Jay Dyer and the Orthodox Perspective of Scripture
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ต.ค. 2024
- Jay Dyer is a top-notch Orthodox apologist and philosopher who will be discussing the Orthodox view of Scripture and why the Orthodox church does not hold to Sola Scriptura.
Jay Dyer's TH-cam channel:
/ jaydyer
Sam's Articles:
answeringislam...
answeringislam...
answeringislam...
Sam's Patreon & PayPal links:
/ shamounian
/ samshamoun
www.paypal.com...
Sam's Podcasts:
podcasts.apple...
Discord Server link:
/ discord
Orthodoxy the root of christanity, greetings form indian orthodox church🇮🇳
Jay helped me on my path to Orthodoxy after floundering in Mega Church USA
Glory to God!
Same
As of today i am on the path to Orthodoxy
I've been thinking about orthodoxy. I need prayers. Glory to the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord bless you Sam
This is the line of reasoning which convinced me to become Orthodox.
Nobody even tried to coach me, nobody approached me, i simply couldnt right the clear teaching of scripture with my own Calvinist beliefs. Eventually i had to seek out someone and find a church.
This comment section brings me so much joy. I was a Evangelical and became Orthodox last year and I have to say I couldn't imagine being anything else. Blessings to you both, Brothers and I hope many more people will be brought into the faith! Kyrie Eleison!
Yes, I understand this. I was raised Roman but there was somethings which never set right with me. The more I learned, the more it led me into disillusionment with Christianity. I didn't know about the Orthodox Church existed. Once I learned the true church believed all the things I believed, it was so easy. Difficult too, in a way... the family who raised me are papal, and oppose my conversion. But it's like un-ringing a bell, impossible now. Energy Essence distinction explains all. If God is personal, it can't be any other way. Glory to God!
I happened on a Jay Dyer video in Sept 2018 in the midst of a Protestant crisis. Though born an Orthodox (not EO), I have been going to Penticostal/Evangelical/Baptist Churches for more than 20 years. God has bought me to Jay and others like him for a reason.
I was raised in the Jehovah’s witnesses and left for evangelical Christianity because sola scriptura made more sense than the governing body but I still feel a huge pressure of how do I know who is interpreting scripture correctly? I feel it takes too much self reliance to know you have it right. And while I’ve felt God was there for me I can’t say I’ve had some spiritual experience that makes know I’ve got it right. I’ve only recently learned of orthodoxy and it is making so much sense. Hoping to visit an Orthodox Church next week 😊
I was also raised a JW got out of the cult last year read Crisis of Conscience and came across the Battle games Chick Tract believed the gospel and accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my Saviour last Feb. I fully trust the KJV as the preserved words of God in English but interested to learn about other traditions. How has your journey gone visiting various Church’s in search of real truth?
Epic. My journey was similar, but my background was mormonism. So happy to that God saved me from the cult that I was in and helped me see it for what it really was. Glory to God ☦️
I too feel that huge pressure- and how to know who is translating “in the Spirit “ when everyone says they are (and I’m sure they do so honestly believing it is) but also contradict each other.
Actually it's simple. Those are basically the early church fathers, the holy (especially holy according orthodox church), apostolic fathers, desert fathers etc. Those who are speaking through the Holy Spirit and therefore do know how to interpret scriptures because they are in the same Holy Spirit as the authors of the scriptures. And to this day there are holy people. They know stuff from direct experience and therefore it's spirituality. They are deeply humble, no ego etc. Many dominations are talking about anointement, talking about the Holy Spirit etc. But actually they don't know who he is because they are talking about intellectual concepts and doctrines, not by direct experience. Early and pure christianity is by experience and still is today, not by academic studies. They also have hundreds of years experience to determine which experience is real, which one is demonic or from ones own ego. Ever wondered why in iconography there are halos? It shows their englightement, their fotisis, their theosis, their direct interaction with god. Not in a cheesy and kitschy way and emotionalism, which has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit but in a realy, deep, life changing, interacting experience of the uncreated light. That is the same as on pentecost, or with Moses and the burning bush etc. This is what takes away the veil from the scriptures. What makes you see clearly. While in the western church, especially in medieval times the so called mystics have been punished and burned and killed etc. in the eastern church such things never occured. So basically, if you want to go deep into true christianity, into the true mysteries of the trinity etc. go to one spirit filled church, most of all, closest to the truth, the orthodox church and read what the fathers and holy had to say about things (those are the anointed btw. through deep deep and mindblowing direct experience and enlightened by the Holy Spirit, not the self proclaimed anointed like with the JW). Afterall, actually it's clear because the orthodox church is the one church which has never changed from the beginning. From God to the apostles to their disciples to the desert fathers etc. up to today. Protestantism is basically the beast the catholic church has created by itself due to their failiures in medieval times. And from there those other thousands of denominations (a clear sign that denominations are based on personal opinions by their founders, not by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many) Catholic church is still spirit filled. Others too, coptics etc. but the truest and closest and deepest spirituality and teachings are in the orthodox church, where even buddhists in tibet bow their heads. A bit late, sorry. Just stumbled across this vid, but I hope this helps.
Edit: Need to correct myself, of course Greek Orthodoxy , Coptics, Assyrian Church etc. all are orthodox. I meant specifically the Greek Orthodox church. But all those are ancient and spirit filled. Didn't want to sound like those others are not orthodox. They are all brothers in the same spirit.
The past month I was thinking that I need to research church history and you have blessed us with this series of talks from different perspectives. Thank you, God bless
Hello my brothers :) god bless you all! I am orthodox man from BULGARIA , AND i want to give you some blessings from our bulgarian orthodox chant ! Love you all !
Megaloschemos II (Bulgarian Orthodox Hymn) - youtube
In my Roman upbringing, I always had a feeling of something being slightly off or wrong. I started to think no church existed that believed 100 percent what I did. I became disillusioned and quit all church for spiritualism and relativism. Then I found Orthodoxy. Everything made sense, Glory to God!
Started watching / listening to Jay about 2 weeks ago. You are another of Gods annointed brothers! GOD bless you and Jay .
Daughter of the King You are in for a treat! God bless you!
@@annkellett7592 and how I enjoy treats :) blessings of God to you as well.sister
I was brought up in a totally secular home. Accepted the truth of the Gospel in my early twenties. Found the truth of the Holy Orthodox church and was baptised 23 years ago. Orthodoxy is the truest expression of the faith of Christ. Those who wrote the Bible (ie the Orthodox) never believed in the nonsense of sola scriptura. Protestants seem to think the church came out of the Bible. Obviously, its the other way round. The church who realised the trinity, prayed to Mary, venerated and prayed to the saints, probably used icons, believed on the eucharist as the body and blood of Christ, had a structure of bishop, priest and deacon (as do the Orthodox) is the church who wrote and compiled the Bible.
This is really crazy for me because in a way it feels like two worlds colliding. I used to listen to David Wood/Sam's debates and content all the time, and Nabeel as well in the years following my radical conversion as an young adult back in 2014. I gleaned so much wisdom regarding Islam from them. Then, after years in a non-denom Church (where my wife and I were married), we eventually left in search of the "Church in Acts" and were exposed to the writings of the first century fathers (particularly St. Ignatius of Antioch). There began our path to Holy Orthodoxy, where Jay was so instrumental in helping my understand the faith through his many videos/lectures.
Now here we are, Sam and Jay doing videos together....how absolutely amazing.
Sam, brother...please, if you read this....I am praying for you that God enlightens your heart and mind to the one true Christian faith--the holy orthodox faith. That you would unite yourself to the true and visible Body of Christ, the Church that never apostatized. Lord have mercy on brother Sam and all those in his sphere of influence!
Jay, you are truly doing the Lord's work, bro. There is a massive audience being exposed to Orthodoxy through this collaboration. Please get in touch with David Wood! He wants the truth, and will accept it when presented. What a beautiful thing it would be!
Sam mentioned during a stream with Snek, Qai, and Lewis that he's going to be reading Patristics, so that may lead him to Orthodoxy. Pray that it does
@@BroadwayRonMexicodo u know if he’s orthodox now? Ive heard hes catholic
Loved it Sam. Keep them coming, mate. Good exposition of the Ortho position, Jay. God bless you both.
I just came to Christ about 5 months ago. I was searching for truth and would be in a bunch of discord servers with all the prots making fun of all the apastolics. Over time when the apostolics kept winning arguments over the prots I slowly started trying to learn about Orthodoxy and have gone to my first liturgy. Praise God.
I'm still trying to decide whether the Catholic or Orthodox Church is the One True Church but yes I've noticed protestant debaters (along with Muslims) overall losing more than the other 2 main types. Unfortunately I'd say the worldly social media smug arrogance of social media has snuck into the online christian debate sphere in all denoms imo which was a major stumbling block for me at first.
Praise God brother! Pray you find the truth in one of em. For me it’s Orthodoxy but as long as you find one for you then the closer to God you’ll be.
@Yellow_Fish7 That was a huge decision for me that cost me sleepless nights. In the end I came to Orthodoxy. The reasoning can be complex and although I'd love you to come home to the true Church I believe it's better to let you go into it yourself. Reading into Vatican 2, "Eastern Rite" Catholics and also looking at the differences about which groups believe whoms sacraments were particular factors in me coming to Orthodoxy.
May God bless you and guide you
This has pretty much broken down my last objections to becoming Orthodox! I'm contacting my local priest this week. Followed Jay's stuff for some time, but this was an amazing knitting together of all kinds of things for me. Been Protestant for over 30 years, a local Church Elder for several, and am currently a student of divinity at Aberdeen University in the UK. I'm now becoming.
How’s the journey been after 4 years?
God bless you brother Sam I can’t stop watching and learning the gospel
2 Christian heavyweights on one stream. Love it! Praise God! Thank you Sam & Jay!
This was a great stream, love you Sam.
So much for interviewing Jay. He can crush for an hour straight.
Dear Sam, I’ve been spending the day watching your videos. What a beautiful gift you have. Sharp and clear! Glory to Jesus Christ! As an Orthodox Christian who once was an evangelical (entered the Orthodox Church in 2010) I am so happy to see you allow someone such as Jay to share on your TH-cam. I am very curious to see and hear what your thoughts are concerning what was shared. You have a similar approach with argumentation. This was a very rich interaction. May God continue to enlighten those who truly seek Him. Glory to the Consubstantial Trinity, now and ever and to the ages of ages!
May God bless you Jay! Amazing job!
Man I needed this - it finds you when you’re ready I suppose. Thanks to both of you!
Great stream, both of you! Lord Jesus Christ, preserve and strengthen these men for Your sake.
The point on Christmas and Passover (Pascha) was a good one. Both celebrations ARE known to us by tradition, with references and inferences in the Holy Scripture; the Gospels tell us both of Birth and of Resurrection directly. Both celebrations ARE Christian indeed, not pagan. We as Christians should defend against attacks on the celebration of Christ's birth and the celebration of Christ's resurrection.
And even someone like St. Nicholas of Myra, who became a part of Christmas celebrations, was indeed a saint of faith who we know of from Christian Tradition. His story is recorded as one of many Lives of the Saints. His acts of kindness and charity to orphans, as a reflection of the wise men and of Christ's compassion for children, are reflected today in our Tradition of giftgiving. The Christian tradition of charitable giftgiving is to be preserved, not the modern obsessive consumerism that unfortunately misrepresents Christmas many times.
Better presentation compared to the RC presentation yesterday IMO. I do disagree to some points particularly about the canon of scriptures. As a person who supports protestant view, this is the 1st time I've heard the views from our orthodox friends and it is an eye opening experience.
Great work. Hopefully there would be a friendly discussion with all three views together. It might help us get to the truth.
Buy your self errick ybarra book.that comes out soon.
what's his book about?
@@shamounian
On the papacy . And when it gets released. He invites all orthodox for a chat.
I mean literally all the E orthodox churches
I think Michael Kruger has a book that addresses the canon of scripture. The canon of scriptures is a theological issue not just historical and in that sense I think the bible is a self authenticating book.
Even atheist bible scholars cannot destroy the bible unlike the quran. The bible can stand the test of history and the consistency of its teaching and accounts cannot be taken down. I think that the scripture is complete and truly robust as a basis of our faith and practice. Just my thought.
@@JesGabBreMar My friend, the 1st century Christians were most certainly not at a disadvantage. Any forgeries or fake scriptures would be disregarded since the apostles and their colleagues and other eyewitnesses were still alive to check things out. It is actually the worst time to make fake scriptures. Although the early church made copies of scripture it does not mean much to members who were mostly illiterate. Teachings were delivered through spoken language and written work. It did not require the church elites to "develop" new teachings because what they were taught was already complete.
Canon was created the moment Scripture was written not when it was discovered and declared by the church. Constructing the canon is also a theological mission which is why we only accept books that are orthodox in its teaching. I believe God has ordained events that present day Christians have a means to discover and study the veracity of the written work. It is not the church alone who can prove its authenticity but also even historical studies and atheist scholars. Even Anthony Rogers quoted an early church father who taught Sola scriptura. We respect church authority but it is not equal to the authority of the Scriptures written by the apostles or their colleagues. Our 1st century brethren had the apostles and their colleagues. In some way, they actually had it better.
This is pretty much the reason why protestants have such high regard for the Scriptures from God. We do not dare trust ourselves in developing new doctrines/practices nor do we have to. The Holy Spirit within us and the Scriptures is perfectly sufficient for the body of Christ to be strong, united and well guided in its practice and conduct.
As Jay Dyer noted, us protestants have low iq arguments for what we hold to be true. As far as I could see the protestant view makes more sense when tested by teh scriptures. I for one do not consider myself as an expert on this subject. I am an illustrator by trade but I trust the Lord will guide me to the truth. We all should. If there is some reason you can give to me, my friend, to point me to another direction, I'd consider it if it is where the Holy Spirit would lead me. I do not trust my intelligence to reach Truth.
This is ministry,, rolling back the layers that emanate from the root core.. Awesome,,, two heavy weights of the spiritual intellect.
I love your smile Sam! I like seeing you learn with us occasionally, it's a good look!
The Truth of Christ be upon you all ☦️☦️
Adonai bless you brother, I will pray for your baby girls and that they will be supernaturally and divinely protected.
God bless Sam and all of the people here.
Great Sam for having a disscution with our Orthobro 👍
Thanks Sam & Jay 👍. God bless you 🙏
Brilliantly put by Jay Dyer.
"We believe in one, holy,
catholic, and apostolic church"🙏
God Bless...
My understanding of one "catholic" in the context of the Nicene Creed is "universal".
@Destynation Z We do call ourselves the Orthodox Catholic Church. We are often called the Eastern Orthodox, or Greek Orthodox, but those are just ways of distinguishing from the Oriental Orthodox.
Is the Catholic Church heterodox? Well, it doesn't say it's Orthodox in the name.
Ridiculous, it's just omitted to avoid confusion. We are Catholic because we're in communion with each other, not because we're in communion with Rome or the Echumenical Patriarch. You're the guys with the ultra super mega bishop.
@Destynation Z Well, for the sake of people distinguishing us. Just like Roman Catholic Church is used for precision. Much the same as neither Church has One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church in its name, but we both hold ourselves to be that Church. When we say orthodox, we mean we're the ones who held true to that, and the RCC are the ones who decided it's all about the Bishop of Rome.
Well, we're universal, that's what it means being catholic, in Church Slavonic we say Sabornaya, which means Conciliar / Where all gather. It has nothing to do with being in communion with a specific bishopric. The Russian, Serbian, Greek, Antiochian, Romanian, etc Orthodox Churches all profess the same faith, and are open to all. It's how the ancient church functioned, not under a single infallible bishop, even though the Bishop of Rome was first in honour, and had primacy. As Peter was the spokesman, mouthpiece of the apostles, so was the Bishop of Rome the mouthpiece of the Church, but like Peter, he wasn't infallible, he can be rebuked, like he was by Paul, and he didn't preside over all councils, like it wasn't Peter who presided in Jerusalem, but James, who was the local bishop.
The term Catholic isn't defined by relations to Rome, but to being a Church that all can enter if they profess the One Faith, once delivered. That is why we hold ourselves to be the true inheritors of the apostles, and see the RCC as innovators, who hold the belief that dogma develops.
@Destynation Z we call ourselves one, holy, catholic and apostolic in every divine liturgy, what do you mean "we dont call yourselves catholic" ?
Dont act stupid, some papal apologists say "i am catholic" i grand to them that they asserts to be orthodox and apostolic, i do not set the word catholic in tension with orthodox and apostolic.
In reality we cant both be catholic, because there is only one Body of Christ, so only one side is correct in its claim to be the Church.
Christ never said - you will recognize them by what they call themselves, His words were "you will recognize them by their fruits" and the fruits of the vatican for the last 100 years are child abuse all over the globe.
@Destynation Z
1. I agree with your infiltration point, probably the most unfortunate of all infiltrations was sergianism in Russia. Many of the "infiltrators" eventually converted and became faithful, some remained however, traitors like judah. Juda was one of the apostles remember ? So the Church have always have had this kind of people.
2. Actually our saints have reported evil and crooked practices in the roman seat & clergy for the last 1000 years, these kind of things have been going on for some time. The thing is that there wasnt any media to report them back then and Rome was the most powerful political entity in europe so any abuse could easily slip and be buried.
3. If you were genuine with yourself (you are clearly self-deceived) you wouldn't recommend me your cult guru from the internet who refutes the current vatican, instead you will recommend me the writings of the popes john paul II, benedics, francis, according to vatican 1 council they are the authority, not some dude from the internet or a renegade bishop (I have actually read some of his letters, i can see the good intention but his theology is funny, for example he says there an "eternal battle between good and evil, or between God and Satan" or something like this). This have to be child level of silly, the devil is only a creature (not eternal) and this evil age is only quickly passing away. Everything is on God's hands.
The way i see it:
1.The pope called vatican 1 to declare himself infallible.
2.The pope called vatican 2 to start a circus.
Do you understand what is going on ? God will not be mocked by an apostate.
The famous letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch's to the Smyrnaeans doesn't say, anything about the "an infallible pope of Rome who is a leader of all christians", It only mentions the bishop as final authority or in other words "where the bishop is, there is the catholic church"
The way i see it, you can't be a true catholic unless you are a right-believing (orthodox) christian first. All true catholics were correct-believers, correct worshipers - or in other words: the faith delivered once and for all to the saints, believed in all times and in all places, the faithful gathered around the Eucharist in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Btw, if you are so obsessed with names, why don't you follow the garage sect of "the true believers in christ church" ? You should be aware, only their garage is being saved because they will be raptured as the chosen ones.
I guess what i am saying is your are too caught up in some kind of mental trap. I do not need to explain to someone why we call ourselves the way we call ourselves, ofc i could if asked and btw by your own admission you do not follow the pope of rome but the dude from the internet.
You mention the romans as some kind of divine providence against the jews, actually Rome was an evil pegan empire that persecuted the christians for 300 years and a prototype of the antichrist system, until St Constantine defeated them, converted Rome to christianity and moved the capital of the empire from Rome to Constantinople, so the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire, a state blessed by God. This is why we have ecumenical councils (councils that cover the entire ecumene of the empire)
So the byzantine empire is the true Holy Roman Empire, and old pegan rome is the Rome which Crucified Christ under pontius pilate and persecuted christians for 300 years.
Finally you can't both demand that we accept the roman seat and reject it at the same time because of vatican 2 .... This is double thinking. Its our eternal salvation in stake and you are insane.
I have to say, in my research, this is why I lean towards orthodoxy the most; what weirds me out is the bowing to and kissing of pictures and marching around the sanctuary parts of dead saints. Theologically I am in alignment with orthodoxy the most though. Also as a former old Norse heathen it’s so similar to how I used to “serve” Odin. With altar, bowing, and requests.
Well, in bowing and requests itself there is nothing bad, it's just act of worshiping God) About icons - we don't worship just pictures, but God who is on this icons. And requesting help from saints also. Icons are just between us and God. Also you can read about miracles with icons, especially there are many of them in Orthodoxy. So it's not like in idolatry where you are making false gods by these false pictures and statues, when it's just a statue.
PS: It's great that you want to become a Christian, welcome to Orthodoxy, I hope you will come to it soon, God bless you😌🙏
We need an orthodox America!!!
Awesome. Thank you for this opportunity to understand differences between churches. Love this ❤
Just gonna make this comment here because I missed the live video. To you people who don't agree with listening to the teaching of hierarchy of the Church. First of all, let's not be silly and cackle at us Orthodox if one of our bishops say something wrong - we all have this problem in our Christian communions. So look at the norm: God says in Isaiah 60:17, 'I will establish my bishops in righteousness...' St Paul mentions this fulfilment when saying to the Ephesian bishops, 'The Holy Spirit has made ye bishops over the flock of Christ.' This bishopric office is to be continued as seen in Paul's letters. Now God says in Jeremiah 3:15, 'I will give them shepherds after my own heart who will feed them with wisdom and knowledge.' Now Paul says that the Spirit has established teachers in the Church. So in the Church body, there exist these leaders I have mentioned and attempted to provide biblical evidence that the believers ought to take heed and obey the teaching of the hierarchy, since Paul says we have to obey them and subject ourselves to them. Now there is definitely a place for private revelation in our private readings. But what I wrote was for a specific case
@@lizicadumitru9683 If I'm not mistaken, even if a bishop is speaking heresy, then so long as he hasn't been condemned by a gathering of bishops, the parishes under his governance retain grace. This method is to prevent many schisms from taking place and causing heaps of confusion. Besides God's grace can still function through sinful hierarchs as seen in the case when Caiaphas prophesied concerning Jesus' death. Also when you say 'how can we trust it?' what exactly are U referring to? Can u please clarify for me
Wow this was so good.
I am live
Brother Sam, please call Tim Staples, he is one of the most famous catholic apologist and leader of Catholic Answers. Talk him about catholic Mary dogmas and Scripture, rosary, papacy, and that main topic, please, he has manny viewers and is very respectfull and knowing, you two would be great together. Think about it. Blessings!
God willing I will. Send me his email: samshmn@yahoo.com
@@shamounian I just did.. Blessings and love!
I'm so pleased Mr Shamoun put Kenny Buma in his place he's in a Facebook group in & refuses to debate anyone in it all he does is plug his own TH-cam channel , he actually said I insulted him by asking him if Allah's spirit could die ( when Allah breathed his spirit into Marayam's womb via Koran as in Isa ( Jesus could not have died if he had Allah's spirit within him . Peace be with all those in Christ .
Protestants have a hard time thinking about things holistically.
@@blankblankersonYou do you.
@@blankblankerson No Orthodox would find in your words a fair description of the practice of veneration and you cannot overcome the problem of rejecting the Church that gave you the Bible.
@@blankblankerson I maintain my basic points and will not be drawn into debate. You should seek this conversation with a real apologist and not some random fool.
@@blankblankersonOkay.
God bless you both in Jesus Name 🙏
Great stuff, brothers!
Always good to when Sam and Jay collaborate🙂
Love the way Jay grilled Shabir Ally..
R. Catholic here looking into Orthodoxy but also hoping Catholics can again be in communion with Orthodox churches. I believe that all Orthodox churches are roughly in communion with each other (despite a few rejecting some Councils). Is my belief correct?
Gbu you both.
If it was not for the RC defending the Christians from the Muslims we would all be Muslims now
True, but let's not forget that the Orthodox (aka eastern Roman empire, or Byzantium) defended the eastern borders of Europe and anatolia from when the mad dog from arabia came on the scene for many centuries.
Anne and even against all odds when the cards are stacked against us. For example
m.th-cam.com/video/xAKYICdbwA4/w-d-xo.html
@@ericfisher1360
m.th-cam.com/video/N9VAtWZfJlg/w-d-xo.html
☝️
They did a great Job. Something you cant claim
@@ΜαρίνοςΤ-μ4ρ
Mark of ephesus destroyed constantonople.
and everyone, every time you see something like this from our mostly hateful orthodox borthers, remember this FACTS and how Rome saved orthodoxy manny times, and corected their errors
www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2020/02/roman-see-as-historic-standard-bearer-of-orthodoxy.html
+ less known things about Constatinopole sack
www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/01/reflections-sack-constantinople-1204-lesser-known-byzantine-atrocities.html
amen..!!!
Just want to say idk what church sam is apart of but we can all appreciate this man whether he chooses orthodoxy or the rcc
Update
Lol sam this was before u told me I'm dumber than a dead dog
Don't ask this man questions unless you want to have a bad day
I have screenshots to prove I was respectful too so don't come saying I deserved it
Not very helpful if someone (me) doesn't know Orthodox theological vocabulary. Which could be overcome if the speaker actually made an attempt to bring the audience up to speed by using the term and at least the first time, offering a definition.
That lack might work in a written from, making it easy to pause to look up a word. But in a video I don't know how to spell the word.
So this wasn't very helpful to me.
It's part of learning. We all have to continue onward and upward.
jay dyer doesn't accurately represent Catholic doctrine. Catholics do not consider knowledge obtained through natural means "more certain" than divine revelation. In fact that is exactly the opposite of what we believe. The certainty of faith is beyond any levels of certainty attainable by natural means.
Second, I'm unaware where the first vatican council "dogmatized" classical foundationalism, although I happen to agree with it. Perhpas he is referring to Chapter 3 on the definition of faith. But, here, all it says is that God can be known with certainty from effects to causes, which even St. John of Damascene agree with from his argument from motion.
It would seem that anti-foundationalism leads to even worse problems such as anti-realism.
Modern philosophers get so tangled up in epistemological questions that they are never able to put forth a body of positive knowledge. I think part of the problem is an overreliance on mathematical definitions of logical inference.
It is at least disputable that that most classical and medieval philosphers were "foundationalists" in the sense understood by moderns. One of my favorite quotes from Aristotle: "...the educated person seeks exactness in each area to the extent that the subject allows; for apparently it is just as mistaken to demand demonstrations from a rhetorician as to accept [merely] persuasive arguments from a mathematician." [Nicomachean Ethics 1094 b23-25] This is not the attitude of someone who hopes to reduce all knowledge to a regress of inferences. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any classical or medieval philosopher who attempts to make his system into an axiomatizable theory. The first to attempt this to my knowledge was Descartes.
The success of human sciences, which presuppose a correspondence theory of knowledge (see Hugh Gauch, "Scientific Method in Practice", 2003), should suffice to show that our ordinary epistemologies really do work in obtaining knowledge. If we cannot provide a formal account of how or why they work, that does not abolish the fact that they do work.
Getting at all the basic logical and epistemological problems plaguing modern philosophy is important, but will take years of work. An accessible introduction to these issues is Mortimer Adler's "Ten Philosophical Mistakes." Much more technical, but worthwhile is Nicholas Capaldi's "The Enlightenment Project in the Analytic Conversation."
books.google.com/books?id=W57dBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT16&dq=The%20Enlightenment%20Project%20in%20the%20Analytic%20Conversation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjG-fiEvN_KAhUDPxoKHfUgDt0Q6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Enlightenment%20Project%20in%20the%20Analytic%20Conversation&f=false
@Reck Fredreck what does this have to do with anything I said?
Very interesting. Dont agree with all his points of what protestants believe as he is trying to put a whole host of denominations under one umbrella. I can Understand for the purposes of this video he took the mainstream belief.
Non the less was very interesting.
Can you talk about the Orthodox perspective of scriptures instead of what Roman Catholic's or Protestant's perspectives.
This is what they always do. Us and them.
2nd letter of Paul to thessalonicians Greeks, Chapter 2 line 15.
Θεσ. Β' 2,15 ῎Άρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι' ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν.
Θεσ. Β' 2,15 Άρα λοιπόν, αδελφοί, να στέκετε σταθεροί, και να κρατάτε τις παραδόσεις που διδαχτήκατε είτε με λόγο είτε με επιστολή μας.
So, brethren, stand firm, and keep the traditions you have been taught, either by word or by our letter.
24:42- John Webster and Michael Kruger helped me a lot here in staying Protestant. As did Whitacre’s Holy Scripture.
28:31- source of canons
29:29- Jay, it’s because Jesus’ canon was Jewish. Abel to Zechariah is Genesis to 2 Chronicles, along with “Law, Prophets, Writings”.
This oversimplifies history. As you point out, a VanTillian presuppositionalism originates with Protestants. So we’re not subject to the critique of circularity as invalid.
Also, we make distinctions between heresy and heterodoxy. Watch debate between James White and Doug Wilson on
“are Roman Catholics our brothers”
34:47- the Bible is liturgical for Protestants along the Anglican tradition too. And if you read Hughes Oliphant Old, also for the Reformed.
37:12- unless you’re an Anglican.
Jesus taught, there no writings from Jesus himself. I think its safe to say most people miss this and forsake the teachings and traditions of the early church.
Hi, Sam! May I reupload a slightly edited version of this video on my own channel? Thanks!
I suspect you want to attack him. With that said anyone is free to upload my videos.
@@shamounian ??? On the contrary! By "sightly edited" I meant that I cut out some talk, like your intro, for example, to make the video of a shorter duration. I'll provide a reference to your channel in the description of "my" edited video, anyway. Thank you! Nevertheless, if you check the videos already on my channel, you'll notice that I've already uploaded some other video cuts of Jay talking about faith, without any attack on him or his claims.
@@shamounian In fact, I just realized that I can't upload the video on my channel, because it's too long and, given that I have uploaded just a few others on my channel till now, I'm still limited to uploading videos no longer than 15 minutes each ... Thank you, anyway!
Ye thats how the Assyrian church of the east knew the word passed down from the APOSTLES it was the liturgy 4 along time
I don’t think Protestants even have doctrine. It’s basically become the book of Judges and every church just does what is right in its own eyes. It should be obvious that the Father, Son, and Spirit did not want 50 thousand different versions of the one true teaching and worship. Having only converted fairly recently I was shocked at how Protestant church services that I’ve attended seem to be directly opposed to the way St. Paul lays out how a church should operate in his epistles.
I like what he is saying, but someone help me understand how the Holy Spirit can use a fallible person to write an infallible book, but the church must be infallible to produce an infallible cannon? Couldn't the HS use a fallible church to compile an infallible cannon? Im referencing his argument against Sprouls "a fallible collection of an infallible book." Isn't the text itself a fallible writer writing an infallible book?
Phew! Info overload. No wonder Christians are confused. Great case for Orthodoxy Mr Dyer. I think other Christian apologists should just avoid you. 🤔🤔🤔🤔
Very helpful for me as I'm trying to understand Eastern Orthodox theology. I don't find this supremely compelling although I do feel challenged to be more consistent in how I understand the historical witness for my presbyterian faith (although I would dispute his very monotone approach to church history just on its face)
Jesus is Lord.
53 min jay that was some funny stuff with the expression
Mr. Sam, I want to talk to you, how can I talk to you?
skype me: benny_malik3
shamounian Thinks 🙏🏻
shamounian
I sent you messages on Skype
Am I the only idiot here? I find the man talks too fast to be grasped. But it could be my fault.
He’s give lectures with the slow boi white board!
Jay. What's the name of the book and author about the origins of the Liturgy?
Try his recommended reading list and jaysanalysis.com
Its hard to tame some
people.
So how does one get saved? Is there salvation outside the Greek Orthodox Church?
It has nothing to do with the "Greek Orthodox Church". It is the Eastern Orthodox Church which includes all Orthodox Churches in Russia, Serbia, USA, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece etc. Only God knows who is saved outside the EO Church, while many in the EO Church might not be saved if they are sinners. We approach salvation differently from Protestants. There is no 'once saved always saved' thing in EO.
Anyone know the reference Jay cited as “Woodward” concerning Masoretic vs Septuagint texts?
Try John Whiteford
So who has the certitude on truth, his own opinion or truth from the Church, too confusing just too many words
The problem with elevating tradition to be equal to scripture and indispensable to Christianity is that you end up nullifying the truths of God's word in order to accommodate those traditions. This is precisely what Jesus criticised the Pharisees for and the church let it happen again. Then you have the problem of trying to prove that the traditions your church holds to were present from the beginning of the church in the first century. Orthodoxy cannot prove this and in fact many traditions they hold to are from the 6th or 7th century. Jay tries to prove that the church had no canon and was essentially rudderless apart from tradition and the teachings of the fathers. This is blatantly false. For starters the church had the old testament books from the start, and Paul encouraged Timothy to hold fast to the teachings of the scripture which he had learned since his childhood. He taught that scripture had the power to make people wise for salvation through faith in Jesus. He then said that scripture is breathed out by God and that it is profitable for teaching and training in righteousness so that the man of God is complete and fully equipped for every good work. (2nd Timothy 3:15-16) . Orthodox tradition explicitly denies that scripture by itself is enough to make people wise for salvation and it denies that it gives us every principle and truth needed in teaching and finally it denies that it leaves us complete and fully equipped. It's not enough they say! Well Paul said it was enough in the first century.
Protestants also have a tradition from which you interpret scripture. There’s no such thing as not having a tradition. But is your tradition in line with scripture because it is guided by the same Holy Spirit who inspired scripture or is it merely traditions of men. Once you realize how much your own understanding of scripture is within the tradition of Protestantism and whatever denomination you subscribe to, you may have to rethink this.
Orthodoxy is the faith once for all delivered to the Saints, and has been defended from heresies including the Protestant heresies throughout 2000 years of church history.
@@m.filmtrip Their is "Orthodoxy" which means sticking to only the theology of revealed scripture without innovation and there is "Orthodoxy" which is a label for a certain catholic denomination. The Protestants hold fast to the former.
@@m.filmtrip We don't have a tradition, we do have confessions of faith. The challenge to Orthodox is not merely to assert that you are the ones who have the original faith. Anyone can claim this. The challenge is to prove that the traditions can be tracked back to the disciples through written evidence.
As for holding to the faith, the Orthodox Church has clearly moved away from the teachings of St Paul on justification.
@@thehandofjibreel8756 There are no Orthodox Catholics, there are Eastern Rite Catholics. There are over twenty Churches who are in communiun with the Latin Church (RC) but most Orthodox Churches are not part of it.
@Alan Jay By claiming that the Canon was given by their tradition, the bible is seen as part of the overall body of tradition. If the word of God was breathed out by God then He is the one who gave the Canon. The council only recognised what God did. Having your own understanding of what the Bible teaches is forbidden. You must accept what the church teaches. So when Paul teaches that we are justified by faith and not works, but the church says it's faith and works before you can be justified you have to accept works based justification. Or when the 2nd commandment forbids idolatry but the church says you can have images and statues..
Only sad part of this is that every time he speaks on the Protestant belief’s, he based it on reformed theology.
I/many do not believe in any of the five points of Calvinism.
Many non denominational Protestants believe very close to the orthodoxy position of the traditions of the fathers, sacraments, oral word, “some” non canonical books, etc..
@nestoriancalvin4071 well I didn’t mention any of the things you mention. I believe in none of those traditions. Traditions of the fathers - I refer to writings of Josephus, Tertullion, Justin Martyr, etc.. not that they are canonical but informative, same as for say the book of Macabee’s, historical, not canonical. As for sacraments, maybe not worded right but baptism and communion definitely , but not as a means of salvation.
I just don’t like that every time they speak against being Protestant, they assume it’s five point Calvinism.
@nestoriancalvin4071 yes I have. And no I don’t agree with everything they say and they don’t agree with each other in all issues either as I know you know. That does not mean there is no highly beneficial material written.
You’re trying to paint a negative picture with a broad brush. Your implying there is no truth in any of the early church father writings then?
@nestoriancalvin4071 your kidding me right?
@nestoriancalvin4071 Interpretation of scripture - end times, virgin birth, trinity etc…
Canon of scripture- which writings should be in the Bible, 1st Enoch, etc…
Who is considered a church father - depends who you ask, Catholics, Orthodox, etc…
Jay, you should not be doing your cross and co praying at the same time as you do not share the same faith
Gbu ss.
1:25:55 1:09:25
Orthodox ethiopian and eritrea over 3000 years history
Lots of babies getting thrown out with the bathwater here.
So are you telling me that my catholic religion is wrong a faith I was born with , and bible says Faith is a gift from GOD. I believe if GOD wanted me be born with a Buddhist faith then I would have been born probably in a Buddhist country like the Muslims were born Muslims.
I am not saying that , I can no longer change my religion but I also researched that the the Roman Catholic was founded by JESUS CHRIST. Where do we go from here. Of course Islam is true if u r talking to a Muslim and so on and on...... remember the HOLY SPIRIT is with us!
Yes you can be wrong despite the religion you were born in. We can’t all be right especially according to the claim that Christianity makes that Jesus is the Only Way to the Father so if that is true and both me and you agree that would make other people wrong. Whether that offends them that is another story. One can be wrong and be offended. They are still wrong.
Listen to what he says about the Nous. That’s the real jack pot here. If you don’t currently have a theology that talks about healing your Nous don’t be offended that you’re wrong on the contrary be thankful that you’ve been shown your wrong so you can be correct. That is good news. Ortho = Correct, Doxy= Worship.
Pretty sure Sam is converting to the Orthodox Church after that.
why you say that? I was thinking Roman Catholicism or the Coptic church.
shamounian Hey Sam, just watched your live stream with Matt and I wanted to let you know that we’re pretty much in the same position (only exception being that you’re leaning more towards RC and I’m leaning more towards EO). I’ll be praying to the Lord so that he may guide us both towards the truth.
@@ThiagoCT9 ac6tually brother I am not leaning more towards one to the other. If anything, I may end up back to the Assyrian church of the east. I don't know. I have to just wait on the Holy Spirit.
shamounian Sure, where I live there are only Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants so I can’t look much into other options... Either way just wanted to let you know that I’m really grateful for your work 🙏.
No idea what half these words mean...
Sam is a Protestant?
used to be.
@@shamounian Orthodox then? You sure sound Orthodox!
❤️❤️❤️
Sammy akhony u should of let it out and just laugh at q&a time Assyrians we know when 2 laugh and get angry classic.
Paul said to keep the apostles tradition, already delivered to the Church and NOT the Church fathers, or just any members of the church tradition later on. Where is the OC and RC liturgy tradition in the teachings of Paul? Iconodraphy, candles, buildings rituals.
1Cor 11:2 KJV Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
2Thess 2:15 KJV Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2Thess 3:6 KJV Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
Coll 1:23 KJV If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
Oh, but this is the circular argument of Sola Scriptura..... You have to listen to the fathers of the Imperial Church, ,you see.
@@nromanov The same way you accept the canon of the Old Testament without accepting the corrupt oral tradition of the Pharisees, hwo rejected Jesus. He was a jew, without being Pharissee and spoke against them,despite theyr hold on the canon. Paul was a Christian without being Orthodox.The Church was not established by the Imperial OC. It was established by Christ, Who sent The Holy Spirit through the apostles and Paul three centuries before the Fathers received the approval by the Roman Empire.
Eph. 2:19-20 KJV 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Note that the Church was buid before the Father's approval of the canon.
Col. 2:6-9 KJV 6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: 7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Christ is the Word, not the Church Fathers. The Word is infallible, not the people, even the peope in the Church. The Church is corrected by the Word, and not by the Church....
BTW, I am fron an Orthodox country.
@@nromanov I belong to rhe Body of Christ, the not entirely visible construction of the Holy Spirit, not restrained by human organization and tradition, though not entirely without history and some tradition. The work of the Trinity through the Spirit is the Bible - collection of the work of the Spirit through men, moved by the Spirit, and preserved by the Spirit in the written text. This work has been completed in written form in the first century and not in the fourth century. Every saved person is part of rhe Body, which is not a way to salvation, but the result of the salvation oin Christ. The word of God is preserved by God, the Holy Spirit, it was only given through men, the apostles and the prophets of the Body of Christ. Their work is the foundation built by the Spirit. The Church Fathers are not the Apostles. If a tradition is not found and confirmed in the written word from the first century, it is not from Paul. Such as the liturgical tradition of the Imperial Church, the buildings, the icons and relics. I am led by Christ, through the Spirit, and not by men, that came later in the Empire and just proclaimed the canon, wich already existed for more then 250 years without the recognition of the Ronan world. But don't get me wrong, the Church Fathers were very important part of the Body in the struggle with the heresies in their time. However they are not the all authority in the choosing of the canon and they are not all the tradition. I don't follow them, but Christ through Paul and the apostles through the Spirit through the written word. I didn't mean to troll anyone, but just expressed my opinion on the matter with fellow christians in the Body. I am a fallen man, saved by grace through faith by our God Jesus Christ. Being in the Body we are not authority, but rather recepiens of the salvation and just witnesses. In any given time we make mistakes an sins, but we are in the hand of Christ. Glory and honour to Him alone.
God bless you!
@@scythian74 actually relics, icons and buildings go all the way back to the 1st century, your argument is from silence. so it's not an argument
"If a tradition is not found and confirmed in the written word from the first century,"
yeah nah, you're wrong literally all the epistles of the fathers in the 1st and second centuries confirm they don't go by the written word alone
@@TheMhouk2 Why do you think the scripture was written? Precisely to avoid people "traveling in time" and putting their own beliefs.... If you don't show me from the scripture, I wouldn't buy it. I don't care about kissing objects, or indulgences, relics, icons or customs, strange to the apostles and Paul. You can believe whatever you want without a proof.
1John 2:27 KJ2000 But the anointing which you have received of him abides in you, and you need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, you shall abide in him.
@@scythian74 no scripture was written because it mirrors a continuation of the jewish view of the scriptures, that is, the deposit of the patriarchs
You call these customs strange to St Paul, yet these are jewish customs, of whom St Paul knew intimately, relics - the bones of Elisha were relics in the old Testament, the bronze serpent, imagery in solomon's temple.
"faith" in absentia of matter is a platonic fiction
To much talking about nothing...
then shut your mouth and stop yapping.