution.
@@JLeppert You say that "Nothing was paid," and that "The only wrath Jesus faced was ours," but the the Fathers (and the Scriptures) teach that Christ paid the debt and bore God's wrath for us. I mentioned examples above, and will quote a couple directly below, and there are many many more.
"He suffered for us, and bore in Himself *the wrath* that was the penalty of our transgression." --St. Athanasius, Letter to Marcellinus
"His death *paid* the debt." --St. Ephrem the Syrian, Hymn 14 on the Nativity
"I *paid* back what I took not away" --Christ in Psalm 68
"Against Me is Thine *anger* made strong." --Christ in Psalm 87
@@orthodoxensign
If we understand the Cross in any way that says the Father damned the Son, it is wrong.
I can understand the language of debt, the language of law, the language of wrath, the language of victory over sin and death, trampling down death by death.
The Cross is foolishness to the perishing because it is victory in "defeat."
@@icxcnika2037 Obviously Christ was not sent to Hell for torment. The Saints don't teach that. But He was willingly condemned with our punishment _on the Cross._ He bore our judgement, to heal us.
@@icxcnika2037 God certainly does punish us for our sins. It's clear in the Bible and in the Fathers. Let's look at an example and then we'll go on to Athanasius as you requested.
"Also one must bear in mind that God's original wish was that all should be saved and come to His Kingdom (1 Timothy 2:4). For it was not for punishment that He formed us but to share in His goodness, inasmuch as He is a good God. But inasmuch as He is a just God, His will is that sinners should suffer punishment." --St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition, Book II, 29
This is why Christ tells us to "fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell" (Matt. 10:28) and the Psalmist tells us that "to such as act with exceeding pride, He rendereth them their due" (Ps. 30:24). God actively destroys and renders just judgment to sinners. Try to tell Sodom and Gomorrah, the world at the time of the Flood, Onan, Egypt smitten with plagues, Korah, Israel plagued with snakes, Israel wandering in the wilderness, Israel crushed by Babylon, Ananias and Sapphira, and all the others whom God actively punishes, that God does not punish.
Now, you wanted to look at Athanasius on the Incarnation. Very well:
"And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father." --St. Athanasius the Great (+373), On the Incarnation, Chapter 8
And while we're at it:
“Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all. ” --St. Athanasius, First Discourse Against the Arians. (See? As I said, He bore the judgement we deserved for breaking the moral law)
And more Athanasius:
“Psalms 87 and 68, again speaking in the Lord's own person, tell us further that He suffered these things, not for His own sake but for ours. 'Thou hast made Thy wrath to rest upon me,' says the one; and the other adds, 'I paid back what I never took.' For He did not die as being Himself liable to death: He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression, even as Isaiah says, 'He Himself bore our infirmities' (Is. 53:4).” --St. Athanasius, Letter to Marcellinus Concerning the Interpretation of the Psalms
Tradition is like Chinese whispers 😮
Also what is this business of claiming reformed to be Nestorian because they deny that the divine nature did not die yet the human nature did and that these are spoken of only the one person without mixture or confusion, this is the historic doctrine of the communication of attributes
Justification seems like a process worked out among men. But it's not there's no gospel being preached there
Why won’t you debate Matt Slick? Scared?
Jay claims that in Protestantism you are not challenged to work on your vices …. Just wrong that all
there's also a lot of preacher worship in Protestantism!!
40:40 ouch!
Talk about Protestants after orthodoxy here in ethiopia its unlike any where eles,seems like they have lost it that they don't get to device people as they used to. its surprising to know this thing is universal
Well, Ethiopian Tewahedo isn't part of the Holy Orthodox Church, that's being discussed here. They are what is called Miaphysites, part of the Oriental communion.
The reason Paul references genesis 15 is because that is the actually ratification of of the covenant proper. Ie walking between the parts while he was asleep! MONERGISM
The apostles didn’t set up a church to be governed by bishops.
Your right. God did.
@@TheTransfiguredLife Did the bishops themselves give themselves this power after the apostles were gone and there are hundreds of schisms?
@@boltrooktwo We have a series on Apostolic Succession that you may find helpful on this topic. But yes the office of Bishop is absolutely Apostolic.
St.Clement of Rome: “Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80])"
I was with you until justification by faith alone was turned into a work. That like saying your heart beat or breathing is a work. 🤔
Thanks for commenting. Where exactly did we lose you? In what way is placing faith in Christ not a work?
Didn't Christ Himself say faith was a work?
I don't know about Jay. He's obviously well read, yet. Yes, God says we are justified, righteous. And sure, from His point of view we are. Yet for me it definitely does not necessarily at all follow that He combines this with giving us the faith to believe Him. Two very different things.
And then the issue of the two gospels. Does Jay even know this basic truth? A lot of learned people do not. Thee most correct cutting of His word is that between the gospel of Jesus and the gospel of the risen Christ. The gospel of the GLORIFIED brighter than the noon day sun Christ. Only Paul knew Him. Definitely not Saul, His teachings, that is. All Paul is is the teaching of the risen Christ.
And these radically different gospels are NOT to be mixed because doing so just causes chaos and confusion and brings great joy to Satan. And I hear Jay not only mixing them but really not even aware of them. Very sad.
Yea if you say the Calvinist centers on tulip and the gospel of resurrection and ascension is not significant. But that is a false assertion.
Biggest problem thing said above, Jay assumes the divine decree is soteriology, when the divine decree is a matter of theology proper in reformed theology
Dude please stop Jay you are a slanderer, saying reformed theology does require holiness.
Jay completely misrepresents the reformed view of canonicity it is so misrepresentative
How about Reid scripture? Just God justify the ungodly. And I'm sure you would hate to hear about dispensationalism's view of Matthew are covenant. People called the repent the prepare for the Kingdom preparatory. You're talking a ministry before Paul. None of you must be very simple or need grace that much
The greatest mysterious creation in all of God's glorious creation is human beings created in "the image and likeness of God" with the mystery of having a free will to freely choose to love or not love God and be like Christ who loves all His creation and died to reconcile His whole creation!
Please read and study Colossians 1:15-23 because this is what it says!
Calvinists do not know what free will is because they have no explanation for why Adam was created good and lived in a perfect environment and yet chose to sin!
Yet they base their Calvinism on their ignorance!
Calvinists simply do not believe in free will.
They love Calvinism because God chose them to be Christians and they had no say in the matter and to hell with everybody else who had no chance to believe.
And they call this a loving God?
I used to have a Howdy Duty puppet and I know puppetry when I see it!
"Jesus went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them!"
John 6:65
The "enabling" is grace for all, not regeneration for some!
It is not
regeneration for some > forced faith
It is
Enabling Grace for all > faith by free choice > regeneration
"The grace of God has appeared that offers salvation for all men!"
Titus 2:11
"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that BY BELIEVING" you may have LIFE in his name!"
John 20:31
"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people!"
1 Timothy 2:3-6
A Calvinist has to be smart to explain these verses and most of the Bible away!
Why do I believe?
Because I fell in love with Jesus Christ who loved me a sinner and loves everybody else and died so he could raise from the dead to destroy Death, Sin and The devil for everybody.
Hebrews 2:9, 14-15
God did not pour out wrath on God the Son as Calvinists teach which splits the Trinity!
Proverbs 17:15
As in Adam all died, so in Christ all are made alive!"
1 Corinthians 15:22
Limited atonement is a heresy.
In fact check it out in Luke at the last supper where
Jesus explicitly says he died for Judas Iscariot!
So much for Calvinism!
The Johnny come lately doctrine of demons not grace!
See 1 Timothy 4:1
People should check out the Orthodox Church which has been here since 33 ad
Matthew 16:18
Jude 1:3
Why is Jay so tall? Like tf he could hit that those lights
I'm a Calvinistic Baptist, grew up in a country where Eastern Orthodoxy is its official religion. I debated many of them and all the time is the same thing... straw men arguments.
Please do your research and stop misrepresenting the gospel that we preach.
People please listen to the defence of biblical calnivism and true gospel from those who believe it. These are wolves in sheep's clothing!
We've don our research and many converts have spent time in Reformed Calvinism, we know what we're talking about. There's no defense for Calvinism being "biblical" because it simply isn't and can't be defended.
I'm a former calvinist and converted to orthodoxy, so idk what you think you're proving. I know what they teach. Their foundation is Sola scriptura, supposedly, but scripture doesn't teach Sola scriptura. So it quickly unravels from that point
Former Reformed Calvinist here. Orthodoxy crushes Reformed Calvinism every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
I've listened to it, studied it and lived as a Calvanist Baptist heretic. It's ridiculously stupid and illogical. It contradicts Scripture and teaches vile, disgusting heresies. It didn't exist for well over a thousand years, making it no different than Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, or any number of modernist pseudo-Christian cults. If you want to see wolves in sheep's clothing, look at the people teaching you another gospel, a perverted, demonic one.
@@bad_covfefe
Three Times on Sunday
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Jay's argument at 41:00 where he says that no one including the apostle Paul thought that someone could have a different declaration of being from their actual ontologic status.
Romans 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Paul clearly states here that those being counted as righteous are ungodly. Their ontological status is "ungodly", and yet they are counted as "righteous" (a declarative statement about them). I would say Paul disagrees with Jay's statement.
Also regarding penal substitution Col 2:13-14 states there is at least some component of this at the crucifixion: And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
As well as Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us-for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”
Christ is not literally a curse, it's by appropriation.
@@JayDyer Right. He appropriated our curse and penalty in our place. XD
@jdoe97 You're right about Penal Substitution. The Orthodox Church through her scriptures and saints teaches that Christ bore our penalty in our stead. But this is without the baggage of limited atonement or double imputation or any division of the Trinity. As for your first point, note that Paul in Romans 4 does not use "faith" to mean mental assent to some thesis, but rather later on he speaks of walking in the steps of faith (Romans 4:12). When we are faithful to Christ He works in us and through us transformitively so we can LIVE in faith, having graciously forgiven our ungodliness through the Cross.
God justifies the ungodly by making them righteous by grace through faith in Jesus Christ; They are no longer ungodly, and that is the miracle of God's grace.
The legal fiction nonsense has to go.
@@nicodemuseam Did you read the quotes Jeem had on screen in the video?
I meant penal substitutionary atonement in my previous comment.
Jay Dyer is a comedian. He’s theology is a joke. Plus, I wonder why he calls himself that when he looks like he pooped his pants all the time.
You sound upset.
Orthodoxy is not a joke. Orthodox Theology is the salvation of sinners through participation in the righteousness of God.
The unrighteous are justified by faith in Jesus Christ and made righteous. There is no other way.
Jay dyer does not genuinely believe in God. Everyone with any clue knows this.