ANNOUNCEMENT: Pre-recorded full response in the works. Read below: I have just renamed the stream to be a "Preliminary deboonk." Since it went for over 2 hours and barely made it half way through Kyle's vid (on account of unstructured comments even with notes and interacting with the livechat), Ive decided to try something new and plan a Trent Horn style pre-recorded, scripted response video that efficiently goes through Kyle's whole vid. This will be my modus operandi for solo responses from now on. Not to worry for those who like Q&A tho; fortnightly Q&A streams will provide such opportunities frequently and more efficiently, and I may still react to things in a chill context in Q&A streams. Also, responses with collab partners will be still be live, since they work much better than solo with a live format.
Protestantism is a historical category, its not a theological category. Catholics and Orthodoxy like to caricature Protestantism as a theological category to more easily (but less honestly) attack it. While I think there is far more unity of doctrine in Protestantism than there is in Rome and in the East, it doesn't assert it self as a single body. "I'm against Protestantism because (theological reason)" is paramount of saying "I'm against Christianity because of (Theological Reason)." You are judging the entire body over particular beliefs in particular traditions. Rome and the East does is far more scandalizing, as they turn the meat of the faith into a sociological construct to support a temporal political institution. Their theology mutates the gospel in service of that institution and to cultivate loyalty to that institution and create an idol of it.
"While I think there is far more unity of doctrine in Protestantism than there is in Rome and in the East," There is no question, if you are an honest individual, that Sola Scriptura can and historically has led to a greater amount of doctrinal diversity in protestant circles compared to those churches that recognize a greater role for tradition and for a magisterium. Temporal Political Institution? Let me deboonk this quickly: Jesus described a wise man who built his house on a rock. The “wise man” is a reference to Solomon, and the “house” is therefore the Temple. Jesus is identified as the New Solomon, the builder of a New Temple. When we come to Matthew 16, Peter identifies Jesus as “the Messiah, the Son of God.” This links with the promise of 2 Samuel 7:13-14, where God promises to be a father to David’s son, the son who will build the Temple. Jesus promises to build a new temple: the Church - The word for “palace” and “temple” are identical in the original language, and the Palace of the King is an image of the Palace of the Divine King. When Eliakim is appointed as steward of the house of David, he is being appointed as the high priest of David’s palace. Furthermore, Eliakim is given both a sash and a turban: iconic vestments of the high priest. Second Temple interpreters recognized these connections, and identified the key of Eliakim as the “key of the Sanctuary.” In 1 Chronicles, priests are identified as having the keys to the Temple. Peter is being promised the keys of a new priesthood The Levites are constituted as priests when they forsake mothers, brothers, sisters, and neighbors (Deuteronomy 33:8-10), and Jesus said to the New Priesthood: “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first." - in Revelation 21, describing the city of God, we see that there are twelve gates which open and are not shut. These gates are guarded by twelve angels: there is clear language association of bishops with angels (70 Bishops with 70 Angels=Divine council /writing seven epistles to the seven “angels” of the seven churches). In other words, the bishops hold the key of Isaiah 22, and they open and shut the door to the City of God, the Church. The prerogatives of Jesus as High Priest go to His Bishops, who manifest His heavenly ministry. -in Exodus 28 the twelve stones go in the High Priest’s vestments, and each stone matches one tribe of Israel. In Revelation 21, these same stones are placed in the city of God, symbolizing the twelve apostles of the lamb. The green stone is Levi: and in Revelation 21, the stone associated with the Apostle Peter is the green stone. This distinguishes Peter as the head of the priestly tribe. This is the “eternal covenant,” God promised that David’s son would be his own son and that he would reign forever, so no there is no end to Jesus's body and the Church participates in all that He is because the Church is his Body. We proceed to the knowledge of immaterial things through material things, invisible through visible, insensible through sensible, this is part of the whole logic of the Incarnation and the Church Sacraments. You can actually internalize the Gospel, be transformed into the image, reflect the archetype of which you are the type. You don't just assume 66 books as inspired word of God and flatter yourself by thinking you have Scripture authority for your own assertions. "The devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning!" Saint Jerome 347AD
@ktownbball ktownbball the problem is a protestant can use sola scriptura and claim the Holy Spirit helped guide to an understanding of scripture that allows for all the mess you see in western parishes. I recently saw a female priest lead a prayer service to Beyonce using her songs as worship. That couldn't happen in an Eastern Arch Diocese. The Church is forever one single body of Christ. Just depends on whether you're apart of it or not. But protestantism has no muscle. The second the State either bans the religion or makes it worth your while to denounce it you'll see the crowds leave it in the west in a flash. It's never lasted oppression. You have no real Martyr movements.
@ktownbball ktownbball of course there's heretics in east. Plenty. Currently there's more heretics than they're see orthodox. And I'm counting the clergy. But the Church is still true. Every stupid thing being done by these heretics will be repented for and in 500 years our worship will still look like it did 500 years ago. Because that is the True worship. I can't even fathom what most of the worship in the west will look like in 500 years. Yours is a broken tradition built off a broken tradition. It's plagued by egotism and it cannot stand. My families region was conquered in 1360 by Muslims. It wasn't liberated until 1912. Depending on who was in charge sent by the Sultan it could have been deadly to worship Christ. Mountainside monasteries were built so the faithful could worship without violence. I can still go to these buildings now and worship. They look almost identical inside as the ones built before 1359 that still exist and the ones built since 1913. All my family had to in those 500 plus years was deny Christ and our daily existence would have been made much more peaceful. We chose Truth then and I choose Truth now. It makes no sense to me that thw entirety of Christians would have been so stupidly following the wrong worship between 100ad and 1500ad when a group of western Europeans who came out of a defunct papacy of centuries of corruption would finally find the right way that the Apostles themselves couldn't properly pass on, but somehow Calvin Luther and Cromwell or whoever you want to say is right out of those 3. It just makes no sense. There has to have been a right way that survived in every century since Christ.
Im a Catholic but hav3 great respect for protestants I hate when people act like they can deboonk protestantism easily, like if it was that easy there would be no prots
Kyle and Jay have been a stumbling block on my path to Holy Orthodoxy. They're toxic attitude, lack of love for those who disagree and cringe video style is a detriment to the OC.
Love your passion and content bro. Fellow Anglican and former Calvinist here. After several hundred hours of intense study of the early church fathers and early Christian doctrines, I am no longer a Calvinist. I would encourage you to have a discussion or debate with Leighton Flowers of Soteriogy 101 about your Calvinistic views.
Why would Christ accept that his church is now a loosely defined, divided spread of different communions and expressions of faith? Where is the unity He promised?
its always been like that. dont have the delusion the councils kept the church together. there is and has been division between the churches throughout the ages
@@JKMlive it's not the name they use. It's "the other". For example if I name name was Jesus and I was latino but I went by the name The Other Jesus it's more obvious. This is The Apostle Paul that Christ himself came to and made to live and write with The Holy Spirit. The other Paul? Not even close.
"The focus of the liturgy is the eucharist, which is a sacrifice! Where is the continuity?" Also, "Jesus did not suffer to atone for sins!" Dude. What's the eucharist a picture of again? The work of Christ, or the work of the priest?
Kyle needs to spend one summer visiting all the Protestant high church services and then see if there is one he prefers the best. He prolly won't tho cuz he thinks we're all apostates or something 😁😎
1:31:30 - Christ did atone our sins by dying and shedding his blood for us, but how does believing that exclude the mending of a broken relationship with God? I thought that Kyle was Orthodox and understood that Christ needed to shed hos blood and rise from dead so we could receive His mercy and forgiveness of sins?
Would Justin Martyr have recognized the last ecumenical council as resembling his faith at all? No. So unless God guided the church wrong for 300 years first, then the 7th council is simply wrong.
Okay, I’m not done with the stream just yet, but I love your point on Matt 16 at 1:15:22. Michael Heiser has stressed this point too. He actually translates the passage as, “The gates of Hell will not withstand the church”, making it even more clearer. In fact, Jesus and the disciples are (according to Heiser) at Mount Hermon, which was what the ancients believed to be the HQ of Hell itself
@@TheOtherPaul there's a third really interesting interpretation of this passage, which is that the Greek word "Hades" is the translation of the Hebrew word "Sheol," which means "the grave," and so the passage is actually an allusion to the resurrection, in the sense that the gates of the grave (Hades) are actually holding the departed saints within themselves, but that through Christ, we, the Church, will burst out of those gates that are imprisoning us in death when we are raised from the dead immortal. What I find interesting about this interpretation is that I had never before encountered someone who suggested that the gates here are holding the church within their domain, rather than holding the church outside of their domain, a point which is often just assumed without proof.
Paul Be advised Some Reformed Presbyterians also practice the anointing of the sick we just did it recently in our congregation. They were Baptist to do it also so it’s pretty ubiquitous really
Isn't denominationalism trying to make protestantism into a single faith? Acting like Anglicans and Presbyterians are just as valid, but only different traditions?
The canonization of the Bible was a complex process carried out by various councils and religious authorities over several centuries. Different Christian traditions have slightly different canons. The Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD, 419 AD) played significant roles in the recognition of the New Testament canon for Western Christianity. The Eastern Orthodox Church has its own canonization process. For the Old Testament, the process varied among different religious traditions, including Judaism and various Christian denominations.
The church is the body of Christ. He has chosen them. They are the elect. This is definitely not limited to Eastern Othodoxy. On the contrary Christ founded the church. It exists throughout the whole world primarily outside of Orthodox Church Which does not even preach the saving gospel of Christ!
Two things cannot be true at the same time, and the holy spirit is not the author of confusion. He did not lead the church in error for more than 15 centuries and turn around and start teaching protestants the exact opposite. For instance: The Holy Spirit isn't going to teach the Church across schisms the real presence, come down and consecrate the offerings to provide the real presence, and then turn around and teach protestants that Christ was speaking metaphorically and the entire thing is symbolic. Those are mutually exclusive conditions that cause division, and only one of them can be true while the other is heresy. And it's not going to be the historically recent beliefs within the last 5 centuries among low church protestants, as even the High Church denominations teach the real presence. But that's just one example. Another will be baptismal regeneration: Anyone that paid a bit of attention to the scriptural teachings would know Christ said it's mandatory and that the blood and the spirit are consubstantial with the water, and thus it would be the blood and spirit doing the saving, not the water itself. The holy spirit isn't consecrating the faithful and causing the rebirth that even low-church Protestants say is necessary and turning around and telling them that it's just an outward expression of faith that isn't necessary, and just the intellectual assent that Christ is Lord is necessary to cause this "rebirth." The Holy Spirit isn't the author of confusion, only one of those two can be true and the other is heresy. This idea that the body of Christ can have such varying and "perfectly valid" perspectives is a heresy in of itself. Christ charged his 12 apostles to go forth and teach all that he taught them, not 12 different perfectly valid perspectives. It's false ecumenism, there's only one truth, and it wasn't revealed 5 centuries ago while we were in the darkness for more than 15.
Simple the church discerned scripture . How did they do this? Well it happened organically as the New Testament was being written and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It’s not rocket science. Obviously the biographies of God incarnate are scripture with infallible authority just as a start.
Orthodoxy was completely influenced by asceticism and monasticism. They were good things in them but they were taken way too far. Also the seventh ecumenical council essentially canonized idolatry! We should not be worshiping our art! The spiritual world is far above the material world and cannot be represented by paintings in the case of orthodoxy or statues in the case of Romanism.
Regarding your safety and security in Christ. It's possible, you are not an elect. You're assuming you're an elect. One example maybe you will not finish the race. Another example is maybe you are self-deceived. As you said not everyone that goes to a church is a Christian. You can have assurance but you don't have infallible certitude. And if God ordained everything. Maybe he created you for everlasting destruction.
So you'll just ignore my comment? Debate jay dyer instead of shooting from a distance, if not just for the sake of all those people he's supposedly misleading with his "none-arguments".
I forgot about your initial comment tho I had intended to reply, partly because it wasn't a priority, because I have answered the question of debating Dyer with a negative multiple times on my streams. I might have stated my answer nicely again under this comment, had you not berated me as if I owed you an answer. I reply to who I want when I want. If you really want a reply want one, just ask nicely again, or even shoot me an email, which I always respond to. I'll shoot from a distance all I want; it's perfectly legitimate, and is what 99% of all apologetical content is. I don't need to debate him to show others the errors of arguments he propounds, especially through his heirs like Kyle. You don't get to demand me to debate someone. Why do lads like you *without fail* chant the "Debate Dyer" mantra and not address my claims yourselves? I think it's because you can't address my responses, and rather than adopt some intellectual humility and ponder on them, you throw rational standards out the window and just demand a debate, as if my willingness or refusal to do so would at all affect my arguments. If that's how you measure truth claims, you need to step away from the internet and orient yourself to actual truthseeking.
@@TheOtherPaul the reason people chant the mantra is because you addressed him. People are just usually confused by some apologists who mention someone they're actively arguing against but apparently never have tried to discuss the matter with the actual person. Its seems like talking smack again another boxer and when people ask you to fight him, since YOU'VE addressed his poor skillset (Argumentation), your reply "go fight him yourself" and "i fight who ever I want" seems odd. I think you also took it the wrong way. Of course you owe no one a debate, but in this particular domain of apologetics, wouldn't it make sense to debate the opposing view if not just for the sake of how many people they supposedly "mislead" with faulty Argumentation?
@@TheOtherPaul I am very new to the Bible, and I am attempting to determine between the Orthodox church, and Protestant (primarily Baptist [being what I was raised in]) church. Considering the fact that I am new, many of your rebuttals towards Kyle, I will openly admit that I cannot respond to them. It would help me a lot if I could listen to experts of both sides completely respond to the criticisms towards their denomination in a 1 on 1 setting.
@@KnightFel yeah your oppinion on him is irrelevant. One can still make a distinct between a person and the argument that are being presented. As you have perfectly demonstrated, people are apperently incapable of distinguishing the two and to actually engage with the arguments for once.
There's nothing they could have done. They had no legs to stand on. Luther was so brainwashed by the schismatic heresy of the last 500 years before him he opted to be a monk. He had a spiritual crises and a state sponsored separation movement and he fell into his own ego. Same for most of the rest. They were so far removed from the actual church and so disconnected from it all they could do was rely on themselves and reinterpret scripture to suit their needs.
Jay Dyer actually agrees with that. This is why when he debated with Redeemed Zoomer, he reframed the discussion around the authority of the Protestant canon ao he wouldn't have to discuss the disagreement around Shepherd of Hermas and other wonderful Christian tales of the faith
The Ethiopic Church has its own canon, the Greek Church does too, so do the Catholics. That's the point, Jay Dyer didn't want to get into that because he just wanted to tunnel vision on the Protestant Canon of scripture and paint RZ out to be some sort of Reformed Gnostic. That's the ONLY reason he won the debate because he reframed the discussion around that and because RZ didn't stick to his guns on the discrepancies between the canons within the Cat and Orthropod churches. However, RZ did make a comeback by posting a very good response video after the discussion so he came out on top in the end.
@@Divinecter It sure did. Jay can't say that all Orthodox have the EXACT SAME CANON and then turn around and accuse Protestants of having a brand new canon when their canon is based on the Textus Receptus--just like all the other opposing canons in Orthodoxy.
@YAJUN YUAN Jews chanted the psalms and liturgical readings. The Orthodox Church does not chant the homily, it chants the psalms and other liturgical readings.
@@shiningdiamond5046bro you don’t learn anything in EO liturgy. I’ve seen them, and the homily at the end it riddled with eisegesis. You want to feel holy and be in the smells and bells, kissing icons and praying to them, trying to grow in theosis. Anything but trusting in Christ alone. You guys are deceived and mislead.
1:14:55 Because Christ gave the Apostles the Spirit of God, which is the guide of the Church. If the spirit of God guides his Body, how blasphemous to say the Church would be in error. Is God's spirit fallible?
We as individuals are given the Spirit too, and Paul even attests to prophets among thr people (cf. 1st Corinthians). Are you infallible? Has the Spirit of God failed? Or are you failing to distinguish between the general guidance of the Spirit (which doesn't cover all our mistakes) vs the charism of divine protection granted only to the Apostles?
@The Other Paul No, the Church is infallible of its final decisions, not by individual members. Gods spirit enacts his Will for his Body. This is unanimous teaching for 1000 years. This does not give the individual the ability to never be incorrect, instead as every Christianity for the first 1200 years believed, as a collected whole, the decisions are infallible because why? Paul in Acts 15, Specifically verse 28 at the very first Church council.
@@Galmala94 No you don't, because Protestantism was invented by Martin Luther and the Reformers around the 1600s ad. You don't have Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Tradition from the Apostles which was passed down to you historically.
@@kenfollowyeshuacrawford4284 and you believe the disciples of the apostles made images of the Apostles AND DEMANDED YOU BOW DOWN AND KISS THEM TO BE SAVED!?!?! lol
@@UniteAgainstEvil Yes, because veneration of icons is Biblical. You're equivocating icons and idols because of your Protestant's Reformation Movement heresy.
The process of canonizing the Bible took place over several centuries, with different books being recognized at different times. The New Testament canonization was generally completed by the 4th century, while the process for the Old Testament varied among different religious traditions, concluding around the 2nd century CE for some and later for others.
I believe the Church recognized the cannon, not because of its own authority to pick or choose, but the Church et all was led by the witness of Holy Spirit Himself through the self-evidence of the Word. Like you read the gospel of John and you know it’s Scripture (whether the Church tells you or not). We know this by history. Whether you agree or not, does this make sense to you?
@@Psalm144.1 You have just admitted that the Holy Spirit led the Church in recognising the Canon, and it's not about the Church "picking and chosing". This is precisely what the Catholic Church has always said. So go and tell your co-religionists.
@@Psalm144.1 On the contrary, you indeed have seen the Catholic Church say "the canon was determined by God". That is precisely what it says! The Church simply fullfills Christs promise that his church will teach the truth in his name and that includes identifying what is the Written Word of God. Individuals were completely incapable of doing it and a divinely-guaranteed teaching authourity was required. "He who hears you hears me". Before the Canon was settled there were furious debates to exclude Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, and Revelation, and to include the Letter of Barnabas, the Letter of 1 Clement, Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter. The Church made the final decision. Luther however wished to remove Hebrews, James "the epistle of straw", Revelation, and the 7 deutero-canonical books. Though perhaps you would rather twist what the Catholic Church actually teaches and remain in your echo-chamber? Your poor disposition toward the Catholic Church, as evidenced by the pejorative "Papist" will be an obstacle in your search for the truth about the Catholic Church. I recommend to you the site Catholic Answers where you can learn what the Catholic Church actually teaches, rather than what you think it teaches. Pax
@@TheOtherPaul i see, thanks for answering. in that case, i was going to subscribe to the lowest tier, but i’m sorry to say that debit cards from my country are not accepted on that website. maybe someday.
@@BananaLair oh well, all good king. There's a site you could use for other currencies called Wise .com. I use it for transactions in multiple currencies incl. USD.
Orthodoxy cannot be correct. It is a developed a system of man-made theology and synergism. Denying key elements of the faith including depravity/inability, substitutionary atonement, all of the doctrines grace in fact
Here we have an example of how not to behave. The Other Paul is so incredibly arrogant in this video that nothing he says matters in the slightest. Like a pig in mud, he is wallowing in pride. He is so profoundly ignoring the command to love thy neighbor and so obviously making an idol out of himself that none of his arguments matter in the slightest. He has disqualified himself from being taken seriously by his abjectly unChristian attitude. The Other Paul - One word for you: Humility.
@@TheOtherPaulhe shouldn't have called you a pig but I will say during this video you should have conducted yourself to a standard worthy of the title Christian. Humility indeed and it truly goes for all of us.
@@blissseeker4719what about the Apostle Paul when he says he wishes that those heretics adding to the gospel would essentially cut their nuts off? Does he need humility there? Fight for the truth tooth and nail and call out blatant heretics.
@@KnightFelI don't remember the scripture but I'm sure it all fits within the context perfectly. Also... I forget the context of this discussion. Nine days, I waited too long
"Started by a King" No, it wasn't "started by a King." He initiated the breakaway from Roman jurisdiction, but the Bishops and churches of England had been there for over a millennium at that point. "Women priests" In many bishoprics, unfortunately yes. In many others, including mine, no. If that invalidates my communion, then by all means don't research the dominance of Arian/semi-Arian theology across the Church in the 4th century. Someone looking at the Church with your logic would be able to say the exact same thing. "Accept LGBT" As above; some bishoprics are apostate, many others (like mine) are not. Are you going to gloat about faults in my communion, or address my actual arguments? Because guess what; every congregation bar one in my communion could pro-LGBT apostates and that *still* wouldn't even touch my arguments, which are philosophical, theological, and historical, not based on the state of Anglicanism.
@@TheOtherPaul. I just looked it up and found out the Anglican Church in Australia allowed each diocese to vote on female priests. Do you not realize this affects you even if you don’t have female priests? You PROFESS Anglicanism. This means you share communion with priestesses. Your comparison to Arianism would be true had the church allowed a “vote” on Arianism. But it didn’t. The issue is the Anglican Church has gone full apostate at this point. If you belonged to the continuing anglicans which do not share communion with these perverts maybe you could make an argument. But you’re not a continuing Anglican. So you share communion with priestesses and sodomy encouragers. And not because your church disagrees with it but tolerates these people in order not to cause schism. No, your church allowed people to decide by vote! Imagine if Rome allowed people to decide by vote wether it’s ok to be a priestess ? Or a practicing homosexual ? We’d never hear the end of it from Protestants about “unscriptural” papists! But somehow since it’s the Anglican Church that’s ok? You are going to have to accept at some point you are affected by modernism. Even in my baptist Protestant days I would have NEVER even stepped foot inside a church with a priestess or a church that doesn’t have a clear stance against sodomy. The Anglican communion is by far one of the most degenerate out there when it comes to Protestantism.
@@TheOtherPaul this is a very interesting way to cope, considering this is a widespread anglican problem, and it doesn’t seem like it’s going to be resolved. Being in a church that allows women to be bishops, shows you’re in a fake church
First time to watch one of your videos. Weak... Seemed like a 2+ hour cope. You're arguing from completely different presuppositions. A book cannot have authority without authoritative interpretation.
Everyone is able to make raw assertions of "cope", but are you capable of backing it up? I agree that a book can't have authority without authoritative interpretation; that is absolutely necessarry. And the way authoritative interpretation is grounded is by the interpretation being true, which is inherent to the text at its very penning. This is the authority of scripture. You believe scripture is inherently authoritative, right?
Orthodoxy is a dead system which keeps got in a box. Their Jesus is weak and needs the help of his mother To save people. Yet they have no assurance! That is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
@Bb Dl here we go again with the sophistry. After this last reply (for the reader's sake), I'm blocking you; I'm sick of your fake epistemology. I'll deal with your statements in a backwards order because of your concession of my very reply to sirweddings at the end: "That is the question. Not wether there is a true interpretation intended by the biblical authors (because there is), but WHICH ONE IS IT." Yeah, so read sirweddings comment and my response again, genius. What was *his* argument? And what was *my* response to it? He denied the very authority of scripture without an "authoritative interpretation" aka the Church, thus (even if he doesn't intend it) necessarily denying the reality of a *true* interpretation inherent to the text. I wasn't replying to whatever silly argument you give; no everything is about you, and you are not special that I must keep your claims in consideration. "The TEXT =/= YOUR INTERPRETATION" Note how I never even mentioned "my interpretation," you just love to invent things out of thin air. as other Papist and Eastern closet-postmodernists love to do. In denying the accessibility of the original meaning of scripture through scripture, you imbibe that attitude in twisting and contorting what your opponents say. "your circular argument is fallacious. You seem to be mistaken as to what interpretation means." Never explains how, an empty assertion. "There is one correct interpretation among INFINITE number of interpretations. How do you identify the one that is true?" The same way you can tell me why interpreting your statements as an argument against Sola Scriptura is the true interpretation of such over and against interpreting you as saying you love to kill puppies in your spare time. Use your brain, your language, and study; don't be a little child who moans at the alleged difficulty of interpretation. Be a grown up and get your hands dirty.
@@TheOtherPaul You respond to me like an unbeliever. Every single time. You insult me and infer the worst about me. Do go through my past posts and you’ll never see I called you stupid, dumb, a liar, bad willed, or any of the other numerous ridiculous slanders you’ve deigned me with. If you don’t want people to comment on your TH-cam channel, then don’t have a TH-cam channel. Stop acting the victim when my views and comments give you $$$$. I won’t answer your reply because you might just delete it for everyone not to see, as you did with my other account, then I’d have wasted my time. But let it be known that this is how you show your “Christian charity.” I always insult Protestantism but not the protester. You on the other hand have constant hissy fits that detract from dialogue. The only reason I bother commenting to you is because you are leading souls to hell with your protestating heresy. I don’t hate you like you hate me. I wish for you and all Protestants to repent and follow Jesus Christ.
ANNOUNCEMENT: Pre-recorded full response in the works. Read below:
I have just renamed the stream to be a "Preliminary deboonk." Since it went for over 2 hours and barely made it half way through Kyle's vid (on account of unstructured comments even with notes and interacting with the livechat), Ive decided to try something new and plan a Trent Horn style pre-recorded, scripted response video that efficiently goes through Kyle's whole vid. This will be my modus operandi for solo responses from now on.
Not to worry for those who like Q&A tho; fortnightly Q&A streams will provide such opportunities frequently and more efficiently, and I may still react to things in a chill context in Q&A streams. Also, responses with collab partners will be still be live, since they work much better than solo with a live format.
Just wondering, is this still in the works for part 2 deboonking? Don’t mean this in a snarky way, but genuinely curious
@@matthewschraith8434yes I’d like to see it too, this stream was enriching
Christian Wagner rejcted Portestantism and became a Catholic
Protestantism is a historical category, its not a theological category. Catholics and Orthodoxy like to caricature Protestantism as a theological category to more easily (but less honestly) attack it. While I think there is far more unity of doctrine in Protestantism than there is in Rome and in the East, it doesn't assert it self as a single body.
"I'm against Protestantism because (theological reason)" is paramount of saying "I'm against Christianity because of (Theological Reason)." You are judging the entire body over particular beliefs in particular traditions.
Rome and the East does is far more scandalizing, as they turn the meat of the faith into a sociological construct to support a temporal political institution. Their theology mutates the gospel in service of that institution and to cultivate loyalty to that institution and create an idol of it.
That is an excellent way of framing this, ima steal it. Thanks heaps for the comment :D
"While I think there is far more unity of doctrine in Protestantism than there is in Rome and in the East,"
There is no question, if you are an honest individual, that Sola Scriptura can and historically has led to a greater amount of doctrinal diversity in protestant circles compared to those churches that recognize a greater role for tradition and for a magisterium.
Temporal Political Institution? Let me deboonk this quickly:
Jesus described a wise man who built his house on a rock. The “wise man” is a reference to Solomon, and the “house” is therefore the Temple. Jesus is identified as the New Solomon, the builder of a New Temple. When we come to Matthew 16, Peter identifies Jesus as “the Messiah, the Son of God.” This links with the promise of 2 Samuel 7:13-14, where God promises to be a father to David’s son, the son who will build the Temple. Jesus promises to build a new temple: the Church
- The word for “palace” and “temple” are identical in the original language, and the Palace of the King is an image of the Palace of the Divine King.
When Eliakim is appointed as steward of the house of David, he is being appointed as the high priest of David’s palace. Furthermore, Eliakim is given both a sash and a turban: iconic vestments of the high priest. Second Temple interpreters recognized these connections, and identified the key of Eliakim as the “key of the Sanctuary.” In 1 Chronicles, priests are identified as having the keys to the Temple. Peter is being promised the keys of a new priesthood
The Levites are constituted as priests when they forsake mothers, brothers, sisters, and neighbors (Deuteronomy 33:8-10), and Jesus said to the New Priesthood:
“Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first."
-
in Revelation 21, describing the city of God, we see that there are twelve gates which open and are not shut. These gates are guarded by twelve angels: there is clear language association of bishops with angels (70 Bishops with 70 Angels=Divine council /writing seven epistles to the seven “angels” of the seven churches). In other words, the bishops hold the key of Isaiah 22, and they open and shut the door to the City of God, the Church. The prerogatives of Jesus as High Priest go to His Bishops, who manifest His heavenly ministry.
-in Exodus 28 the twelve stones go in the High Priest’s vestments, and each stone matches one tribe of Israel. In Revelation 21, these same stones are placed in the city of God, symbolizing the twelve apostles of the lamb. The green stone is Levi: and in Revelation 21, the stone associated with the Apostle Peter is the green stone. This distinguishes Peter as the head of the priestly tribe.
This is the “eternal covenant,” God promised that David’s son would be his own son and that he would reign forever, so no there is no end to Jesus's body and the Church participates in all that He is because the Church is his Body. We proceed to the knowledge of immaterial things through material things, invisible through visible, insensible through sensible, this is part of the whole logic of the Incarnation and the Church Sacraments. You can actually internalize the Gospel, be transformed into the image, reflect the archetype of which you are the type.
You don't just assume 66 books as inspired word of God and flatter yourself by thinking you have Scripture authority for your own assertions.
"The devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning!" Saint Jerome 347AD
@ktownbball ktownbball the problem is a protestant can use sola scriptura and claim the Holy Spirit helped guide to an understanding of scripture that allows for all the mess you see in western parishes. I recently saw a female priest lead a prayer service to Beyonce using her songs as worship. That couldn't happen in an Eastern Arch Diocese.
The Church is forever one single body of Christ. Just depends on whether you're apart of it or not.
But protestantism has no muscle. The second the State either bans the religion or makes it worth your while to denounce it you'll see the crowds leave it in the west in a flash. It's never lasted oppression. You have no real Martyr movements.
@ktownbball ktownbball of course there's heretics in east. Plenty. Currently there's more heretics than they're see orthodox. And I'm counting the clergy. But the Church is still true. Every stupid thing being done by these heretics will be repented for and in 500 years our worship will still look like it did 500 years ago. Because that is the True worship. I can't even fathom what most of the worship in the west will look like in 500 years. Yours is a broken tradition built off a broken tradition. It's plagued by egotism and it cannot stand.
My families region was conquered in 1360 by Muslims. It wasn't liberated until 1912. Depending on who was in charge sent by the Sultan it could have been deadly to worship Christ. Mountainside monasteries were built so the faithful could worship without violence. I can still go to these buildings now and worship. They look almost identical inside as the ones built before 1359 that still exist and the ones built since 1913. All my family had to in those 500 plus years was deny Christ and our daily existence would have been made much more peaceful. We chose Truth then and I choose Truth now.
It makes no sense to me that thw entirety of Christians would have been so stupidly following the wrong worship between 100ad and 1500ad when a group of western Europeans who came out of a defunct papacy of centuries of corruption would finally find the right way that the Apostles themselves couldn't properly pass on, but somehow Calvin Luther and Cromwell or whoever you want to say is right out of those 3. It just makes no sense. There has to have been a right way that survived in every century since Christ.
Protestantism is not historical it is a heretical movement birthed from rome, cope
You laugh now but one day Kyle will spin a cocoon and after a period of time will emerge a beautiful Jay Dyer
LOL
Kyle is an idiot
No! He will theosiphize into God!!!
Im a Catholic but hav3 great respect for protestants I hate when people act like they can deboonk protestantism easily, like if it was that easy there would be no prots
By that logic there'd be no flat earthers
@@KillerofGods or Muslims
This stream is a massive banger. Love your stuff bro
Looking forward to part two. Grace and peace to you mate! From Florida USA
This Kyle guy is literally just a teenage wanna-be Jay Dyer. It's all the same talking points and rhetoric.
As a non denom I like Jay Dyer alot. While I don't find his arguments for EO that convincing, they are much more sophisticated than Kyle.
Kyle and Jay have been a stumbling block on my path to Holy Orthodoxy. They're toxic attitude, lack of love for those who disagree and cringe video style is a detriment to the OC.
Do you want them to be Hippies?
@@marchelomanchev5317no but they can act Godly.
@@lerikaharevic they do, god isn’t a hippie
@@marchelomanchev5317they don’t though. Both are toxic ☢️
@@KnightFel yeah, cry
Love your passion and content bro. Fellow Anglican and former Calvinist here. After several hundred hours of intense study of the early church fathers and early Christian doctrines, I am no longer a Calvinist. I would encourage you to have a discussion or debate with Leighton Flowers of Soteriogy 101 about your Calvinistic views.
Soteriology101 sounds more like the class that Leighton Flowers missed than the one he should be teaching.
"It's called sin, and men have it"
Why would Christ accept that his church is now a loosely defined, divided spread of different communions and expressions of faith? Where is the unity He promised?
its always been like that. dont have the delusion the councils kept the church together. there is and has been division between the churches throughout the ages
The unity is with those churches who affirm the gospels. Secondary issues aren’t the gospel, they don’t save. The gospel does.
What kind of unity did he promise?
@@behxld750They were still one Catholic Apostolic Church though? whats your point?
@@KnightFel How do we know what counts as primary vs secondary?
Just about to watch your video. I’m EO and was not impressed with Kyle’s video. Thanks for the great content as always!
Thank you king :D
Why don't you guys use your real names? The vainglory of trying to linguistically equate yourselves saints and Apostles is saddening.
@@BarbaPamino calm down dude. They are just names, people name their kids after biblical saints all the time, is that vainglory?
@@JKMlive it's not the name they use. It's "the other". For example if I name name was Jesus and I was latino but I went by the name The Other Jesus it's more obvious. This is The Apostle Paul that Christ himself came to and made to live and write with The Holy Spirit. The other Paul? Not even close.
@UCLg5IahlD1otdfKEoUH94iQ there were 2 people in this thread that went by "the other....". I was only addressing those 2.
"The focus of the liturgy is the eucharist, which is a sacrifice! Where is the continuity?" Also, "Jesus did not suffer to atone for sins!"
Dude. What's the eucharist a picture of again? The work of Christ, or the work of the priest?
We need a whole bunch of Romanist Orthodoxy DEBOONKERS
Kyle needs to spend one summer visiting all the Protestant high church services and then see if there is one he prefers the best.
He prolly won't tho cuz he thinks we're all apostates or something 😁😎
You are.
Rip st Cyril Lucaris the true Eastern Orthodox Christian Martyr
Jay Jr strikes again!
1:31:30 - Christ did atone our sins by dying and shedding his blood for us, but how does believing that exclude the mending of a broken relationship with God?
I thought that Kyle was Orthodox and understood that Christ needed to shed hos blood and rise from dead so we could receive His mercy and forgiveness of sins?
Would Justin Martyr have recognized the last ecumenical council as resembling his faith at all? No. So unless God guided the church wrong for 300 years first, then the 7th council is simply wrong.
Yes he would have you wench
Your right.
Okay, I’m not done with the stream just yet, but I love your point on Matt 16 at 1:15:22. Michael Heiser has stressed this point too. He actually translates the passage as, “The gates of Hell will not withstand the church”, making it even more clearer. In fact, Jesus and the disciples are (according to Heiser) at Mount Hermon, which was what the ancients believed to be the HQ of Hell itself
Ive been looking for a word that better communicates the defensive posture of Hades here, and "withstand" fits that bill. Thanks heaps!
@@TheOtherPaul there's a third really interesting interpretation of this passage, which is that the Greek word "Hades" is the translation of the Hebrew word "Sheol," which means "the grave," and so the passage is actually an allusion to the resurrection, in the sense that the gates of the grave (Hades) are actually holding the departed saints within themselves, but that through Christ, we, the Church, will burst out of those gates that are imprisoning us in death when we are raised from the dead immortal. What I find interesting about this interpretation is that I had never before encountered someone who suggested that the gates here are holding the church within their domain, rather than holding the church outside of their domain, a point which is often just assumed without proof.
So it's a offensive and not defensive verse against hell?
Fascinating
Paul Be advised Some Reformed Presbyterians also practice the anointing of the sick we just did it recently in our congregation. They were Baptist to do it also so it’s pretty ubiquitous really
Kyle like virtually all EO know next to nothing about Protestantism (btw I'm not a Protestant and can see this).
@@stevie6621 You know nothing about Christian history to say such foolishness.
Isn't denominationalism trying to make protestantism into a single faith? Acting like Anglicans and Presbyterians are just as valid, but only different traditions?
No, Hillsong is not Protestant.
They're just "American".
The canonization of the Bible was a complex process carried out by various councils and religious authorities over several centuries. Different Christian traditions have slightly different canons. The Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD, 419 AD) played significant roles in the recognition of the New Testament canon for Western Christianity. The Eastern Orthodox Church has its own canonization process. For the Old Testament, the process varied among different religious traditions, including Judaism and various Christian denominations.
The church is the body of Christ. He has chosen them. They are the elect. This is definitely not limited to Eastern Othodoxy. On the contrary Christ founded the church. It exists throughout the whole world primarily outside of Orthodox Church Which does not even preach the saving gospel of Christ!
He seems to be taking a step back now based from his recent vid.
Two things cannot be true at the same time, and the holy spirit is not the author of confusion.
He did not lead the church in error for more than 15 centuries and turn around and start teaching protestants the exact opposite.
For instance: The Holy Spirit isn't going to teach the Church across schisms the real presence, come down and consecrate the offerings to provide the real presence, and then turn around and teach protestants that Christ was speaking metaphorically and the entire thing is symbolic. Those are mutually exclusive conditions that cause division, and only one of them can be true while the other is heresy.
And it's not going to be the historically recent beliefs within the last 5 centuries among low church protestants, as even the High Church denominations teach the real presence.
But that's just one example. Another will be baptismal regeneration: Anyone that paid a bit of attention to the scriptural teachings would know Christ said it's mandatory and that the blood and the spirit are consubstantial with the water, and thus it would be the blood and spirit doing the saving, not the water itself. The holy spirit isn't consecrating the faithful and causing the rebirth that even low-church Protestants say is necessary and turning around and telling them that it's just an outward expression of faith that isn't necessary, and just the intellectual assent that Christ is Lord is necessary to cause this "rebirth."
The Holy Spirit isn't the author of confusion, only one of those two can be true and the other is heresy. This idea that the body of Christ can have such varying and "perfectly valid" perspectives is a heresy in of itself. Christ charged his 12 apostles to go forth and teach all that he taught them, not 12 different perfectly valid perspectives. It's false ecumenism, there's only one truth, and it wasn't revealed 5 centuries ago while we were in the darkness for more than 15.
21:16 the question is: how do you justify the bible? And you cant answer that.
Simple the church discerned scripture . How did they do this? Well it happened organically as the New Testament was being written and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It’s not rocket science. Obviously the biographies of God incarnate are scripture with infallible authority just as a start.
Orthodoxy was completely influenced by asceticism and monasticism. They were good things in them but they were taken way too far. Also the seventh ecumenical council essentially canonized idolatry! We should not be worshiping our art! The spiritual world is far above the material world and cannot be represented by paintings in the case of orthodoxy or statues in the case of Romanism.
Tell me you haven't read the Councils without telling me you haven't read the councils
@@jakejones3453 Keep Kissing Mary’s feet bro
@@internautaoriginal9951 gladly will, kissing feet is a way of expressing honor to somebody, which scripture tells us to do ;)
@@internautaoriginal9951 imagine disrespecting the Mother of God. How embarrassing
Going against the 7th ecumenical council proves you are not a Christian but are anti christ.
2:21:32 Fake laughs are lies.
So damn cringe.. don't ever do that again, liar
@@UniteAgainstEvil who are you talking about ?
Regarding your safety and security in Christ. It's possible, you are not an elect. You're assuming you're an elect. One example maybe you will not finish the race. Another example is maybe you are self-deceived. As you said not everyone that goes to a church is a Christian. You can have assurance but you don't have infallible certitude. And if God ordained everything. Maybe he created you for everlasting destruction.
It's also possible you don't actually exist and everything is an illusion.
If faith comes by grace then I am elect
@@blissseeker4719
You are not your own judge. Christ is, and that's for him to decide.
@@eddardgreybeard God made a promise and I know and believe He is faithful to keep it. His word is final.
@@blissseeker4719
You are presuming the grace. Who's to say you ever had it?
Again, God is your judge, not you.
So you'll just ignore my comment? Debate jay dyer instead of shooting from a distance, if not just for the sake of all those people he's supposedly misleading with his "none-arguments".
I forgot about your initial comment tho I had intended to reply, partly because it wasn't a priority, because I have answered the question of debating Dyer with a negative multiple times on my streams.
I might have stated my answer nicely again under this comment, had you not berated me as if I owed you an answer. I reply to who I want when I want. If you really want a reply want one, just ask nicely again, or even shoot me an email, which I always respond to.
I'll shoot from a distance all I want; it's perfectly legitimate, and is what 99% of all apologetical content is. I don't need to debate him to show others the errors of arguments he propounds, especially through his heirs like Kyle. You don't get to demand me to debate someone. Why do lads like you *without fail* chant the "Debate Dyer" mantra and not address my claims yourselves? I think it's because you can't address my responses, and rather than adopt some intellectual humility and ponder on them, you throw rational standards out the window and just demand a debate, as if my willingness or refusal to do so would at all affect my arguments. If that's how you measure truth claims, you need to step away from the internet and orient yourself to actual truthseeking.
@@TheOtherPaul the reason people chant the mantra is because you addressed him. People are just usually confused by some apologists who mention someone they're actively arguing against but apparently never have tried to discuss the matter with the actual person.
Its seems like talking smack again another boxer and when people ask you to fight him, since YOU'VE addressed his poor skillset (Argumentation), your reply "go fight him yourself" and "i fight who ever I want" seems odd.
I think you also took it the wrong way. Of course you owe no one a debate, but in this particular domain of apologetics, wouldn't it make sense to debate the opposing view if not just for the sake of how many people they supposedly "mislead" with faulty Argumentation?
@@TheOtherPaul I am very new to the Bible, and I am attempting to determine between the Orthodox church, and Protestant (primarily Baptist [being what I was raised in]) church. Considering the fact that I am new, many of your rebuttals towards Kyle, I will openly admit that I cannot respond to them. It would help me a lot if I could listen to experts of both sides completely respond to the criticisms towards their denomination in a 1 on 1 setting.
@@zzzzppppooooowhat religion is Dyer these days? Amazing people actually take him seriously.
@@KnightFel yeah your oppinion on him is irrelevant. One can still make a distinct between a person and the argument that are being presented. As you have perfectly demonstrated, people are apperently incapable of distinguishing the two and to actually engage with the arguments for once.
The unaware, cringe arrogance to say what the reformers should have done against the RCC is just so middle school, man. Really just horrible cringe.
There's nothing they could have done. They had no legs to stand on. Luther was so brainwashed by the schismatic heresy of the last 500 years before him he opted to be a monk. He had a spiritual crises and a state sponsored separation movement and he fell into his own ego. Same for most of the rest. They were so far removed from the actual church and so disconnected from it all they could do was rely on themselves and reinterpret scripture to suit their needs.
@@BarbaPamino 💯
@@BarbaPaminolol right. 🙄
@@BarbaPamino"State sponsored"
Would you be willing to debate jay dyer?
Are all orthodox NPCs? Can you speak English other than "debate Jay Dyer"?
This video is already delusional when this guy says Orthodoxy doesn’t have a set canon lol
Jay Dyer actually agrees with that. This is why when he debated with Redeemed Zoomer, he reframed the discussion around the authority of the Protestant canon ao he wouldn't have to discuss the disagreement around Shepherd of Hermas and other wonderful Christian tales of the faith
@@jaytv4eva Jay Dyer was referring to the Greek diocese
The Ethiopic Church has its own canon, the Greek Church does too, so do the Catholics. That's the point, Jay Dyer didn't want to get into that because he just wanted to tunnel vision on the Protestant Canon of scripture and paint RZ out to be some sort of Reformed Gnostic.
That's the ONLY reason he won the debate because he reframed the discussion around that and because RZ didn't stick to his guns on the discrepancies between the canons within the Cat and Orthropod churches. However, RZ did make a comeback by posting a very good response video after the discussion so he came out on top in the end.
@@jaytv4eva none of this answered anything. Once again jay dyer was talking about the greek diocese. We have a set canon
@@Divinecter
It sure did. Jay can't say that all Orthodox have the EXACT SAME CANON and then turn around and accuse Protestants of having a brand new canon when their canon is based on the Textus Receptus--just like all the other opposing canons in Orthodoxy.
2:21:36 - would have been the perfect El Risitas moment
Where is the preaching and teaching in Orthodoxy? I attended an eastern orthodox church in fact a Greek Orthodox Church. There was zero doctrine.
Pay attention to the services my dude, theology is liturgical
@YAJUN YUAN Jews chanted the psalms and liturgical readings. The Orthodox Church does not chant the homily, it chants the psalms and other liturgical readings.
@YAJUN YUAN Please research Jewish spiritual life. The Bible in its entirety is a song. Lol
@YAJUN YUAN The sermons aren't, the hymns are sung Apostolic canons and Paul's letter to the collosians says our hymns are sung
@@shiningdiamond5046bro you don’t learn anything in EO liturgy. I’ve seen them, and the homily at the end it riddled with eisegesis. You want to feel holy and be in the smells and bells, kissing icons and praying to them, trying to grow in theosis. Anything but trusting in Christ alone. You guys are deceived and mislead.
Did the part 2 ever come out?
Sacerdotal is pronounced sasscerdotal
I mean it sounds like semi palagian is going on the lines of anybody but calvanism is that
EO doesn't have seven sacraments. It has fewer. Lol. Only RCC has seven.
All of our dogmatic treatments talk of seven sacraments but there are other mysteries that are like sacraments of which you have none
@@redeemedsinner83According to the confession of Dositheus there is no more or less than 7
The Eastern Orthodox acknowledge the same 7 that the RCC does.
Where can I find part two ?
1:14:55
Because Christ gave the Apostles the Spirit of God, which is the guide of the Church. If the spirit of God guides his Body, how blasphemous to say the Church would be in error. Is God's spirit fallible?
We as individuals are given the Spirit too, and Paul even attests to prophets among thr people (cf. 1st Corinthians). Are you infallible? Has the Spirit of God failed? Or are you failing to distinguish between the general guidance of the Spirit (which doesn't cover all our mistakes) vs the charism of divine protection granted only to the Apostles?
@The Other Paul No, the Church is infallible of its final decisions, not by individual members. Gods spirit enacts his Will for his Body. This is unanimous teaching for 1000 years. This does not give the individual the ability to never be incorrect, instead as every Christianity for the first 1200 years believed, as a collected whole, the decisions are infallible because why? Paul in Acts 15, Specifically verse 28 at the very first Church council.
@@jakejones3453 The apostles never told us to kiss Mary’s feet, that’s a big step.
@@jakejones3453 Yep make by Jews, not they are the oracles.😊
@@internautaoriginal9951 gives honor when honor is given, Romans 13:7-10
If a doctrine came out 1500 years after Christ, should we believe it?
No.
@@TheOtherPaul how about 1200 years?
@@jakejones3453 no. Your point?
@@TheOtherPaul When did Christians first teach Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura?
@@jakejones3453 never
Protestants don't have Apostolic Succession from the Apostles historically.
We do! In addition, we have the apostolic doctrine, which is missing in the Eastern Orthodox Church.
@@Galmala94 No you don't, because Protestantism was invented by Martin Luther and the Reformers around the 1600s ad. You don't have Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Tradition from the Apostles which was passed down to you historically.
@@kenfollowyeshuacrawford4284 and you believe the disciples of the apostles made images of the Apostles AND DEMANDED YOU BOW DOWN AND KISS THEM TO BE SAVED!?!?! lol
@@UniteAgainstEvil Yes, because veneration of icons is Biblical. You're equivocating icons and idols because of your Protestant's Reformation Movement heresy.
Apostolic doctrine >>> “Apostolic Succession”
Debate jay dyer
The process of canonizing the Bible took place over several centuries, with different books being recognized at different times. The New Testament canonization was generally completed by the 4th century, while the process for the Old Testament varied among different religious traditions, concluding around the 2nd century CE for some and later for others.
I believe the Church recognized the cannon, not because of its own authority to pick or choose, but the Church et all was led by the witness of Holy Spirit Himself through the self-evidence of the Word. Like you read the gospel of John and you know it’s Scripture (whether the Church tells you or not).
We know this by history.
Whether you agree or not, does this make sense to you?
@@Psalm144.1 You have just admitted that the Holy Spirit led the Church in recognising the Canon, and it's not about the Church "picking and chosing". This is precisely what the Catholic Church has always said. So go and tell your co-religionists.
@@DD-bx8rb I haven’t seen the Catholic Church say the Canon was solely determined by God. So go tell your Papists to say so.
@@Psalm144.1 On the contrary, you indeed have seen the Catholic Church say "the canon was determined by God". That is precisely what it says! The Church simply fullfills Christs promise that his church will teach the truth in his name and that includes identifying what is the Written Word of God. Individuals were completely incapable of doing it and a divinely-guaranteed teaching authourity was required. "He who hears you hears me". Before the Canon was settled there were furious debates to exclude Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, and Revelation, and to include the Letter of Barnabas, the Letter of 1 Clement, Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter. The Church made the final decision. Luther however wished to remove Hebrews, James "the epistle of straw", Revelation, and the 7 deutero-canonical books.
Though perhaps you would rather twist what the Catholic Church actually teaches and remain in your echo-chamber? Your poor disposition toward the Catholic Church, as evidenced by the pejorative "Papist" will be an obstacle in your search for the truth about the Catholic Church. I recommend to you the site Catholic Answers where you can learn what the Catholic Church actually teaches, rather than what you think it teaches. Pax
@@Psalm144.1😂😂😂
1:56:26 got me dead 🤣🤣🤣🤣
That commentary on Romans 8 was cringe😮. Still love you though
it was good, wdym
Debate Jay Dyer if you think Protestantism is Biblical.
why not kyle
@@uchennanwogu2142 Why not both?
@@kenfollowyeshuacrawford4284 🤷♂
@@uchennanwogu2142 what are you talking about? Smh
i didn't say a word after@@kenfollowyeshuacrawford4284
is the subscribestar in us dollar or aus dollar?
US dollar. Only option so far
@@TheOtherPaul i see, thanks for answering. in that case, i was going to subscribe to the lowest tier, but i’m sorry to say that debit cards from my country are not accepted on that website. maybe someday.
@@BananaLair oh well, all good king. There's a site you could use for other currencies called Wise .com. I use it for transactions in multiple currencies incl. USD.
@@TheOtherPaul oh that seems like a really useful service in a lot of ways, had no idea such a thing existed. i’ll look into that, thanks for the tip
Interesting
Oh you again heretic
23:15, 26:04, 30:18
Orthodoxy cannot be correct. It is a developed a system of man-made theology and synergism. Denying key elements of the faith including depravity/inability, substitutionary atonement, all of the doctrines grace in fact
Yes, those modern "revelations" within the last 5 centuries are correct.
Here we have an example of how not to behave. The Other Paul is so incredibly arrogant in this video that nothing he says matters in the slightest. Like a pig in mud, he is wallowing in pride. He is so profoundly ignoring the command to love thy neighbor and so obviously making an idol out of himself that none of his arguments matter in the slightest. He has disqualified himself from being taken seriously by his abjectly unChristian attitude.
The Other Paul - One word for you: Humility.
So do you have an argument or at least a show of how I'm "wallowing in pride" like a "pig in mud"? Or are you just here to pontificate.
@@TheOtherPaulhe shouldn't have called you a pig but I will say during this video you should have conducted yourself to a standard worthy of the title Christian. Humility indeed and it truly goes for all of us.
@@blissseeker4719what about the Apostle Paul when he says he wishes that those heretics adding to the gospel would essentially cut their nuts off? Does he need humility there? Fight for the truth tooth and nail and call out blatant heretics.
Calling a Christian a Pig is so “Christ-like” of you
@@KnightFelI don't remember the scripture but I'm sure it all fits within the context perfectly. Also... I forget the context of this discussion. Nine days, I waited too long
I have a feeling Paul will become a orthodox christian or at least a byzantine Catholic.
Why you think that?
yeah why would he do that?
@amfv lol I won't be debating because I'm not an expert. My level of knowledge is very finite.
You are Anglican?? Isn't that the Church that:
-Started by a King
-Women Priests
-Accept LGBT
BRUH haha
"Started by a King"
No, it wasn't "started by a King." He initiated the breakaway from Roman jurisdiction, but the Bishops and churches of England had been there for over a millennium at that point.
"Women priests"
In many bishoprics, unfortunately yes. In many others, including mine, no. If that invalidates my communion, then by all means don't research the dominance of Arian/semi-Arian theology across the Church in the 4th century. Someone looking at the Church with your logic would be able to say the exact same thing.
"Accept LGBT"
As above; some bishoprics are apostate, many others (like mine) are not.
Are you going to gloat about faults in my communion, or address my actual arguments? Because guess what; every congregation bar one in my communion could pro-LGBT apostates and that *still* wouldn't even touch my arguments, which are philosophical, theological, and historical, not based on the state of Anglicanism.
@@TheOtherPaul. I just looked it up and found out the Anglican Church in Australia allowed each diocese to vote on female priests. Do you not realize this affects you even if you don’t have female priests? You PROFESS Anglicanism. This means you share communion with priestesses. Your comparison to Arianism would be true had the church allowed a “vote” on Arianism. But it didn’t. The issue is the Anglican Church has gone full apostate at this point. If you belonged to the continuing anglicans which do not share communion with these perverts maybe you could make an argument. But you’re not a continuing Anglican. So you share communion with priestesses and sodomy encouragers. And not because your church disagrees with it but tolerates these people in order not to cause schism. No, your church allowed people to decide by vote!
Imagine if Rome allowed people to decide by vote wether it’s ok to be a priestess ? Or a practicing homosexual ?
We’d never hear the end of it from Protestants about “unscriptural” papists! But somehow since it’s the Anglican Church that’s ok?
You are going to have to accept at some point you are affected by modernism. Even in my baptist Protestant days I would have NEVER even stepped foot inside a church with a priestess or a church that doesn’t have a clear stance against sodomy. The Anglican communion is by far one of the most degenerate out there when it comes to Protestantism.
You realize their are priests in the rcc blessing same sex marriages...........literally right now
@@TheOtherPaul this is a very interesting way to cope, considering this is a widespread anglican problem, and it doesn’t seem like it’s going to be resolved. Being in a church that allows women to be bishops, shows you’re in a fake church
@@mariorizkallah5383" can't be a er'tic if i ave me own church". bruh King Henry VIII wanted to get a divorce and started his own church😭😂🤣
almost 3 hours of coping 😂😂
Saying it doesn't make it true, friend.
Three hours of thorough debunking or rather deboonking
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser"
@@TKK0812 there’s actually no way to defend Protestantism really.
@@mariorizkallah5383 there is, m8.
Haha
First time to watch one of your videos. Weak... Seemed like a 2+ hour cope. You're arguing from completely different presuppositions. A book cannot have authority without authoritative interpretation.
Everyone is able to make raw assertions of "cope", but are you capable of backing it up?
I agree that a book can't have authority without authoritative interpretation; that is absolutely necessarry. And the way authoritative interpretation is grounded is by the interpretation being true, which is inherent to the text at its very penning. This is the authority of scripture. You believe scripture is inherently authoritative, right?
Orthodoxy is a dead system which keeps got in a box. Their Jesus is weak and needs the help of his mother To save people. Yet they have no assurance! That is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
@Bb Dl Yes. Problem?
@Bb Dl here we go again with the sophistry. After this last reply (for the reader's sake), I'm blocking you; I'm sick of your fake epistemology. I'll deal with your statements in a backwards order because of your concession of my very reply to sirweddings at the end:
"That is the question. Not wether there is a true interpretation intended by the biblical authors (because there is), but WHICH ONE IS IT."
Yeah, so read sirweddings comment and my response again, genius. What was *his* argument? And what was *my* response to it? He denied the very authority of scripture without an "authoritative interpretation" aka the Church, thus (even if he doesn't intend it) necessarily denying the reality of a *true* interpretation inherent to the text. I wasn't replying to whatever silly argument you give; no everything is about you, and you are not special that I must keep your claims in consideration.
"The TEXT =/= YOUR INTERPRETATION"
Note how I never even mentioned "my interpretation," you just love to invent things out of thin air. as other Papist and Eastern closet-postmodernists love to do. In denying the accessibility of the original meaning of scripture through scripture, you imbibe that attitude in twisting and contorting what your opponents say.
"your circular argument is fallacious. You seem to be mistaken as to what interpretation means."
Never explains how, an empty assertion.
"There is one correct interpretation among INFINITE number of interpretations. How do you identify the one that is true?"
The same way you can tell me why interpreting your statements as an argument against Sola Scriptura is the true interpretation of such over and against interpreting you as saying you love to kill puppies in your spare time. Use your brain, your language, and study; don't be a little child who moans at the alleged difficulty of interpretation. Be a grown up and get your hands dirty.
@@TheOtherPaul You respond to me like an unbeliever. Every single time. You insult me and infer the worst about me. Do go through my past posts and you’ll never see I called you stupid, dumb, a liar, bad willed, or any of the other numerous ridiculous slanders you’ve deigned me with. If you don’t want people to comment on your TH-cam channel, then don’t have a TH-cam channel. Stop acting the victim when my views and comments give you $$$$. I won’t answer your reply because you might just delete it for everyone not to see, as you did with my other account, then I’d have wasted my time. But let it be known that this is how you show your “Christian charity.”
I always insult Protestantism but not the protester. You on the other hand have constant hissy fits that detract from dialogue. The only reason I bother commenting to you is because you are leading souls to hell with your protestating heresy. I don’t hate you like you hate me. I wish for you and all Protestants to repent and follow Jesus Christ.