James White Refuted: Cosby Sweater Calvinism & Heated Debate with Protestant - Jay Dyer

[@JayDyer]

Be sure to like, share, comment and subscribe!

[@cindyweatherly4501]

Jay, how can you endure this? Have you heard about Dr. Ken Wilson's book of Augustine/ Calvinism? He's been a guest on Soteriology 101. I've just reread What's So Great About Christianity, Dinesh D'Souza - I agree with him on everything except for his belief that " Francis Collins Evolution" can fit with Christianity. I don't. I'm a young earth creationist because of generational counting and the timing related to prophecies. I mention the book because it was fascinating to see how his logical arguments, related to the " New Atheists " could equally be applied to Calvinism, because of the materialistic determinism.

[@cindyweatherly4501]

I recently watched an awesome video, with one of my favorites: Dr. John Lennox John C. Lennox - Time for Science: What Can We Really Know? UKH, video ( the audio is poor in the beginning)

[@cindyweatherly4501]

Ahahahahahaha!!! Irish Moss! Rainbows 🌈

[@cindyweatherly4501]

I always saw: spirit, soul, and body, and understand the Trinity as being three eternal persons, having complete unity of purpose, in an eternal relationship of love. Being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. I believe that GOD is an invisible SPIRIT, except GOD the SON who remains in His Resurrected Body. I see it as CHRIST being invisible also, before His incarnation. A very excellent resource for Roman Catholicism is Mike Gendron, an ex-Catholic.

[@gardeniainbloom812]

A discussion between you and Dr Michael Sugrue would be wonderful. He has a channel perhaps you could reach out to him.

[@thewheyoflife3548]

I almost fell into calvinism without realizing how evil it sounded out loud. Thank the bride of Christ, Orthodox Christianity found me

[@michiepoe6769]

My priest just gave me a tentative chrismation date - June 12th (Feast of Holy Pentecost). And Jay, you can take partial credit for it. Your content has been, and continues to be, tantamount in my decision to convert. Keep doing what you’re doing, brother! 💖☦️

[@shiningdiamond5046]

Glory to God Sister

[@saint-jiub]

3:03 - intro lecture starts @ 1:25:30 - Protestant debate sola scriptura 2:01:49 - the separation of Christ's human soul? 2:03:30 - the 'word of god' 2:05:53 - essence/energy distinction 2:13:00 - canon and liturgy 2:19:10 - normative authority 2:20:50 - where did church fathers derive their definitions for person & nature? 2:25:25 - the nature of the soul? 2:30:15 - is of predication vs is of identity? 2:55:50 - greek orthodox issues 2:58:37 - normative authority (ft. Fr Deacon Ananias) 3:11:10 - normative authority vs epistemic certainty: normative authority =/= appeal to authority fallacy, 3:17:20 - the harrowing of hades & calvinism 3:23:48 - why are protestants obsessed with iconoclasm? 3:28:00 - what if calvinist has a problem with an icon? + is scripture is an icon? 3:31:25 - is TAG compatible with science/empiricism?? 3:39:08 - eternal begetting of the son? 3:43:07 - where to start studying basic philosophy and logic? 3:46:00 - western vs eastern depictions of christ - agony vs dispassionate 3:47:44 - st john chrysostom refers to alchemy, is he endorsing alchemy? 3:52:30 - Vatican 1 refutes RC: council of trent says those in a state of mortal sin are still in communion with church, but francis redefined it by saying that apostates that left the RC church are still in communion. So he's basically saying that Martin Luther, John Calvin, Henry the 8th never really left rome; No more heretics anymore! . Vatican 1 is very clear on the infallibility of the pope and indefectability, that the roman see can never teach heresy. You cannot deny a dogma and still be RC.

[@squidwardtennisballs3390]

Thanks dude

[@willh9104]

The sola scripture debate was so insanely brutal to listen to…

[@jwjbros7926]

Thanks bro

[@MikeMarlowe-ym3zy]

Multiple time stamp comments and none of you say when the actual content starts. Thanks for nothing. Still sitting here typing this after looking through the comments and it hasn’t started, because that’s how long these intros are.

[@saint-jiub]

@@MikeMarlowe-ym3zy I updated the timestamp to reflect the intro-lecture beginning, Jay always does an introductory lecture before taking call ins. It's assumed you are aware of that and my timestamps usually only cover call-ins.

[@zekdom]

1:38:17 , 1:38:32 - scripture, prayer, and oral teaching 1:39:54 - 2 Thessalonians 2:15 1:40:13 - how do we know the oral teachings? 1:40:42 - lectionaries 1:41:13 - list of canon in the New Testament? 1:43:08, 1:43:32, 1:44:15 - Matthew’s gospel 1:50:02, 1:50:23 - Septuagint 1:51:22 - God’s providence and the Church 1:55:26 - liturgy 2:00:43, 2:01:00 - Marcion 2:01:18 - Irenaeus and apostolic succession

[@justanotherlikeyou]

Dude, that Protestant not getting the canon of Scripture question was PAINFUL

[@johnbarker3673]

"Let me quote you the bible." "How do you know that's supposed to be in the bible?" Answer: "Let me quote you the bible."

[@georgeluke6382]

@@johnbarker3673 Help me understand why you think this is convincing as an argument. Seems circles are unavoidable on both sides. "How do you know the church is the authoritative locus for constructing the canon?" "The church has said that it was". Seems circles are irreducible as we approach self-authenticating evaluative mechanisms. Why is the circle that begins with the community of the Spirit better than a circle beginning with the Word of God manifest in the text that convicts the consciences of the individuals that form the community?

[@johnbarker3673]

Not sure what your talking about the church says the Holy Spirit guides it during the church synods to arrive at the truth. Hence how you got your canon. The church also defines dogmatic statements for us as well, not just the canon. We accept the canon because that is what was decided upon by the church to be the canon, with the belief that God aided the church in determining it. It makes no sense to take the book they made and reject the church which created it. How do you know the books are inspired? Why isn't Ignatius's epistles? I got the feelers reading his letters does that make them inspired? The Ethiopians have clement in their NT why are they wrong? How do you know what books are supposed to be in the canon without the church which made it? If you go back 500 years before the protestant reformation and Luther you had 3 options: Roman and Orthodox catholic or miaphysite. Unless you were some minor sect like nestorians or gnostics or something. If you go back to 1053 AD you had two options Orthodox catholicism or miaphysitism. If you go back to 450 AD before Chalcedon you had one option. The Orthodox catholic church. It was called by both titles by the fathers the earliest of which is the student of John who is Ignatius which mentions it in his epistles. My point is if you were going to be Christian you would be part of the church which Jesus Christ established. And it was one for the first 450 years of Christianity. They didn't have a defined canon yet, church fathers had differing canons amongst themselves. The church made the final say in what the canon is eventually but it took another 2 centuries. The first NT canon was actually formed by a heretic, his name was Marcion. He was a gnostic who had his edited gospel of Luke and some of paul's epistles. He taught the God of the OT is evil and Jesus came to show you the true God. Why not go with his canon? Its the first. The bible comes out of apostolic tradition, and Jesus Christ left behind a church not a book and he said the gates of hell wont prevail against it. It has been governed by church synods throughout its history the first of which is the synod of Jerusalem which is recorded in Acts. If you accept what Jesus Christ's church said is divine scripture that isn't circular, that accepting the churches decision; the divinely established church which Jesus Christ said the gates of hell won't prevail against. The one which preceded all protestant sects by 1500 years. If you wanna know what the early Christians believed read the Apostolic Fathers. They share no commonality with protestants. And they couldn't believe in scripture alone because a canon didn't exist yet. A church did though. Ignatius was the student of the apostle John, so was polycarp. Irenaeus was the student of polycarp etc. The apostles didn't leave their successors blind, they left behind bishops whom they ordained and taught.

[@georgeluke6382]

@@johnbarker3673 according to your view, there is no diversity in canon lists or citations among the fathers? The criteria would largely be apostolic teaching, manifest in internal and external corroboration, recognized by the one church over time. I don’t see the case four council recognition for establishing apostolic teaching, alone. Would you say the church’s declaration made or recognized the apostolic teaching of Scripture? Seems that even the Pauline letters were striving to authenticate themselves by certain identifying markers (“this is the way I write in all my letters” - Paul), and were recognizing the possibility of fake teachers by their doctrine (“even if an angel from heaven should preach to you a Gospel other than the one you received (implicitly, the one articulated in this letter) let him be anathema”)

[@johnbarker3673]

I just said the church fathers differed upon what the canon was. Augustine had incorrect theology even though he's a saint. Just because someone believed a thing doesn't immediately make them a heretic, people can be mistaken. Apostolic tradition is used in the decisions of those church councils. It is just believed that the church councils are infallible in determining what is correct and what is false. Without that you would end up like Islam and Protestantism having differences of opinion on every little detail of the religion due to each one's own interpretation of the text. Well it made the canon even though previous outlines had existed amongst the church fathers. There were different methods for determining the canon. Much of the canon were used in the lexicons of the churches and passed down in bishoprics. How we know matthew wrote matthew is from church tradition. It doesnt directly identify its author. So some for example might have Luke and pauls epistles and other church might have john, pauls epistles, and revelation. They differed. Even rome had to be convinced that Hebrews was supposed to be canonical by Athanasius. That being said there were certainly outlines of canons beforehand which are similar to the final canon we have today. Its the church which gave the final stamp of approval so to speak on the current canon and it what we now have in our hands. My point is it doesn't make sense to reject the church which created and formulated the canon. Enoch imo has some very obvious prophecies of Christ but its not included in the canon. Why not? Who knows, but we know the canon has been closed since Trullo. One of the main issues with Protestantism is on what authority do you accept the canon as it is today. Why is the current canon correct and not another? Its the basis for which sola scriptura lies, so having the correct canon is important. And yea there were false teachers during the time as well. Simon Magnus is mentioned in Acts and he is the founder of Gnosticism. Judaisers also existed. Peter ate with them excluding the gentiles and was reprimanded by Paul in his epistles.

[@orthonews2176]

Jay Dyer ....it was a good discussion with the Protestant. It must be frustrating but It's not a waste of time, listeners like me have to have that conversation everyday....so every point is helpful to watch

[@fallenstudent1103]

Yea, I've noticed Jay gets frustrated arguing the same things over and over but I think it's useful exposing these arguments to new audiences who have never heard them.

[@jackjames6849]

@@Chud_Bud_Supreme "The Bible is the Bible because the Bible says it's the Bible." I'm sure that the author of the Gospel of Thomas also lays claim to being divinely inspried. Is Dianetics divinely inspired if Captain Hubbard says so?

[@orthonews2176]

@@kjvacp You missed the point bro.....does the church have normative authority of not?.....if no normative authority then the Canon and the trinity are lost- there would be no good reason to justify either of those things......at that point point might aswell become a Muslim or a Mormon.

[@orthonews2176]

thankfully the church was setup with bishops and apostolic succession. So the church definitely has normative authority. Sadly Protestantism is in an awkward position because their religion was invented in the 16th century- that is why they can't accept the historical church!

[@orthonews2176]

@@kjvacp You misunderstood.....the doctrine of the trinity.....there is no doctrine without the church

[@otiscorn4538]

Jay has had many great titles to his talks, however, this one is by far the best one. How can you possibly top "Cosby sweater Calvinism"?

[@Cobruh_Commander]

"Zeeble zaable puddin pawps!"

[@jackjames6849]

Reformed theology proclaims the damnation of the second person of God? Cringe.

[@JayDyer]

catholicnick.blogspot.com/2009/04/was-jesus-damned-in-your-place.html?m=1

[@jackjames6849]

@@JayDyer I read the excerpts given from Lutherans and Reformers. What fresh hell is this? It seems to me that these men say these things in order to act out their own romanticist passion play. Absolute dreck.

[@mr.buttram2837]

You'd think that with the Protestant's love for Greek that they'd just be Orthodox.

[@order_truth_involvement6135]

@@mr.buttram2837 They don't love Greek. They butcher greek word pronunciation and definitions. Prots like to sound like they know greek. Old school snake oil salesmen. Usually evangelical prots.

[@wedi-set577]

Question: If a Protestant has written a book on the canon, do they think the church was infallible concerning the canon, while fallible for doctrines?

[@TKaramali]

Were the Pharisees infallible in their teaching since they had the right canon as opposed to the Sadduccees.

[@richardbranson8117]

@@TKaramali were the pharisees heterodox or the saducees?

[@kingdanny1070]

@@TKaramali What was the Pharisaic canon in the 1st century?

[@TKaramali]

@@richardbranson8117 Were they not both heterodox in a different sense? One primarily in the subtraction of certain things and one primarily in the addition of certain things.

[@richardbranson8117]

@@TKaramali Jesus says the pharisees sit in the seat of Moses. The same holy spirit that is guiding the church to the correct cannon can't be guiding them to heresy also. This isn't a question on secondary doctrine. Protestants actually believe many of the teachings of the apostolic churches are heretical when they come from the same church that the Holy spirit was guiding to determine the cannon.

[@andrewbankson3095]

So freaking good. God bless you, brother. I would not have made it to Orthodoxy without your work and God’s work through you.

[@Sh0neener]

These last couple videos have been so informative, and inspirational. Jay Dyer is one of the hardest working online content creators. I just had a question, while I'm listening to this for the second time, about the question if Jesus was damned in our place. Jay provided some Scripture to support his opinions and I'm wondering if anyone remembers this off hand.

[@Sh0neener]

@@L2A815 If someone answered it here, I missed the notification.

[@jordanatwell29]

4 hours?? Well I guess that just booked my Friday evening. Let’s go! 😎

[@davidcraig9540]

Sola Scriptura gets more laughable every time someone tries to defend it haha

[@juandoming6688]

How did traditions justify having graven idols?

[@davidcraig9540]

Talking completely out of my ass, I’d have to assume they don’t haha

[@davidcraig9540]

@@juandoming6688 also Exodus 25 and onward are probably relevant to the topic, I suppose

[@blockpartyvintage1568]

@@juandoming6688 we don't worship them.

[@mosesbauer5856]

@juan define graven idol?

[@etheretherether]

“Learn the positions before you try to debate them” That’s a big one in Christian circles going in all directions. So many Protestants assume what they think Catholics or Orthodox believe and vice versa.

[@Johnnydiamondlonglive]

This is one of the clearest refutations of catholic and reformed theologies ive heard in years.

[@marycaine8874]

Now listen to Dyer getting his head handed to him kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHjJhXpsftqVo6c kzbin.info/www/bejne/joOvgISLo9xgfLs

[@EveryTimeVVV]

Being a lifelong Calvinist (followed R.C. Sproul, MacArthur, Piper) this has spurred me on to read into Christology and the history of the church. Praise be to God that I have joined the Orthodox church as a Catechumen. In time, will be sharing this video with my Calvinist family and friends

[@rodangus4489]

Wonderful stream. Marvellous answer by Fr. Deacon at the end regarding the Orthodox iconography of the cross portraying, not the agony of crucifixion, but the victory, the triumph of Christ over sin and death. There is one icon which has the crown of thorns replaced with a victor's wreath. Ironically, I saw this in an exhibition of early catacomb art in the Vatican museum in Rome!

[@sillysyriac8925]

Awaiting James Whites scoffing, condescending reply.

[@sillysyriac8925]

@Phil Andrew it’s like clockwork 😂

[@quad9363]

Thanks to the guy that mentioned Gregory of Nyssa's Book 1 of 'Against Eunomius'. Lot of useful stuff there clarifying the orthodox position against tritheists and unitarians on the energies of God in the trinity.

[@TheNameIsForgettable]

Another great video. This stuff needs to be said. Kudos on having the stones to do it Jay.

[@nathanhornok]

2 observations from the argument with the sola scriptura guy. #1 the psalm he quoted says "Thou wilt keep them, Thou wilt preserve HIM from this generation forever" so the verse can have a combined meaning of the Bible and the Son of God. #2 It was interesting to see that the sola scripture position inevitably leads to Judaizing, where the Protestant grounds his trust in the Cannon of the Bible on the Jewish Rabbis, which is why dispensationalism is one of the natural outcomes of Protestantism.

[@Yourtypicalruckmanite]

Came here from Shamounian

[@AllenMacintyre]

Is there some way I can quit work to listen to all this content! Amazing!!

[@joshua_finch]

Kudos to the prot for keeping calm, while his stupidity was being absolutely razed to the ground.

[@charlesgguitar8542]

Made my day! Started this as a wage slave , finished a free man Anyone wondering why my headphones were on my head that long I just said blame Day Jyer.

[@rebaser6172]

“No one is going to be armed with history.” Made me lol.

[@ryankelly5020]

1:35:35 "The church determines the canon in the sixth council."

[@GeorgeLiavas]

Did Christ become incarnate in history or not. Did Timothy ordain men after him in history or not. The scriptures for them, is like a fantasy novel.

[@Journey_of_Abundance]

Emphasis on fantasy

[@andersgaeth5402]

James White and the amazing technicolor dreamcoat

[@TheRealRealOK]

Lol

[@AlexanderTate.]

Jay please reach out to debate Jeff Durbin. I’m also asking one of Apologia church pastors to reach out to you for a debate. Jeff especially seems smart and he loves exposing Mormonism as being wrong while calling himself historic Christianity.

[@willtheperson7224]

30:32 & 33:33 "Is of Identity vs Is of Predication" / Ybarra and Dimond Brothers refutation

[@charlesheck6812]

Speaking of modalism, you are in your best “mode” when you are alone, serious, intense and focused on Orthodox Christology, Theology proper and hammering the essence/energy distinction. One thing I would like to hear from you, however, is a thorough examination of Reformed teaching on specific terms such as propitiation, expiation & ransom. In other words unpacking the teaching of Christ’s accomplishments on the Cross specifically and redemption generally. I know you have covered this many times but a more specific examination of the Reformed interpretation of those terms and Scripture passages ( Romans 3: 23-25, 5:12ff, etc.) and what the Orthodox interpretations are. Thank you for everything and I will continue my membership to your website and listen with great attention to all of your Orthodox teaching.

[@TheMhouk2]

Check out kabane for this stuff too, he's great

[@romequiamm851]

new sub here..kudos.. people of the book should start learning the history and tradition of the book..

[@springNoNWo]

From 1:25:30, that is an epic [call-in] debate!!! Well done Jay

[@springNoNWo]

You made me laugh hard a couple of times lol

[@Theebonyphil]

I'm having Pedro flashbacks 😳.

[@valentinrico7763]

Glory to our Triune God 🙏☦️✝️

[@122222770]

I hate Calvinism.

[@Cobruh_Commander]

Not hard to do so. Imagine people taking theological counsel from some literally-who lawyer! 😂

[@СаваСтанковић-с7к]

Hating calvinism is islamophobic.

[@theosis_pilgrim8994]

@@СаваСтанковић-с7к 😂

[@vincenzobonello6702]

Calvinism almost ruined my marriage and made me into an unbearable asshole.

[@MisertheWizer]

​@vincenzobonello6702 I think they take on the spirit of John calvin himself

[@baskatz3443]

Christ went to hades as a conqueror not a condemned criminal.

[@LightningStriker1]

Are you sure you don't lace your coffee with alcohol Jay? My blood pressure would be skyrocketed during this shit.

[@livinginthelogos]

highly recommend listening to Jay @ 1.5X playback speed 🤣

[@Vereglez-d4z]

I couldn’t stop laughing.

[@lambsblood_]

Rock & Roll!!

[@HickoryDickory86]

I hope KZbin doesn't delete this comment, as it is in the habit of doing lately. Anyway... 1:46:09-1:46:13 = Caller, using Jay's example, if someone says that Jude is the only inspired book of the New Testament, you **cannot** go to Revelation to refute him. Why? Because he has rejected Revelation as authoritative Scripture, so you have already lost that battle if you insist on doing that. For example: When Jesus debated the Sadducees, he didn't use the Prophets or the Writings. Why? Because they did not accept those as canonical Scripture. That's the point Jay was getting at. You have to back up epistemologically. Let me break it down this way: Before you can even use Scripture, you first have to know what that Scripture is. You first have to know what books are canonical and therefore authoritative as Scripture. But you cannot get that authoritative list of canonical books from Scripture itself because that is illogical and circular. That's the logical fallacy of "begging the question," which is when one assumes the very thing that's up for debate. Such a list must necessarily come from outside of the Scripture, since it is the thing that identifies that which is, in fact, Scripture. And seeing as "the church of the living God" is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), the responsibility and privilege for producing such a list lies exclusively in the purview of the Church. And it did just that, and it did so specifically to counter Marcion and his heretical canon, which was known to be heretical precisely because it flew in the face of what the Church had traditionally taught as well as threw out many of the books the various local churches had up to that point, because of the traditions handed down to them, regarded as canonical, though each local church differed from another in the particulars. The accepted full canon of Scripture was established by the Church first at the Synod of Hippo in AD 393. That canon list was reaffirmed by the Council of Carthage in AD 397. The decisions of this Council of Carthage were adopted and ratified ecumenically-that is, by the whole Church-at the Council of Trullo, also called the Quinisext Council, in AD 692. So, it wasn't until AD 692 that the universal Church of Christ had a universally accepted and approved canon of Scripture. That canon list and its explanation from Carthage 397, Canon 24 or Canon 27 (I think the Latin and Greek versions have different numbering) reads as follows: "Let nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture. Besides the Canonical Scriptures let nothing be read in the church under the name of divine Scripture. The Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, the Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings [1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings], two books of the Chronicles, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach], the books of the Twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Ezra [1 Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah], and two books of the Maccabees. "Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same to the Hebrews, two epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of the Apostle John, one of Apostle James, one of Apostle Jude, one book of the Revelation of John. "So let the church over the sea [Rome] be consulted to confirm this canon. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. Because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church." If your Bible does not have all these books listed here, yours is not the historical, authentic Christian Bible. That is, you are not in full possession of the fullness of Scripture as it was given by the Holy Spirit through the theanthropic Body of Christ, which is the Church, the "pillar and ground of the truth." If the warning "do not add to or take away" is to be levied against anyone, it can only be levied against the Protestants and the Protestant canon, because they are the ones who "took away" the so-called "Apocryphal" books which the Church deemed Canonical Scripture some 825 (Trullo) - 1,124 (Hippo) years prior to Protestantism's very existence. Who gave the Protestants the right to do so? And by what authority did they do it? The books Protestants deem "Apocryphal" were regarded as canonical Scripture even by the Jews of the first centuries BC and AD, seeing as they had been collected in the Septuagint, which was the most widely-circulated and widely-accepted version of the Hebrew Bible in Greek translation. The Septuagint, which contains these "Apocryphal" books, is the version of the Old Testament that the Church inherited from the time of Jesus and the Apostles. The Apostles most often quote the Septuagint in their NT preaching and writings, and even Jesus is quoted as reading from the Septuagint (or at least from a Hebrew Scroll that had Septuagintal readings) in the synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4:16-21). The Church did **not** inherit the Masoretic Text version of the Hebrew Bible, because it is itself a late Medieval construct that was produced with no little anti-Christian bias. So, for modern Protestant Bibles that use the Masoretic Text, not only do they have an incomplete and uninspired canon, but they also are using a text that is purposely anti-Christian and thus anti-Christ. I have no problem if translators want to use the Hebrew and not the Greek Old Testament. But they need to do it right. First, they need to have the full Christian canon. Second, using textual criticism, they need to correct the Hebrew text to bring it in conformity with the Septuagint.

[@wyattlong8321]

"The decisions of this Council of Carthage were adopted and ratified ecumenically-that is, by the whole Church-at the Council of Trullo, also called the Quinisext Council, in AD 692." - That was not an ecumenical council, you can't have an ecumenical decree at a non ecumenical council. "So, for modern Protestant Bibles that use the Masoretic Text, not only do they have an incomplete and uninspired canon, but they also are using a text that is purposely anti-Christian and thus anti-Christ." I don't think you've done any research into translations at all because our translations don't only use the masoretic texts. From the preface of the ESV, one of the most popular translations. "The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (5th ed., 1997), and on the Greek text in the 2014 editions of the Greek New Testament (5th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed., 2012), edited by Nestle and Aland. The currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text is reflected in the ESV’s attempt, wherever possible, to translate difficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text rather than resorting to emendations or to finding an alternative reading in the ancient versions. In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text. Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 28th edition. Throughout, the translation team has benefited greatly from the massive textual resources that have become readily available recently, from new insights into biblical laws and culture, and from current advances in Hebrew and Greek lexicography and grammatical understanding."

[@HickoryDickory86]

@@wyattlong8321 The Quinisext (Fifth-Sixth) Council, as its name suggests, is received ecumenically as a participating council in both the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, which were earlier. They both adjourned without drawing up disciplinary canons, which this Council of Trullo was meant to rectify. By doing so, when it closed, it formally closed both those Councils as well. Also, your comment about the ESV and quotation of its foreword show that you did not read my comment carefully enough and are completely missing the point. What you are referring to by quoting the ESV foreword is textual criticism. As they explain (and as all modern Protestant translations do), for their OT they use the Masoretic Text as their base but, in their translation, will sometimes go with a variant reading found in another source (like the Samaritan Pentateuch, the DSSs, etc.). But that's beside the point, as it completely misses my point. The OT canon in the ESV is the medieval, rabbinic canon of that Masoretic Text. They use the Septuagint for possible textual variants in translation, but only for translating the contents of the Masoretic Text itself. Because of this, irrespective of their text-critical methods, their OT is still missing the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, 1 Esdras, 1 and 2 Maccabees. And, if I recall, it's also missing the Prayer of Manasseh in the Chronicles and the "additions to" the Book of Daniel (Susanna, the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, and Bel and the Dragon). Thus, the Protestant biblical CANON is incomplete; it is not the full canon of the Christian Church, regardless of what sources they use for text-critical purposes. To belabor my point: I'm talking about the CANON specifically, not particularly about what was used as the base text for the translation. As I said at the end of my original comment, if someone prefers to use the Hebrew Bible instead of the Greek Septuagint, that's fine. But if they do so, they need to make sure they have the full biblical CANON that was established, approved, and accepted by the Church. And, where the Hebrew Bible differs significantly from the Septuagint (as the Masoretic Text does), then they need to employ textual criticism to bring it in conformity with the Septuagint, seeing as that is the version of the Old Testament that was adopted by the Apostolic Church from its earliest days.

[@wyattlong8321]

@@HickoryDickory86 The apocypha are not inspired books, and don't belong in the canon. Athanasius, Melito of Sardis, Jerome, Gregory the Great, many saints knew this. These books were never laid up in the temple and weren't considered to 'make the hands dirty', as the true books were. And since according to Paul, the Jews were intrusted with the oracles of God. I trust that they put in their holy place the proper books, as, before the coming of Christ and the establishment of the church, the only true religion was that of the Jews, and if we cannot trust the judgement of Jewish leaders and preists before the time of Christ, then we cannot trust that the writings of Moses, David, Solomon, and others were faithfully preserved. Thus doubting the canon that existed at the time of Christ calls into question if the other books were faithfully preserved at all. . And if you doubt there was an established canon. I refer you to the Jewish Historian Josephus on the matter. . "We have but twenty-two [books] containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men (William Whiston, trans., Flavius Josephus against Apion, Vol. I, in Josephus, Complete Works, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960, p. 8)." . The above shows clearly that the Jewish canon had already been closed well before the coming of the Messiah, when referring to the apocryapha, Josephus said the following. . "From Artaxerxes to our times a complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit, with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets (Against Apion 1:41)" . Clearly the Jews before Jesus's time did not hold the apocrypha to be scripture, and upon examining the evidence I find their testimony, as well as the testimony of many saints, to be the correct one. For Paul says the oracles of God were entrusted to them. THis is not to say that the Jews did not later err in their rejection of the messiah, but to believe they erred in their canon calls into question wether or not what we have today was preserved faithfully. Thus accepting the apocrypha undermines the canon more than anything.

[@HickoryDickory86]

@@wyattlong8321 No one denies that different churches, jurisdictions, and even patriarchates (apostolic sees) had different proto-biblical canons. Not everyone has the full NT from the first century AD onward. They all had bits and pieces of it, and what was known to be genuinely apostolic and what was not was determined in accordance with the tradition that had been handed in each of those cases regarding the books they had received. Hebrews was rejected by some but accepted by others, 2 Peter likewise. Revelation was rejected by most in the East, but more readily accepted in the West. Some even accepted some of the Apostolic Fathers (1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas in particular) as Scripture. And the Ethiopians accept 1 Enoch as inspired Scripture to this day, and have done so from the earliest days of Christianity, even while they were still in Communion with the universal Church prior to Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon. So what? This is why we do not accept any single saint or father, or any particular group of the saints and fathers, over others. Rather, we look to the conciliar decisions of the saints and fathers. That means that, though these facts are accepted by all, they do not overrule the other fact that, since the time of Sts. Justin Martyr, Jerome, Athanasius, etc., there has been a biblical canon that has been set and received ecumenically by the Church. It is the canon listed above in my original comment. And citing Josephus, a Jew who had rejected Jesus as his Messiah, does not make your case. For one, we know that there were different collections (proto-canons), different recensions of books (e.g., Jeremiah and Daniel), and different translations in circulation at those times. Regardless, the most widely circulated was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, as it had developed and evolved over the centuries until its reception in the early Church. And in the first century AD, it did contain the so-called Apocryphal books. Furthermore, the Gospels and NT epistles also were not "stored up" at the Temple, but we still regard them as inspired Scripture because of their reception and "stamp of approval" by the universal Church. Thus, and secondly, we do not accept the canon of the unbelieving Jews; we accept the canon that was determined and set by the Church.

[@wyattlong8321]

@@HickoryDickory86 You don't actually know if the Septuagint in the first century contained the Apocrypha, that's pure speculation as we have no surviving copies of them until the late 3rd century at the absolute earliest. Most if not all manuscripts come from the 4th century with a few fragments here and there from earlier. And it's not a canon of unbelieving Jews? It's a canon of the Jews 200 years before the coming of Christ which were laid up in the temple. When Paul says, "all scripture is God-breathed" what is he referring to? The old testament of Course, because he is writing before most of the Gospels were written, and when he quotes from the OT, or when the Gospel writers quote from the OT, how would believers then have known what they were talking about if they did not have an already inspired canon? Interestingly, not once in the NT do the apostles or Christ ever quote from the Apocrypha in the same way they do Isaiah, or Exodus, or the Psalms, in which they say “thus says the Lord” or “You have heard it written” or “It has been said” not a single time. Sure, they make allusions to the Apocrypha, because as Josephus points out, they would have been familiar with them, but held them in lesser regard. They also allude to many pagan authors and philosophers, but we do not accept them as canon. But never once does Christ or the Apostles suggest the Apocrypha is inspired in the same way they do the other books. (My quotation of Josephus was not to appeal to him as an authority, but rather to show that the Jews already had a canon long before Christ’s coming and most information we know about the Jews outside of the Scriptures comes from the works of Josephus) Also, the likelihood of there being multiple canons (as you say ‘we know that there were different collections (proto-canons)’) is less and less likely, modern scholarship in this area has pretty much debunked the idea that the Alexandrian canon was different than the Judea canon. The Apocrypha themselves confirm this. “Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first, and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people.” - 2 Endras 14:45-46 Differences in the translation are largely irrelevant, and Jeremiah and Daniel were never disputed, merely rolled into other scrolls. Daniels was sometimes rolled in with the other minor prophets while Jeremiah and lamentations were combined. Either way, you still end up with either 24 or 22, no more. Furthermore, we do not, nor should we ever, assume that the church has the ability or power to declare something to be, ‘theopneustos’ God-breathed. The Church is the ground and pillar of truth, not the definer of it, it only is to hold up and proclaim the truth. The NT is inspired because the Apostles received their authority directly from Christ, their hands confer the authority, not the church, in the words of Ignatius “I do not, like Peter and Paul, issue commands unto you, they were apostles.” Or the words of Augustine, “What more shall I teach you than what we have read in the apostles, Four Holy Scripture fixes the rule of our Doctrine, lest we be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else than to expound the words of the teacher.” Only Our Lord Christ or an Apostle can declare something to be inspired. Christ confirmed the authority of the OT by quoting from it numerous times and fulfilling prophecies within it. The Apostles conferred authority to their works by writing them with their own hands. That is why we reject Clement 1 and Sheperd of Hermas, because while these writings are good to read, their authors were not apostles, similarly, while the Apocrypha is good to read it's writers were not prophets, as Josephus clearly records in his work. In the year 200 BC, which was the only true religion in worship of the one true God? Was it not the Jews and their High Priest? So why do you not trust them to who God delivered his Oracles? Many Jews accepted Christ as the Messiah, Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew. I am not appealing to later Jews who reject Christ, but to those who lived 200 years before the birth of the Son, who laid up the sacred scripture in their temple as a recognition of its authority and who were the only practitioners of the one true religion at the time.

[@ElectricCamelAnalytics]

I only discovered Jay 2 days ago....he is such a blessing...

[@order_truth_involvement6135]

Penal Substitution is hella cringe.

[@culpepper7665]

Many sects of Jews existed at the time of Christ, all disagreeing on what was and was not “OT” scripture. There was no consensus. The Pharisees are the only group that survived the destruction of Jerusalem in ad70… they created rabbinic Judaism and eventually decided what the OT canon was in their view.

[@charlesheck6812]

that the canon is a theological issue is a statement that he lifted from Greg Bahnsen. It denotes God’s sovereignty in putting the Scriptures together but doesn’t touch on how that humanly took place. So because he heard it from a scholar, he thinks it’s a good argument, but he can’t go any deeper because he never did the homework. He’s just parroting what another Protestant said.

[@Ransetsu]

This is blowing my mind

[@Rackatiakka]

This is all new to me so I have almost no idea what you're talking about. But I'm listening anyways!

[@lacklusterami]

Did Jay give an answer to how the pharisees and Sadducees were supposed to know which old treatment books were inspired? Jesus quotes many old testament books and hold them accountable for it, what council did the Jews have to point to in order to substantiate that Isaiah was scripture?

[@JayDyer]

That’s confusing the issue of epistemic certainty for the individual with normative authority to enforce decisions. The NT cites the deuterocanon many times and relies on the LXX which contained the deuterocanon. Jesus cites the deuterocanon in many places.

[@AJHurley]

Hey Jay, You said you did a whole video on Is of identity vs is of predication. Where can I find that?

[@wattsobx]

I’m not a Calvinist but not hearing how this refutes penal substitution? I’m pretty sure some of the early fathers recognize penal substitution.

[@AULIGAofBLEED]

Very helpful thanks. You need an Amazon affiliate lol bought a few books because of this

[@theophan9530]

To react to the question about free will and grace : the second local council of Orange (VIth century under St Cesarius of Arles) does not teach Calvinism, for the simple and good reason that predestinatianism was already condemned in a former Gallo-Roman local council convened in Arles (end of IVth or beginning of Vth century, in the presence of St Faustus of Riez, who refuted this heresy). Orange confirms this condemnation of proto-calvinism. PS : the accusation of so-called "semi-pelagianism" comes from the Augustinians and is problematic (St Cesarius of Arles was a devoted Augustinian and made all efforts possible to inforce Augustine's opinions in Gaul, against the more oriental current that backed the writings of St John Cassian). To me there is already a decline of orthodox theology on this matter in VIth century Gaul, and the final victory of augustinianism signed the death of true synergy.

[@fumples4080]

At 2:39:49 I said I was scared of toll houses because someone told me that the demons try to trick u into hell, but I was corrected by Orthodox Pilgrim about that. I'm still scared because I'm not prepared for it but we have a guardian angel so.. it should be fine, just repent and confess all Ur sins and u should survive the toll houses

[@Justin-ok7iw]

For being scared for the toll houses, here's 2 vids by Kabane (Kabane is Orthodox & amazing at Ortho Theology, Biblical Theology...)! Confidence in the Saving Love of Christ: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bICXfqKmpaafpdk & Walking with Jesus, the Grace of the Spirit, Peace with God, Assurance by Faith: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f2bUaZakpqiCqKs Idk if he mentions "toll houses" (in the vids) but, I'm sure he talks about to not being afraid in one's walk with Christ! (Hope this helps). God Bless!

[@fumples4080]

@@Justin-ok7iw thank u my man, God bless u too, have a great day☦️

[@CyprusHot]

I lost my patience with the first caller after the first minute of conversation …. 😂

[@royaltyillia1356]

I am a Protestant, but I do NOT believe in Calvinism

[@TheCringingCurmudgeon]

I am a Protestant and I love Calvinist theology! It's so freeing!

[@tenshiman1490]

​@@TheCringingCurmudgeononly to the elect right?

[@Bigstonechiropractic]

Is there any place that lays out what happened on the cross in very plain language? When I send these videos to my family it is hard for them to follow because of the vocabulary.

[@septuigintleman]

Jay please address your heresy of saying "fruity pebbles" with an Irish accent when clearly it's lucky charms

[@HellenicLegend7]

Hi, not trying to be a dick but your username contains a small spelling error. It should be: κύριε ἐλέησον

[@ronaldtatrai7290]

Big JD with more epic content, thanks brother

[@RudyCarrera]

1:32:00 this is pure idiocy. I get Jay's frustration.

[@johnsmoth7130]

If what Augustine taught about this subject is in error, yet he is a saint - can those who follow that teaching still be at peace with God and avoid damnation themselves?

[@Anointed4Him]

When the first believers testify about Jesus to Jews from their accepted scriptures who was the infallible Jews body that decided what books would be accepted or rejected?? Or why would the Jews accept when prophecies are quoted to them from scriptures?

[@ethio-tech6089]

Orthodox is the truth way. The bible is preserved by Orthodox christian . Scripture alone is false logic of Protestant and Calvinist .

[@jesusisgod3612]

cyprian of carthage wrote this in 251 a.d. "[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, 👉🏻yet he founded a single Chair,👈🏻 and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; 👉🏻 *but a primacy is given to Peter👈🏻, whereby it is made clear that there is but ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR* So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. 👉🏻 *If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church* 👈🏻(Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

[@jesusisgod3612]

@Phil Andrew please feel free to prove that assertion. I see you made mention of St Gregory the Great. But you posted nothing to validate you assertion. I wonder why. Then you tell me the onus is on me to prove your assertion incorrect. When you haven't even proven your assertion is correct. You don't get to make assertions without providing sources to validate. So the burden of proof is on you buddy.

[@jesusisgod3612]

@Phil Andrew what do you mean refers to the Roman. I'm not understanding what your question is.

[@jesusisgod3612]

@Phil Andrew you are the one asserting the chair is not a single location. The quote you just quoted does not prove your assertion. Or maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying. But that St Gregory quote you just posted in no way disproves the primacy of Peter being the chair in Rome.

[@jesusisgod3612]

@Phil Andrew where does that quote say the chair of Peter doesn't refer to Rome exclusively? I have however sent you, as a small blessing 👉🏻 *from the Church of Saint Peter* 👈🏻 who loves you, six of the smaller sort of Aquitanian cloaks (pallia), and two napkins (oraria); for, my affection being great, I presume on the acceptableness of even little things. For affection itself has its own worth, and it is quite certain that there will be no offense in what out of love one has presumed to do. The church of St Peter is Rome buddy. That's where Peter was crucified.

[@jonathanreeve7823]

Bro one of your finest

[@ethio-tech6089]

Jay, may God give you long life of ministry .👍👍👍

[@john-xo9vp]

Scripture is inspired by God, but who(church) had authority to identify which scripture was inspired and by authority do they(the spirit).

[@David-kz2im]

God bless you Jay! Great listen.

[@jeremypalmer7177]

Dear Lord, that first guy on twitter spaces got wrekt.

[@genmarparaiso6444]

Good job sir im going to be orthodox soon

[@serdodersimi6964]

Minute 2:03:00 = Revelations 2:11 = WHOEVER HAS EARS, LET THEM HEAR what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who is victorious will not be hurt at all by the second death.

[@ryandionisio4137]

I could not feel a loving spirit. Saying his not mean, buts sounds mean.

[@moejoe6422]

DYERWAVE !! 😎

[@sparkomatic]

James White is the Jim Cramer of theology.

[@MediaevalGuitar]

Philosopher Borden Parker Bowne (1847-1910) held that being and act are two separate, basal things. Therefore to define God's being as pure act overlooks the fact that God as a being is an agent rather than act. Thoughts?

[@CollinBoSmith]

Anyone know where he deals with James White?

[@JayDyer]

First hour and a half

[@CollinBoSmith]

@@deusvult2302 I came in mid stream after it was past the time, then I came back later and saw it was 4 hours, scanned through for a pic of James White or something and didn’t see anything. So I asked.

[@scottcarter1689]

Just an earnest question Jay... Where/how do you differentiate from David Harte's "Apocatastasis"... which would seem to follow from the harrowing of hell? If you've addressed this somewhere... could you drop a link? Thanks

[@parkermize]

If I wanted to learn philosophy on my own, what's the starting point? Any book recommendations?

[@XooxyBoo]

What type of philosophy?

[@parkermize]

@@XooxyBoo I don't know enough about philosophy to tell you. I just want to be able to track with Dyer when he talks about Philosophy.

[@richardbranson8117]

@@parkermize read the ancient Greeks(plato aristotle mainly) then the eastern church fathers and augustine. Then read aquinas and other scholastics, barlaam and palamas. Then calvin and Luther.

[@chadpilled7913]

Read Plato's Republic first

[@czuw2967]

Had to turn this off at 1:46:11. The guy’s inability to grasp the question became far too infuriating. Enjoyed until then.

[@IbecomeU]

When the mind moves that fast it is easy to lose patience...but also prone to skip certain necessary building blocks in the race to conclusion.

[@alfredosauce1]

Sola-cels keep taking L's

[@dritonpalushaj4766]

Would you debate a Catholic apologetic ?

[@JayDyer]

Ive debated many Catholics

[@HellenicLegend7]

@@LadyMaria ‘MUH KEYZ!!! 😂😂😂

[@serdodersimi6964]

Minute 2:03:00 = Revelations 2:7 = WHOEVER HAS EARS, LET THEM HEAR what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

[@nelsoncamachotirado6967]

My opinion is that while in the tomb, Jesus’s body is still Jesus’s body, i.e. the body of the Incarnate Logos.

[@antondenikin3129]

Which edition of the Septuagint with English translation would you recommend?

[@transcendentalaesthetic]

The Lexham translation seems good to me (but I’m no scholar/expert). As others have mentioned the Orthodox Study Bible also has a translation of the Septuagint for its Old Testament.

[@etheretherether]

@@LadyMaria Why is that problematic, isn't it just numbering or is there something else that's different?

[@Johnnydiamondlonglive]

Jay i live in a place where access to an orthodox church is not possible due to great distance and my disability, if i affirm and follow orthodoxy how can i fully be sure of my membership of the 1 holy orthodox faith without access to the liturgy and sacraments.

[@lukebrasting5108]

In the early Church, monks would live way out in the desert and wilderness isolated for years at a time and only receive the Eucharist when they returned to the nearest city or village, so it's possible. You would need to be baptised and basically rely on Perfect Acts of Contrition to receive God's mercy and forgiveness after you've fallen into sin.

[@lakevacm]

Can our desire to embrace God, the way He embraces us in His love be too much to ask? Man is distinct from God. As a resultant being, we did not determine our existence. Then if we embrace God, will He consider our action out of bounds? When our conscience that was created by God to interact with God Who possesses the first ultimate conscience, is liberated, its ambition for love can be raised to encompass God. Who is the first to know what someone is doing? Who knows first, the conscience or God? The conscience knows first. Why? Because it is closest to you and that is the way God created the proximity of our ability to discern good and evil, right and wrong, morality and ethics and ultimately what is part of the great desire of God’s heart from what is not. God created our relationship with our conscience as preeminent. Otherwise we would be exactly the same as God and could never stray from Him. In that case, all evil, selfishness, violation of the parents heart. indeed all blame would have to be laid at the feet of God. Or else we could reasonably question why evil happened, if God is only good. However, God created our relationship with our own conscience to be more important than our relationship with our parents, our teachers and even Himself. Why? If we do not follow our conscience we are not even being a good friend to ourselves. Then how could we be friends with important others like our parents, our teachers and God? Man is distinct from God because he occupies the object position. In the same sense, husband and wife are distinct. The characteristics of each are clearly different. If we were to conclude that God knows everything prior to its happening, we could say that we are a part of God, as if we and God were a single entity But if such were the case, we could not be the object partners of God's love. And once again we could attribute the evil in our world to a deficiency in God’s parental heart. This can never be the case. This issue must be firmly settled in the son and daughter of God. This can be done in meeting God. God who is one with Himself created others for joy and happiness which requires the stimulating actions of the object position. To illustrate this point take the human heart which pumps powerfully many times in a single minute, the digestive system fertilizing all we ingest, or the odors we produce that may be offensive to others but not us because they are one with our own bodies, being more insignificant of an irritant than the alighting of a single fly on our nose. In a similar sense, God is one with Himself. Therefore, He created something in His external image and internal likeness for stimulating joy, happiness and love as His object partner and not as an irritant or object of breathless sorrow. The temporary condition of sin originated in the limited perspective of the object partner not the eternal parental perspective of God. In time this aberrant behavior will be cleansed from all men. We decide when we finally cry uncle, which is a serious matter that cannot be understated. There is Heaven and Hell. Eventually perhaps in millions of years or more, even for those who have transmigrated to the eternal spiritual world which is a realm of sense, after the last person has gotten tired of making the excuses that keep him trapped, God will get what He wants. Hopefully we can do our part to not make it take that long and in so doing comfort the heart of God which is not out of bounds for a son towards His Father.

[@DYHARDGAMERS]

I have to disagree with Mr. Dyer. Everyone who follows Christ is a Christian. The Romans called the early believers Christians because they followed Christ. I do believe that scripture has been tampered with, but Jesus said you know the scripture but you don't know Me. Jesus said you look for the scripture for God but scripture points to Me. You can know all the scripture in the world and still not know God.

[@kwameofori8947]

Hit the nail on the head 👍🏾

[@Real_Life_Eren_Yeager]

Do jehovas witnesses count? No? Why not and where do you draw the line?

[@patrickbarnes9874]

I don't understand how the Son can come from the Father if the Son is eternal and uncreated. That seems to be what Jay said but maybe I misinterpreted it. Doesn't it follow by definition that if something is uncreated it does not come from anywhere or anything? Also, Jay is saying that God's glory isn't created, but I've heard Fr Stephen de Young on Ancient Faith Radio specifically say that. He said that God's glory is a created being that operates similarly to an angel, a representative of God that operates independently.

[@bobtim1008]

The father sent the son

[@JayDyer]

Wrong on both counts and im sure Fr Young didnt say Gods glory is created.

[@justanotherlikeyou]

From the Creed: "I believe... in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, _Begotten, not made;_ of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made:" The second Person of the Holy Trinity was begotten of the Father, _not made_ which would mean created. Since the Father is eternal and uncreated and the Son comes directly from Him, then the Son also shares naturally in the Father's nature which is eternal and uncreated due to His generation. Thus the Lord can say, "All things that the Father has are Mine.", and, "Just as the Father has Life in Himself, even so He has granted the Son to have Life in Himself." (John 5:26; 16:15) On Fr. Stephen De Young saying that God's glory is a created being, nah man, you either misunderstood or misheard him. No Orthodox priest would dare say such a heretical thing. And Fr. Stephen De Young certainly isn't a heretic, lol!

[@chadpilled7913]

A little late to the party, but my priest says this is a holy mystery. There is a distinction between proceeding from the Father and being begotten of the Father, but we do not know what it means.

[@skullman322]

Someone help me to understand, I heard a preacher state this and I would like to know if this aligns with the orthodox position. He said we were made in the image of God and this is because God is made of 3 components and so are we. Father = soul Son= body Holy spirit = spirit Is this correct

[@dutchboyslim5951]

1:53:30 through 1:53:43 This pretty much sums up the guest's arrogant error

[@john-xo9vp]

I think he's confusing when scripture was written(God's mouth to man's ear) vs when the Bible was formed(sifted from heresy) and by what authority. If the church isn't inspired,God's word is lost forever into arbitrariness. Protestantism is the church of arbitrariness.

[@zachburkholder2559]

I used to think the argument from the canon against sola scriptura was very weak. But laying it out like this has made me better understand your points, thanks!

[@cindyweatherly4501]

This is the first time that I've listened to you. I gather you are Orthodox ( Greek)? My background is a small amount of Baptist theology as a child, then when the LORD began to " reel me back in", I began to study Scripture on my own. My first study Bible was an Open Study Bible. I've read other translations, except for anything extensive in the KJV. I know this will sound terrible, but I just can't stand it. An excellent person that deals with Roman Catholicism is Mike Gendron, an Ex-Catholic. I think I may have said the determism in evolutionists backwards? Is Deterministic Materialism the right way to say it? I'm thinking of a specific example, Dawkins " selfish gene.

[@seraphimdunn]

Close. It is "Materialistic determinism"

[@cindyweatherly4501]

Thank you. I understand complex subjects ( complex for me), but I have a harder time with details, dates, spellings, etc.. For instance, since theology has been affected by philosophy being applied to it, I found having to go through some it like being forced to wander around in a tortuous mental maze. 😳

[@TheRealRealOK]

Eastern Orthodox includes Greek Orthodox, but it’s not limited to just Greeks.

[@science_is_fake_and_gay2710]

He is not Greek Orthodox. . He is ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia)

[@George-ur8ow]

14 orthodox churches, i believe (greek, russian, antiochan, serbian, ...etc.). All are Orthodox

[@willivonen3886]

That's peeling a spicy onion

[@lakevacm]

Why did Jesus cry aloud, “My God, my God why have you forsaken me” As a moment of weakness? You’re going to assert that Jesus had less stamina of the spirit than Patrick Henry or Nathan Hale? No, Jesus was rubbing it in to Satan. First of all he was quoting the Psalmist, secondly, The kind of person who can say to his torturers in jest, “aren’t you human” is the kind of person who can reply to Satan’s inquiry, “Can you love the evil torturer who is the enemy Satan” in the affirmative. This is how great is Jesus. The devil working through the thief crucified to Jesus’ left and a little behind him,tried to compel Jesus to Jesus’ last breath to condemn his enemies. If Jesus had succumbed to this harassment, he would have been an unprincipled hypocrite. Why? Because he previously said, “Love your enemy.” Of course we know Jesus did not do this.

[@GFam-gs2hf]

Can anybody tell what Bible translation I should be reading?

[@TheRealRealOK]

Many of us recommend the Orthodox Study Bible because it has the complete Old Testament and good commentary. KJV is another one people like.

[@marydetray6776]

The quran says all the same things about it being the word of God and perfect, does this protestant guy therefore accept that the Quran is scripture as well?

[@thepoet2396]

Nope, the bible is perfect and well preserved. opinions dont matter to me.

[@zaccheusanton9470]

What you said is an opinion

[@MgHaratua]

It seemed that the man "over there" is always failed in logic. 😀😀😀