As a Lutheran, I’m proud my church is the fulfillment of Redeemed Zoomer’s vision for Reconquista. We kicked out the liberals, and kept our seminaries, colleges, and beautiful historic churches. And right now, according to President Harrison, the Missouri Synod is in the best financial shape we’ve ever been in; which we’re using to grant full scholarships to MDiv students at our seminaries, and investing in missionary work abroad.
@@GabrielWithoutWings Indeed, some LCMS churches have contemporary worship. (It’s also the same in the ACNA or PCA.) Our Synod permits diversity regarding worship practices on the confessional principle of “adiaphora.” However, I personally would only attend a congregation that uses the traditional liturgy in our service book.
@@Steadfast-Lutheran That's part of my criticism of Lutheranism, same with Catholicism. If I go to an Orthodox church, I know what to expect. I don't have to do research on websites to see what kind of liturgy I'm going to find. If a church wants to look and act and sound non-denom, then why not just be non-denom?
I recently read Joshua Schooping’s book, “Disillusioned,” where he explains why he left the Eastern Orthodox priesthood and church. Now he’s a Lutheran pastor in the Missouri Synod.
Wow, when did pastor Schooping become Lutheran? This entire time he's been Reformed. I loved his book too, he's been a major influence in me leaving Orthodoxy for Lutheranism.
@@Steadfast-Lutheran If you get a chance, I recommend reading his book An Existential Soteriology. It's all about how penal substitution is taught throughout the church fathers. Which bafflingly, the Orthodox deny.
The Orthodox Church does not oppose layman read the Scriptures. The Confession of Dositheus was composed in a Greek speaking context. Cyril Lucaris had produced a modern Greek translation, and this was opposed. St. Dositheus' point was that he opposed moving from the Greek original text to a translation, despite the argument that many less educated people would benefit from it. The Confession was revised, and in the revised text, it was only stated that the Old Testament should not be read without guidance... not that it should not be read, and this caveat about guidance did not extend to the New Testament.
What is funny about this is that St Cyril Lucaris became a Calvinist out of conviction who is an Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch in the 17th century, a channel called Ancientpathstv has a great documentary about this, go check it out.
@user-hh8hw2wj9b I'm well aware of that, that is what caused the Confession in question to be composed. I'm also aware of the video. There are many elements of it that are way off. I'm going to write an article laying those things out.
It doesn’t make sense to compartmentalize the scriptures into exoteric and esoteric halves. Furthermore, the NT is only sufficiently apprehended once the reader has familiarized himself with the OT, so reading the NT by itself without having first acquainted yourself with the OT can cause issues. The vast majority of people today and even back then could not understand koine Greek, so even if they have the NT in their hands and they are allowed to read it, they won’t understand anything. Unless Dositheus was just saying that the translation shouldn’t supersede the koine as the official text, then I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with that. But if he’s opposed to a translation in general, that makes no sense.
@@hitomukawakami7124 The contemporary circumstances have to be kept in mind. The Church was not generally allowed to run schools to educate people. Few could even read. However, in the services of the Church they would have been given a good basis in understanding especially the New Testament. So for those who could read, the New Testament would be familiar ground. The OT would be another story. That is not the circumstances today. As for the understandability of Koine Greek by Greeks today, I know a Greek auto mechanic who gave me his copy of the Greek Bible because I asked him about it. It is well worn, from much reading. The Old Testament is the Septuagint Greek Text. The New Testament is the Patriarchal Greek New Testament, which is very close to the more familiar TR. He clearly was able to read it and understand it. Probably a big difference would be found between those who grew up going to Church and hearing the services, verses unchurchly people, who did not.
I disagree with Reedemer Zoomer’s statement that “justification by faith alone isn’t the entire Gospel because then Catholic and Orthodox wouldn’t be saved” (paraphrase). On the contrary, I’d assert that on the occasions when Catholic and Orthodox are saved, it’s because they trust in Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins (justification by faith alone), despite the official teachings of their respective churches regarding the role of good works, doing penance, seeking the intercession of the saints, etc.
@@dman7668 Lutherans self-identify as catholic according the 1530 Augsburg Confession, which states: “This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers.” “Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons.” “Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.”
IUSTITIA DEI A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification by ALISTER E. McGRATH proves Sola Fide is a 16th century innovation. We need the sacraments.
While the Orthobros are super annoying Trey who heads Telosbound is a genuinely great guy who I've spoken with on multiple occasions and greatly enjoyed (and I made clear I was protestant too). He was curious, respectful, very smart, and very wise. There's more to Orthodoxy than Jay Dyer and theologians like John Behr, Sergei Bulgakov, and even David Bentley Hart (at times) demonstrates that there is more to Orthodoxy than Dyer bros
@@ethanstrunk7698 oh ya no I'm sola scriptura and I love Bulgakov and I'm working through his tragedy of philsophy at the moment. He was by far one of the most brilliant theologians to have ever lived
A pretty build will not keep people in a Confessional church, only the faithful administration of word and sacrament. Morning/evening prayer, vespers, bible study and Catechism classes would also make a world of different.
1:18:06 I don't get why he thinks the argument of canon is the weakest argument against Protestantism. I have yet to hear a good positive Protestant case for the canon. What I hear over and over again, when a defense is mounted, is _tu quoque._ "You have the same problem." Ok, maybe that's true, maybe Orthodox and Catholics and Protestants all have the same crippling problem. Maybe we should all be orthodox Jews. But I don't think the problem is primarily epistemic necessarily, as you seem to suggest. It's that ecclesialists, be that Catholic or Orthodox or whatnot, can get to ecclesialism and the canon playing by their own rules. Christ established a Church with authority, we can see that Church from the unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession, the canon was established by that Church. I don't see how Protestants can get to the doctrine of _sola scriptura_ or the canon of Scripture using _sola scriptura._ The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Section 6, says, "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." Further, Section 10 of the same: "The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." The two immediate problems arising is that the doctrine of _sola scriptura_ itself is not taught in Scripture, nor is the canon in Scripture. The latter is clearly a controversy of religion, as seen for example in Sections 2 and 3 which affirm the Protestant canon and deny the deuterocanon respectively, but it's not a controversy that you can resolve from Scripture itself. You have, at the foundation of _sola scriptura,_ a question that cannot be answered from Scripture, a controversy which necessarily requires an appeal outside of Scripture to resolve. Again, this isn't an epistemic question; it's a coherence question. Ecclesialists have an internally coherent way of determining the canon, Ecumenical Councils, magisterium, etc. I have yet to hear an internally coherent Protestant justification for _sola scriptura_ or the canon.
oh ya, Schelling was a Lutheran philosopher and he had an insanely high influence on both Roman Catholicism directly and indirectly (Raviasson) and was even more immensely inflectional on Russian Orthodox theologians especially Solovyov
26:16 I'm afraid that RZ has this backwards. That presbyter and bishop were conflated in the early Church was not to say that the early Church was presbyterian and developed an episcopacy; it's to say that the early Church was episcopal and developed presbyter as a lower order to aid in service. The best work in the English language on this was by an Anglican priest, Felix Cirlot, in his book "Apostolic Succession: Is It True?" Sadly out of print, but you can find a pdf of it online; I'm fairly sure the copyright has lapsed. For example, Cirlot understands the Dideche's statement to appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons to be about the congregation electing a bishop, but not ordaining one. That is, they choose someone, but this person must be confirmed by the laying on of hands of the episcopate, hence why the Didache does not mention the laying on of hands or who does so. For an analogue, see St Ambrose, who the assembly requested be made bishop, but who was ordained by laying on of hands by a bishop.
In the New Testament St. Paul uses presbyter and bishop synonymously. They were the same office in the first century only to be differentiated sometime in the second century.
@@robertdelisle7309 That doesn't contradict Cirlot's view. In fact, it's perfectly in line, save that the presbyterate as a distinct, lower office than the episcopate began in the 1st century rather than the 2nd before becoming universal, as seen in St Ignatius' reference to the threefold ministry.
This sounds similar to an argument put forth in an appendix in the Eastern Orthodox Bible. They argue that the difference between the NT use and Ignatius' use of the terms is merely a semantic difference. That is, even when bishop and presbyter were used interchangeably, there was still a "protopresbyter" among the presbyters of a local church for the sake of good order. In time, the word bishop began to be used only for the protopresbyter, while presbyter continued to be used for the other presbyters. Then in another appendix, they argue that the modern analog to the local church in the early days is the diocese. So whereas previously the bishop of a city would delegate tasks to presbyters within the same city church, now the bishop of a diocese delegates his authority to the priests/presbyters throughout the diocese.
Min 20:30 spot on historically both Catholic and Orthodox forbid laity from becoming apologetics because the role of laity is to submit and the role of clergy is to teach. There are exceptions such as Emperor Justinian when imprisoned Pope Vigilius or when Francis of Assisi led lay preachers. But typically lay persons like Michael Lofton and Jay Dyer historically would be prohibited to teach the faith which alone reserved to the clergy. I am a subdeacon in Byzantine Catholic Church who grew up in a Dutch Calvinist tradition. I went to Westminster to learn the early Christianity only to find the early Church not proto Protestant. Athanasius in his book Contra Arius wrote when people offer incense, bow, and kiss the icon of Emperor the honor translate to the person. This teaching contradict John Calvin thesis that veneration is idolatry. At Ephesus Cyril preached seven Marian homilies and closed the universal synod with an Akathist to the Most Holy Theotokos. This contradict Protestantism. Pope Leo praised the apparition of Euphemia at her tomb in Chalcedon during the universal synod. No Protestants could accept the Canon Laws promulgated at Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, or Chalcedon. No one historically accept only dogmatic text alone without entire universal synods proceedings and Canon Laws. Gavin Ortlund in his dialogue with Fr De Young on Sola Scriptura in min 21 argues that Protestantism profess the Church had accrued men made traditions similar to playing telephone game that overtime caused the Church lapsed into Great Apostasy gradually if not immediately as Mormons claim. Good dialogue, you can find me on Facebook. Remember it's a question of value judgement in the end. When you read Scripture whose interpretation you would value higher. Early Church or the reformers. It's by definition is bias and circular but it's ok. A text can't interpret itself. A constitution needs supreme court to interpret it. God bless.
The Assyrian Church of the East is almost extinct. St. Cyprian of Carthage was a pre-Nicene Father, and his treatise on the Unity of the Church is the same as the view the Orthodox Church holds today, and it is also the view that was held when the Nicene Creed was composed, and clause about "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church..." was included in the Creed.
Redeem zoomer looked at the prices of smoke machines and said nope. But all seriousness I would like him to consider Catholicism or orthodoxy. As we’ve been told to follow tradition by Paul.
I keep wanting to comment but have largely refrained. However, at 1:32:00 or so, Zoomer says he believes in Sola Scriptura because God has to correct human sin but can't use humans to do that, because we always sin. But the Scriptures themselves are the product of God inspiring men to write what He wanted. So if God can't use humans, wouldn't that also be a black mark against the Scriptures? Furthermore, if the Spirit now indwells the Church, and Jesus promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth, does the Holy Spirit no longer lead the Church into all truth? Did the leading of the Holy Spirit end with the apostles? Why couldn't the Holy Spirit also guide the successors of the apostles, especially when hundreds of them gather together to make decisions, and then those decisions are accepted and ratified by the Church as a whole over time?
You're presuoposing that being guided into all truth means the church is guaranteed to never err in any way, which I would say isn't what that text means. Secondly, many Protestants do affirm that the first five ecumenical councils are good and correct but are not infallibly correct because the ability to speak infallibly was a gift only given to apostles. But they are correct in that they affirm what scripture teaches.
@@npuritan6769 I certainly did not presuppose that being guided by the Holy Spirit means the church will never err in any way. Peter was guided by the Holy Spirit but was confronted by Paul over something he was doing wrong. The Corinthian church presumably was being guided by the Holy Spirit, but their schisms were addressed by Paul and by 1 Clement. I do presuppose that it means that the Church, as a whole, will preserve the truth and that the gates of Hades will never prevail against it. Why was the gift of speaking infallibly only given to the apostles, and what does it mean that they spoke infallibly? Does that mean that every time one of them spoke, it was infallible? Or when they made a decision as a united group it was infallible? Or when they wrote certain documents that the Church preserved and read in its liturgies and considered to be inspired, that then they wrote infallibly?
@joelbecker5389 Because the apostles had the unique ministry of establishing the church, they were given the "keys to the kingdom," and their names are also written on the 12 foundations in the book of Revelation. As to what this means, it means that when they were speaking in a pastoral or teaching context, they were kept free from error in their speech and writings.
Its like the internet makes all discussions more toxic. I would posit that jay dyer would be less of a tool if he discussed or debated with someone in person instead of on his webcam in front of his bookshelf of authority, but honestly he'd probably be just as horrible in person.
Jay Dyer is an expert on the New World order and the global elite. I trust all his content in that regard. He is very well read as an amateur theologian, but I don’t trust him as a theologian. He’s definitely missing the gospel as clearly taught in the Scriptures.
@@morghe321 you needm to wake up pal. don't remain ignorant about the global elite. silly pejoratives don't prove anything. Jay is an expert on the new world order. You sound very uniformed.
Maybe because Catholicism is centered in Rome, Orthodoxy is Greek, Anglicanism is English, Reformed is American. All those churches comprise the eurocentric view of the church. What other Church view would you like for him to talk about? Indian? Chinese? African? He does briefly mention oriental orthodoxy but they don't have as much presence in the online apologetic world.
@@ninjason57 The problem is scripture near Eastern. He often talks about how churches should be made of stone or brick and have beautiful stained glass but if you look back in scripture they lived in Adobe huts and ate on the floor. Christianity came from humble roots just like our Lord did.
@roses993 Not true. Holy Tradition is the umbrella which INCLUDES Scripture. It is the crown jewel of Holy Tradition. Always sad to see a Protestant talk smack about something they don't even understand, especially the body of Christ
He became reformed due to the lack of Christian education and we mean the early church Fathers not today's so called evangelist who with 600 different mistranslated bibles and 45,000 different denominations that are growing each week. Jesus taught the Apostles for 3 years his Church is complete it does not a word more or less> The One Holy Catholic(not roman) and Apostolic Church. The protestants protested against roman changes and roman inventions but instead of returning to the original Church of Christ they invented there own.
This assumes that Orthodox Judaism is identical to the pre-Christ Judaism of the Second Temple and the Christianity was a radical novel religion. Neither are true. The Judaisms of the 2nd Temple were fairly diverse, from the Pharisees Sadducees to the Essenes. Christianity emerged in this context as a fairly conservative form of Judaism, save for its broader inclusion of Noahides (righteous Gentiles). Following the destruction of the 2nd Temple, most forms of Judaism were destroyed, with only two remaining: Rabbinic, and Christianity. The former is not identical to modern orthodox Judaism, and in many ways grew and developed in reaction against Christianity.
Baptismal regeneration must be denied in all Christian denominations. But salvation by Grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and not by works should be taught by all denominations
@ Bible disagree with it, and a lot of Presbyterian, Baptist, and Methodist theologians disagreed with Sacrament being necessary for salvation. By faith alone, by 100% of finish work of Jesus Christ on the cross saves us. Baptism is just a public declaration of inward change
As a Lutheran, I’m proud my church is the fulfillment of Redeemed Zoomer’s vision for Reconquista. We kicked out the liberals, and kept our seminaries, colleges, and beautiful historic churches. And right now, according to President Harrison, the Missouri Synod is in the best financial shape we’ve ever been in; which we’re using to grant full scholarships to MDiv students at our seminaries, and investing in missionary work abroad.
You should send some of that towards me. The LCMS church near me has altar girls and contemporary music.
@@GabrielWithoutWings Indeed, some LCMS churches have contemporary worship. (It’s also the same in the ACNA or PCA.) Our Synod permits diversity regarding worship practices on the confessional principle of “adiaphora.” However, I personally would only attend a congregation that uses the traditional liturgy in our service book.
@@Steadfast-Lutheran
That's part of my criticism of Lutheranism, same with Catholicism. If I go to an Orthodox church, I know what to expect. I don't have to do research on websites to see what kind of liturgy I'm going to find.
If a church wants to look and act and sound non-denom, then why not just be non-denom?
Bunch of other issues in the LCMS, but compared to other mainlines? Pretty good.
I recently read Joshua Schooping’s book, “Disillusioned,” where he explains why he left the Eastern Orthodox priesthood and church. Now he’s a Lutheran pastor in the Missouri Synod.
Interesting, because he was an evangelical pastor before that.
@@Logous Yes, Schooping was a pastor in the “Christian and Missionary Alliance” denomination until becoming ordained in the LCMS in April 2024.
Wow, when did pastor Schooping become Lutheran? This entire time he's been Reformed. I loved his book too, he's been a major influence in me leaving Orthodoxy for Lutheranism.
@@theodosios2615 Glad to hear! He’s now the pastor of Saint John’s Lutheran Church in Russellville, Arkansas. He was ordained on April 14, 2024.
@@Steadfast-Lutheran If you get a chance, I recommend reading his book An Existential Soteriology. It's all about how penal substitution is taught throughout the church fathers. Which bafflingly, the Orthodox deny.
Yey! Hopefully this interview will help your channel grow much more!
Redeemed Zoomer has slowly become more gracious in his speech! His comment on the Ecclesiastical feminism was a new one for me
Two of my favorite RUclips pals together
I left Greek Orthodoxy when I got saved. Eyes were opened and saw the errors of EO. In a reformed church now.
@@MrMfloor Thank you for sharing! If you'd be interested in sharing your story on my channel, please feel free to reach out via Twitter or Instagram 🙂
You're going to hell
Great interview. So glad to see your channel is growing, the world really needs this content.
The Orthodox Church does not oppose layman read the Scriptures. The Confession of Dositheus was composed in a Greek speaking context. Cyril Lucaris had produced a modern Greek translation, and this was opposed. St. Dositheus' point was that he opposed moving from the Greek original text to a translation, despite the argument that many less educated people would benefit from it. The Confession was revised, and in the revised text, it was only stated that the Old Testament should not be read without guidance... not that it should not be read, and this caveat about guidance did not extend to the New Testament.
What is funny about this is that St Cyril Lucaris became a Calvinist out of conviction who is an Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch in the 17th century, a channel called Ancientpathstv has a great documentary about this, go check it out.
@user-hh8hw2wj9b I'm well aware of that, that is what caused the Confession in question to be composed. I'm also aware of the video. There are many elements of it that are way off. I'm going to write an article laying those things out.
It doesn’t make sense to compartmentalize the scriptures into exoteric and esoteric halves. Furthermore, the NT is only sufficiently apprehended once the reader has familiarized himself with the OT, so reading the NT by itself without having first acquainted yourself with the OT can cause issues. The vast majority of people today and even back then could not understand koine Greek, so even if they have the NT in their hands and they are allowed to read it, they won’t understand anything. Unless Dositheus was just saying that the translation shouldn’t supersede the koine as the official text, then I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with that. But if he’s opposed to a translation in general, that makes no sense.
@@hitomukawakami7124 The contemporary circumstances have to be kept in mind. The Church was not generally allowed to run schools to educate people. Few could even read. However, in the services of the Church they would have been given a good basis in understanding especially the New Testament. So for those who could read, the New Testament would be familiar ground. The OT would be another story. That is not the circumstances today.
As for the understandability of Koine Greek by Greeks today, I know a Greek auto mechanic who gave me his copy of the Greek Bible because I asked him about it. It is well worn, from much reading. The Old Testament is the Septuagint Greek Text. The New Testament is the Patriarchal Greek New Testament, which is very close to the more familiar TR. He clearly was able to read it and understand it. Probably a big difference would be found between those who grew up going to Church and hearing the services, verses unchurchly people, who did not.
I disagree with Reedemer Zoomer’s statement that “justification by faith alone isn’t the entire Gospel because then Catholic and Orthodox wouldn’t be saved” (paraphrase). On the contrary, I’d assert that on the occasions when Catholic and Orthodox are saved, it’s because they trust in Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins (justification by faith alone), despite the official teachings of their respective churches regarding the role of good works, doing penance, seeking the intercession of the saints, etc.
Ironically enough your handle name was Athanasius who was a Catholic in his views.
@@dman7668 Lutherans self-identify as catholic according the 1530 Augsburg Confession, which states:
“This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers.”
“Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons.”
“Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.”
IUSTITIA DEI
A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification by
ALISTER E. McGRATH proves Sola Fide is a 16th century innovation. We need the sacraments.
@Athanasius313 Trans people also identify with stuff but that doesn't make it so. Just saying.
well said
Matthew Everhard is a wonderful Presbyterian pastor on RUclips for those who care :) Great interview!
So, this is your burner account Everhard? 😏
While the Orthobros are super annoying Trey who heads Telosbound is a genuinely great guy who I've spoken with on multiple occasions and greatly enjoyed (and I made clear I was protestant too). He was curious, respectful, very smart, and very wise. There's more to Orthodoxy than Jay Dyer and theologians like John Behr, Sergei Bulgakov, and even David Bentley Hart (at times) demonstrates that there is more to Orthodoxy than Dyer bros
Ive been very interested in Bulgakov recently. Not even leaning orthodoxy but I have heard he is quite brilliant.
@@ethanstrunk7698 oh ya no I'm sola scriptura and I love Bulgakov and I'm working through his tragedy of philsophy at the moment. He was by far one of the most brilliant theologians to have ever lived
So true!! He’s really kind, also Craig Truglia and Seraphim Hamilton !
Love the comment about “ecclesiastical feminism”❤ the church, not submitting to the word of God
love ZOOMER
Zoomer got me back into the faith, now im a Roman Catholic catechumen
Yea, he’s definitely strengthening my Catholic faith. So glad I didn’t get into Calvinism or the like.
repent and believe the gospel
@@faithalonesaves ive seen you on twitter, all you do is post coal and provoke. If anything, you are the one who needs to repent
@faithalonesaves he did, now its your turn 😂
@@faithalonesaves Get to a church and receive penance by a priest 🙏
The peace of the Lord Jesus, of the public in Brazil
A pretty build will not keep people in a Confessional church, only the faithful administration of word and sacrament. Morning/evening prayer, vespers, bible study and Catechism classes would also make a world of different.
1:18:06 I don't get why he thinks the argument of canon is the weakest argument against Protestantism. I have yet to hear a good positive Protestant case for the canon. What I hear over and over again, when a defense is mounted, is _tu quoque._ "You have the same problem." Ok, maybe that's true, maybe Orthodox and Catholics and Protestants all have the same crippling problem. Maybe we should all be orthodox Jews. But I don't think the problem is primarily epistemic necessarily, as you seem to suggest. It's that ecclesialists, be that Catholic or Orthodox or whatnot, can get to ecclesialism and the canon playing by their own rules. Christ established a Church with authority, we can see that Church from the unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession, the canon was established by that Church. I don't see how Protestants can get to the doctrine of _sola scriptura_ or the canon of Scripture using _sola scriptura._
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Section 6, says,
"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."
Further, Section 10 of the same:
"The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."
The two immediate problems arising is that the doctrine of _sola scriptura_ itself is not taught in Scripture, nor is the canon in Scripture. The latter is clearly a controversy of religion, as seen for example in Sections 2 and 3 which affirm the Protestant canon and deny the deuterocanon respectively, but it's not a controversy that you can resolve from Scripture itself. You have, at the foundation of _sola scriptura,_ a question that cannot be answered from Scripture, a controversy which necessarily requires an appeal outside of Scripture to resolve.
Again, this isn't an epistemic question; it's a coherence question. Ecclesialists have an internally coherent way of determining the canon, Ecumenical Councils, magisterium, etc. I have yet to hear an internally coherent Protestant justification for _sola scriptura_ or the canon.
oh ya, Schelling was a Lutheran philosopher and he had an insanely high influence on both Roman Catholicism directly and indirectly (Raviasson) and was even more immensely inflectional on Russian Orthodox theologians especially Solovyov
26:16 I'm afraid that RZ has this backwards. That presbyter and bishop were conflated in the early Church was not to say that the early Church was presbyterian and developed an episcopacy; it's to say that the early Church was episcopal and developed presbyter as a lower order to aid in service. The best work in the English language on this was by an Anglican priest, Felix Cirlot, in his book "Apostolic Succession: Is It True?" Sadly out of print, but you can find a pdf of it online; I'm fairly sure the copyright has lapsed. For example, Cirlot understands the Dideche's statement to appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons to be about the congregation electing a bishop, but not ordaining one. That is, they choose someone, but this person must be confirmed by the laying on of hands of the episcopate, hence why the Didache does not mention the laying on of hands or who does so. For an analogue, see St Ambrose, who the assembly requested be made bishop, but who was ordained by laying on of hands by a bishop.
In the New Testament St. Paul uses presbyter and bishop synonymously. They were the same office in the first century only to be differentiated sometime in the second century.
@@robertdelisle7309 That doesn't contradict Cirlot's view. In fact, it's perfectly in line, save that the presbyterate as a distinct, lower office than the episcopate began in the 1st century rather than the 2nd before becoming universal, as seen in St Ignatius' reference to the threefold ministry.
This sounds similar to an argument put forth in an appendix in the Eastern Orthodox Bible. They argue that the difference between the NT use and Ignatius' use of the terms is merely a semantic difference.
That is, even when bishop and presbyter were used interchangeably, there was still a "protopresbyter" among the presbyters of a local church for the sake of good order. In time, the word bishop began to be used only for the protopresbyter, while presbyter continued to be used for the other presbyters.
Then in another appendix, they argue that the modern analog to the local church in the early days is the diocese. So whereas previously the bishop of a city would delegate tasks to presbyters within the same city church, now the bishop of a diocese delegates his authority to the priests/presbyters throughout the diocese.
Min 20:30 spot on historically both Catholic and Orthodox forbid laity from becoming apologetics because the role of laity is to submit and the role of clergy is to teach. There are exceptions such as Emperor Justinian when imprisoned Pope Vigilius or when Francis of Assisi led lay preachers. But typically lay persons like Michael Lofton and Jay Dyer historically would be prohibited to teach the faith which alone reserved to the clergy. I am a subdeacon in Byzantine Catholic Church who grew up in a Dutch Calvinist tradition. I went to Westminster to learn the early Christianity only to find the early Church not proto Protestant. Athanasius in his book Contra Arius wrote when people offer incense, bow, and kiss the icon of Emperor the honor translate to the person. This teaching contradict John Calvin thesis that veneration is idolatry. At Ephesus Cyril preached seven Marian homilies and closed the universal synod with an Akathist to the Most Holy Theotokos. This contradict Protestantism. Pope Leo praised the apparition of Euphemia at her tomb in Chalcedon during the universal synod. No Protestants could accept the Canon Laws promulgated at Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, or Chalcedon. No one historically accept only dogmatic text alone without entire universal synods proceedings and Canon Laws. Gavin Ortlund in his dialogue with Fr De Young on Sola Scriptura in min 21 argues that Protestantism profess the Church had accrued men made traditions similar to playing telephone game that overtime caused the Church lapsed into Great Apostasy gradually if not immediately as Mormons claim. Good dialogue, you can find me on Facebook. Remember it's a question of value judgement in the end. When you read Scripture whose interpretation you would value higher. Early Church or the reformers. It's by definition is bias and circular but it's ok. A text can't interpret itself. A constitution needs supreme court to interpret it. God bless.
The Assyrian Church of the East is almost extinct. St. Cyprian of Carthage was a pre-Nicene Father, and his treatise on the Unity of the Church is the same as the view the Orthodox Church holds today, and it is also the view that was held when the Nicene Creed was composed, and clause about "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church..." was included in the Creed.
What's the presbyterian channel he mentioned?
H what?
Who are some good protestant scholars that are strong in philosophy?
1:39:20 “if someone’s Eastern Orthodox *BUT* they believe the gospel they’re trusting in Jesus…” 🤔🤔
Sorry if the truth hurts!
Is this on Spotify?
Redeem zoomer looked at the prices of smoke machines and said nope. But all seriousness I would like him to consider Catholicism or orthodoxy. As we’ve been told to follow tradition by Paul.
Follow the traditions of Paul. None of these traditions include bowing down to dolls or statues or praying to mary or rosaries
I keep wanting to comment but have largely refrained.
However, at 1:32:00 or so, Zoomer says he believes in Sola Scriptura because God has to correct human sin but can't use humans to do that, because we always sin.
But the Scriptures themselves are the product of God inspiring men to write what He wanted. So if God can't use humans, wouldn't that also be a black mark against the Scriptures?
Furthermore, if the Spirit now indwells the Church, and Jesus promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth, does the Holy Spirit no longer lead the Church into all truth? Did the leading of the Holy Spirit end with the apostles? Why couldn't the Holy Spirit also guide the successors of the apostles, especially when hundreds of them gather together to make decisions, and then those decisions are accepted and ratified by the Church as a whole over time?
You're presuoposing that being guided into all truth means the church is guaranteed to never err in any way, which I would say isn't what that text means. Secondly, many Protestants do affirm that the first five ecumenical councils are good and correct but are not infallibly correct because the ability to speak infallibly was a gift only given to apostles. But they are correct in that they affirm what scripture teaches.
@@npuritan6769 I certainly did not presuppose that being guided by the Holy Spirit means the church will never err in any way.
Peter was guided by the Holy Spirit but was confronted by Paul over something he was doing wrong. The Corinthian church presumably was being guided by the Holy Spirit, but their schisms were addressed by Paul and by 1 Clement.
I do presuppose that it means that the Church, as a whole, will preserve the truth and that the gates of Hades will never prevail against it.
Why was the gift of speaking infallibly only given to the apostles, and what does it mean that they spoke infallibly? Does that mean that every time one of them spoke, it was infallible? Or when they made a decision as a united group it was infallible? Or when they wrote certain documents that the Church preserved and read in its liturgies and considered to be inspired, that then they wrote infallibly?
@joelbecker5389 Because the apostles had the unique ministry of establishing the church, they were given the "keys to the kingdom," and their names are also written on the 12 foundations in the book of Revelation. As to what this means, it means that when they were speaking in a pastoral or teaching context, they were kept free from error in their speech and writings.
@@npuritan6769do Protestants believe that their interpretation of the scriptures are infallible?
@Whorideswith no, we believe our interpretations are correct but not infallibly correct.
Its like the internet makes all discussions more toxic. I would posit that jay dyer would be less of a tool if he discussed or debated with someone in person instead of on his webcam in front of his bookshelf of authority, but honestly he'd probably be just as horrible in person.
Calvinism is lol
Jay Dyer is an expert on the New World order and the global elite. I trust all his content in that regard. He is very well read as an amateur theologian, but I don’t trust him as a theologian. He’s definitely missing the gospel as clearly taught in the Scriptures.
He's a tinfoil hat and completely unreliable in theology.
@@morghe321 you needm to wake up pal. don't remain ignorant about the global elite. silly pejoratives don't prove anything. Jay is an expert on the new world order. You sound very uniformed.
Why does RZ have such a eurocentric view of the church?
Maybe because Catholicism is centered in Rome, Orthodoxy is Greek, Anglicanism is English, Reformed is American. All those churches comprise the eurocentric view of the church. What other Church view would you like for him to talk about? Indian? Chinese? African? He does briefly mention oriental orthodoxy but they don't have as much presence in the online apologetic world.
@@ninjason57 The problem is scripture near Eastern. He often talks about how churches should be made of stone or brick and have beautiful stained glass but if you look back in scripture they lived in Adobe huts and ate on the floor. Christianity came from humble roots just like our Lord did.
@@thejoshuaproject3809 Then let the near eastern Christians come online and teach him the true way of Christianity.
Like sin both orthodox and Catholics look interesting at first
Lmao. As opposed to waving your arms to etheral rock music with fancy lighting and fog machines?
@stratmatt22 trigerred! Seems silly rosaries don't help!😮
RZ is the Greta thunberg of the Christian RUclips scene
Exodus 20:4-6
@@roses993 🤡
8:30 Bro really said our view of Scripture is lower than Protestants 💀💀💀
True. Per your doctrines, church has higher authority than scripture. Tisk tiak
@roses993 Not true. Holy Tradition is the umbrella which INCLUDES Scripture. It is the crown jewel of Holy Tradition.
Always sad to see a Protestant talk smack about something they don't even understand, especially the body of Christ
57:42 Is that really the anabaptist perspective???
He became reformed due to the lack of Christian education and we mean the early church Fathers not today's so called evangelist who with 600 different mistranslated bibles and 45,000 different denominations that are growing each week. Jesus taught the Apostles for 3 years his Church is complete it does not a word more or less> The One Holy Catholic(not roman) and Apostolic Church. The protestants protested against roman changes and roman inventions but instead of returning to the original Church of Christ they invented there own.
You're spewing the most common lies misrepresenting protestantism, please do your research
EO: "We are older than you guys, so we are the correct institution."
Orthodox Judaism: "Hold my beer!"
Nice. Very impressive. Now let's see Ethiopian orthodoxy's tradition.
@@chuckliquor3663
Oriental Orthodoxy?
This assumes that Orthodox Judaism is identical to the pre-Christ Judaism of the Second Temple and the Christianity was a radical novel religion. Neither are true. The Judaisms of the 2nd Temple were fairly diverse, from the Pharisees Sadducees to the Essenes. Christianity emerged in this context as a fairly conservative form of Judaism, save for its broader inclusion of Noahides (righteous Gentiles). Following the destruction of the 2nd Temple, most forms of Judaism were destroyed, with only two remaining: Rabbinic, and Christianity. The former is not identical to modern orthodox Judaism, and in many ways grew and developed in reaction against Christianity.
Orthodox are how the original church worshipped and taught (they claim) not just the fact it’s older in general. But the original Christian way.
If OE is the direct flow of 2nd temple Judaism, todays Orthodox Jews are some form of a much later group
Baptismal regeneration must be denied in all Christian denominations. But salvation by Grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and not by works should be taught by all denominations
Baptismal Regeneration is the Biblical and historic view of the Church. And this does not contradict Sola Fide, as Baptism saves by creating faith.
@ Bible disagree with it, and a lot of Presbyterian, Baptist, and Methodist theologians disagreed with Sacrament being necessary for salvation. By faith alone, by 100% of finish work of Jesus Christ on the cross saves us. Baptism is just a public declaration of inward change
If any of the Protestant Reformers are in Hell, it is John Calvin. Lord, have mercy.
Only if Calvin didn't accept Christ or repented, then he's in hell