วีดีโอ

The spiritual church cannot be apostate.

It’s not heresy search it out yourself you’ll find out that it is the best thing that ever happened to the Bible!

So much I, me, mine. I guess this is what the reformation was about. Conformity to humanistic individualism?

There is no pretrib rapture, and the dispensational system is antibiblical. That said, sacrifices were *NEVER* to atone for sin. They were a foreshadow of the sacrifice that would and does atone. They were a constant visual, auditory, and even olfactory object lesson. They showed the severity of the cost of sin. And they pointed to the coming true sacrifice. That said, the Bible does speak of the sacrifices being restored in the Milennium. (Zechariah 14:8-21; Revelation 20:4-6) Why? The dispensationalists are right about the fact that they will be a constant reminder of what Jesus did for them. You say that that is false because there is already a memorial in the Lord's Supper. REALLY? How many reminders did God decree for the Jews? They had the Holy days. Every Sabbath was a reminder of creation. Every Passover was both a reminder and a foreshadow. The men were commanded to were garments that served to remind them of God's presence and works. They were required to place the words on every doorpost (the mezuzah) to remind them of the words of God. We do not get to decree how many reminders are "enough" for the KING of the Universe. He knows the minds and hearts of humanity. If HE says we need more than one reminder, I am not about to argue.

Christendom 2.0 🙂God grant it! ... Lutheran (LCMS) pastor here. There's going to be a bit of a debate on which direction a Christendom 2.0 would (or should) take in the US, Anglo Protestant vs Anglo (Evangelical) Catholic.

Now that we see the Roman Catholic church crumbling under it's heresy of 1054 as to now the Roman Catholic protestant D- intellectuals along with the rest of the protestant heretics attack us, frankly I'm not concerned about the modern criticism of heretics

Just found this site per my searches regarding the Eucharist views without previously knowing the Anglican view ! I’m a reformed soteriology Calvinist, but worshiping at a local Lutheran Church ( LCMS ) with three doctrine exceptions: 1) real body & blood presence; 2) baptismal regeneration; 3) loosing your salvation ( a non reformed election position ). Thanks for posting…

Thank you brother!

Rather than criticize the Church from the outside waiting for it to be better before joining…perhaps join in humility and be part of the solution from within.

As an Orthodox i agree with some things especially nationalism. I hate this also.. Saints were never really nationialists. They of course loved their country but they didnt hate others. Also i say that Orthodoxy is true church but i dont agree with every priest. We people are sinful, we make mistakes. Please dont mix Orthodox people with Orthodoxy. Also we mostly have liturgy of st. John Chrystosom which is Eastern. The earliest liturgy was actually the Last Supper. Then its said to be st. Jacob Greek liturgy. I was RCC and i have to say that Orthodox Liturgy touched me far more deeply than RC.

Actually the west built the most atheistic and materialistic society in history. This is undeniable. An Anglican Arch Bishop just announced he would like to remove Father from the Lord’s Prayer. Wake up!

Tbe over all over arching picture is monergistic anyway you slice it. Election is not ultimately not yiur choice it's God's.

So if Orthodox Christians denied Orthodoxy then they could become Orthodox? This is bizarre

Are really comfortable with the lesser of two evils? I guess politically it makes sense, but you're not a political channel.

Why not just debate your point against a dispensationalist in a video? You didnt even get the definition right for dispensationalism. So you're arguing with yourself.

Stay this path, my friend. You have a different “pro, positive,” vibe and do so with truth in Christ. It’s not positive for positive sake, but it’s righteousness under God. I also sense great strength in this country and wish for it to be saved from its wicked ways. From the ground up. Big changes. TRUMP 2024 - JESUS IS KING OF KINGS

Jonah, I really believe that you’re missing something very important here. It is the RC that contends that it is THE church and united under the pope. It is RC polemicists who chide Anglicans and other Protestants for their division and how they need to all come home to the true united church, Rome. So it is perfectly fair and honest for those outside of Rome to respond as they do the divisions that are in Rome. You and I as Anglicans are fully aware of the differences we have amongst ourselves, we don’t hide it. But the the RC make a pretension and makes this a selling point for converts. I believe this is disingenuous and should be exposed as such.

St. Optatus of Milevis (Numidia) Against the Donatists Book 2 Ch. 2-3 (366-70 A.D.) Chapter 2 He proves from the Cathedra Petri that the Cathedra which is the first endowment of the Church belongs to Catholics, not to Donatists. “So we have proved that the Catholic Church is the Church which is spread throughout the world. We must now mention its Adornments, and see where are its five Endowments (which you have said to be six) amongst which the CATHEDRA is the first; and, since the second Endowment, which is the 'Angelus,' cannot be added unless a Bishop has sat on the Cathedra, we must see who was the first to sit on the Cathedra, and where he sat. If you do not know this, learn. If you do know, blush. Ignorance cannot be attributed to you----it follows that you know. For one who knows, to err is sin. Those who do not know may sometimes be pardoned. You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim----each for himself----separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. |Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit. III. The Succession of Bishops of Rome. To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, to Evaristus Sixtus, to Sixtus Telesphorus, to Telesphorus Hyginus, to Hyginus Anacetus, to Anacetus Pius, to Pius Soter, to Soter Alexander, to Alexander Victor, to Victor Zephyrinus, to Zephyrinus Calixtus, to Calixtus Urban, to Urban Pontianus, to Pontianus Anterus, to Anterus Fabian, to Fabian Cornelius, to Cornelius Lucius, to Lucius Stephen, to Stephen Sixtus, to Sixtus Dionysius, to Dionysius Felix, to Felix Marcellinus, to Marcellinus Eusebius, to Eusebius Miltiades, to Miltiades Silvester, to Silvester Marcus, to Marcus Julius, to Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Siricius, who to-day is our colleague, with whom 'the whole world,' through the intercourse of letters of peace, agrees with us in one bond of communion. Now do you show the origin of your Cathedra, you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves. “ 6th Ecumenical Council Constantinople III Letter from Pope Agatho, to the Emperor, read openly, out loud at the 6th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III) and all the Council fathers (125 Bishops) accepted this letter while also explicitly responding to this letter, confirming its acceptance of the whole letter among the Collective Body, and this is what it states: “For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, HAS NEVER ERRED FROM THE PATH OF THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION, NOR has she been depraved by YIELDING TO HERETICAL INNOVATIONS, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, "Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you that your faith will not fail, and when you return, STRENGTHEN YOUR BRETHREN.”

As someone who has been working in AI for years with a relevant degree, I would say, chatgpt, gemini, Claude, llama, mistral, etc. Can all be incredible tools, but be aware that they aren't without biases and hallucinations. That said, I personally agree with chatgpt here and with what you said to some extent

the irony is that none of the fathers of the church considered the heretics and schismatics as being part of the Church. This is despite the fact that most of the schismatic/heretical sects that they were refuting retained the sacraments.

Amen and amen. Jonah, I often reflect on Christmastide. For about two months we listen to music and watch movies that, for the most part, are redemptive and Christ-centered. Why is it so difficult to live like that the other 10 months? I pray that God would continue to purify His bride such that Christendom would permeate more and more, year round.

Which churches are branches and which are sects? By what criteria?

Jonah! I reached out to you on twitter but I noticed you haven’t been active in a while so I figured it might be better to come here instead. Do you have any recommended study material to familiarize myself with historic amillennialism? I’ve seen your stuff about why dispensationalism is wrong but I want to learn more about how to understand the truth on this matter. I’m getting tired of seeing the endless barrage of tinfoil hat end times theories from dispensationalists online with their theories about the resurrection of the Roman Empire through the US, or stuff like that.

When are you going to quit goofing off and come visit us in Helena? Cigars and burgers at my house.

I’ve been wearing my dark MAGA hat too. Cheers brother

Couple thoughts: First off the Byzantine snobbery that one finds, usually among Western converts, is a real stumbling block for those seeking to be in communion with the ancient Church of the East, but are told that their native patrimony is no good. Second I've been giving thought to this idea of needing to be in communion with an ancient Patriarchate. Is the Pentarchy an essential aspect of the true Church? Is it not an accident of history based on political circumstances? Why isn't simply having a communion of bishops who can trace their Apostolic succession and who teach the orthodox Faith good enough? I don't know the answer to that question. I can certainly see an administrative advantage but are the five ancient Sees somehow divinely ordained? How would we show that?

You have one assumption that the early Church's view of the Church, and schism, is more correct than the later Church's perception of the Church and schism (as found in Roman Catholicism). On what grounds do you hold this assumption? I, on the other hand, believe that the Church (as known through Roman Catholicism), generally gains a better perception of the Church and separation, through time. This is because of the principle of progress, and also, because we believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church. The Holy Spirit didn't only guide the Church in the early Church, but has been guiding the Church throughout her two-thousand-year history. The gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church. Your assumption is likely heavily influenced by the 'Reformation mentality', that is the mentality that the Church somehow became corrupt, and/or lost her way, and that we have to go back to how things were in the early Church. If you do not explain why your assumption is valid, not merely from the Protestant point of view, but regardless of whatever your leaning may be, I find your video unconvincing. You say that the "...ontological unity of the body of Christ is always maintained through her sacraments..." Are you being serious? The Anglicans do not have the Eucharist nor the sacrament of confession, nor the sacrament of Holy Orders. 500 years ago, they broke with apostolic succession, so they don't have validly-ordained priests, nor bishops. In fact, the Catholic Church refuses to acknowledge the Anglicans as being a church, because of their breaking with apostolic succession. Instead, we call them an ecclesial body. You're right about healing divisions, and that Anglicans are Christians, like other Christians. In fact, the Catholic Church teaches that even non-believers (such as atheists), can administer the Sacrament of Baptism, so long as water is used, there is the intention to do what the Church does, and also perhaps that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are invoked. This means there are very many Christians who are members of the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, who aren't Roman Catholic. We believe that even though Eastern Orthodox Churches are separated from Roman Catholics through schism, that they are still members of the one Church: they consecrate the Eucharist validly because they retained apostolic succession and the priesthood. I think the Church probably defines schism presently as separation from the Pope, and doesn't say that it necessarily results in excommunication from the Church.

Read Balthasar and Ratzinger

Chat GPT is just that a machine without thought and is just a tool to be manipulated by whoever enters what they want

God bless Trump 🔥🦁 Hail from 🇦🇺

This is a tuff one. I don't disagree with anything you said but looking at it from the East's point of view the West has fallen and they alone have persevered the truth. While I see no issues with the current Western rite and what goes on in traditional Anglo catholic churches, I do wonder where that eventually could lead. Rome has just approved the Mayan rite for the exact reasons you cite. One look at that rite and you quickly see for the sake of converts heresy has shown its ugly head.

But ultimately this does not make any sense or hold up well contextually when we understand that Anglicanism started by Henry VIII wanting an annulment (while I agree is a tricky subject since there were a lot of moving parts for such a division), he ultimately chose to disobey the Pope when he wanted to remarry Anne Bolynn, which means he separated himself from Christ's Body, whether we are arguing for the Roman and/or Constantinopolitan Churches. Both the Eastern and Western Churches were started by various Apostles. Saint Peter started (when he landed by Christ's Authority) the Roman Church, while Saint Andrew started the Constantinopolitan Church. You can cite all you want various Councils and various Church Fathers with the help of ChatGPT, but the past cannot be rewritten about what had gone on unless if time travel were a thing. Otherwise, my comment on this video as a Catholic would be non-existent.

Maybe, except now they're just Israel firsters, not America Firsters. Expect a draft so you can fight Israel's war against Russia

You know what they (computer experts say) "Garbage in, garbage out".

I watch a video from people who believe in dispensationalism and I get scripture after scripture proving their point. I watch videos refuting dispensationalism and it’s all, “trust me bro, church fathers bro, indulgences and crusades bro, church history bro.” No scripture. What am I to make of that?

Jonah, referring to 1:46:00 and your discussion on assurance. You said you both have the same assurance. I would argue you have much greater assurance. You believe God elected you to salvation and that your baptism assures you that God will provide sufficient grace to persevere. You simply need to continue trusting God’s promises to you as one of his children. The guarantee of final salvation is there. You just have to not willfully reject it, which would only show you don’t want it. If you want it, you got it. Etc, etc. River has only 2 options. A. Either he knows he is elect and therefore it is impossible for him to ever fall away (I can’t imagine he would say that). Or… B. He can’t really know if he is elect or not (maybe he is the example from Hebrews 6). Therefore whatever assurance he does “feel” could be the false assurance of a non-elect “Christian.” And he would have to admit , as he fully deserves the judgement he will receive when he falls away, as Jesus didn’t really die for him. I’m being a bit hyperbolic to make my point but it is true if he is consistent in his Calvinism. I think this debate should spend more time on the assurance and promises given to the Christian in his Baptismal Regeneration.

Good comments - much to chew on here. MacArthur is very wrong saying that we have to discern the truth based upon whether fallen man accepts the Gospel as palatable!

There’s literally only one way the Church can achieve moral unity (not just practical) and that’s the Pope. This is what Jesus and the Fathers teach

ChatGPT locuta, causa finita.

Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Chat-GPT

ChatGPT answer on Schism... In sum, the early Church taught that schism is a serious sin because it undermines the unity of the Body of Christ. It was viewed as a rupture in the community that weakened the Church’s mission and witness in the world.

I’m not super comfortable appealing to a proponent of FV to understand the visible/invisible church. Like, literally one of the last places I’d go. To say that using the visible/invisible church terminology is similar in spirit to say that Jesus was a phantom or something is far beyond a stretch. It’s simply making a distinction between and acknowledging that those that are members of the church are not likely all regenerate, and so you have a visible body made up of believers and unbelievers. The invisible church are those who truly believe. Unbelievers in the church is a reality, but it’s sad. Rather than gathering, you’re scattering.

You can get chatGPT to say anything it's all about how you ask questions and where you lead it. I got it to say Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and different denominations are the true church. I also got it to say there is no true church. Also got it to say Islam is the true religion.

the true synonuge of satan = the anglican church, they literally deny the God and change the our father. its the anglican cult. = synogogue of satan.. do even most anglican bishops at least beleieve in GOD?? they are making God gender neutral. what a joke. cope harder.

Constantinople didnt exists in the ealry church

the anglican cult is becoming liberal and satanic. gay bishops and all the nonsense. whata joke..

romish??? lol. what a joke. anglican is king henry's cult.. thomas cranmer is a heretic.

3:25