ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Jay Dyer and the Error of Sola Scriptura (clip)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ย. 2020
- #Logos #LogosRising #Christianity
Clip taken from the stream "An Orthodox Deconstruction of Reformed Theology with Jay Dyer" - • An Orthodox Deconstruc...
In this clip goes over the problems and internal contradictions within the reformed theological doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Make sure to check it out and let me know what you think.
God bless 🙏
If you enjoy this production, feel compelled, or appreciate my other videos, please support me through my website (www.davidpatrickharry.com) or donate directly by PayPal. Any contribution would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you 🙏
👉 PayPal: www.paypal.me/...
👉 Donations: www.davidpatric...
PayPal: www.paypal.me/...
Website: www.davidpatric...
GAB: gab.com/dpharry
Minds: www.minds.com/...
Bitchute: www.bitchute.c....
DLive: dlive.tv/The_E...
Telegram: t.me/eternallogos
Instagram: / dpharry
Twitter: / eternal_logos
As an evangelical, I’ve been studying Scripture for 22 yrs and each new season of growth and change in my theology has caused me to pause and conclude, I’m my own pope who formed my own tradition. Crazy. Now I’m considering Orthodoxy. (2024 update, I was chrismated in July 2023 and it’s been amazing)
Glory to God!
Brother I’m a bit older than you and yes coming to EO ☦️ is very foreign but undeniable when you humbly do the homework. Here we are, Praise the Lord
Hey brother discovering Orthodoxy, Patristic Writings and being able to read all the Church history is mind blowing but gratifying.
Keep our Protestant, Roman Catholic and Coptic/Oriental Orthodox in prayer.
Many such cases. With the internet and the collapse of the west social structure- this will speed up
Baptist to Orthodoxy myself. I've been asking why we think differently from the fathers
Intro liturgical song is other worldly
Yeah
I've heard these guy before too. Russians I think. Anyone know where to find more?
@Pneumatic thanks
Valaam Brothers :)
@@michaels775 valaam orthodox chant Lord of Hosts.
Christ is risen!
In truth He is risen!
I see "Jay Dyer", i hit like. I see "Church of the Eternal Logos", i hit like... But there's only one like button for this video 😱😭😭😭
🎵nobody knows the trouble i see, nobody knows but jesus 🎵
😭
JAY!!! Answering all of my questions. There is a modern baptist church that started reciting the Apostles Creed, while they sing their Maverick music Christian pop. Talk a mixed bag of confusion. I am finally coming to the conclusion that I am not a Protestant. “ … the group that has the most in common with the Protestants are the gnostics” 🔨 😮 I have attended Bible studies with women who buy books to take them through biblical teachings, and they decide on their own what scripture means. I am looking around bewildered while they argue with one another over the meaning of a scripture while referencing their Paula White study book. I got out quickly. That is not Christianity.
:And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."-The Revelation of St. John
Paula White 😂😂.. there is no hope
As has been said elsewhere, every protestant is his own pope. ☦️☦️☦️
@@Simonet1309aren’t we all making fallible decisions of whom to follow?
Sola Scriptura makes since in theory, at least. In practice there is confusion for sure.
@@Solideogloria00 sola scriptura makes no sense at all. How can you remove the Church when its that very Church and its faith which wrote and compiled the Bible? The Bible writing Church prayed to Mary the Mother of God, prayed to saints, venerated relics, painted icons, had the Eucharist as central as the body and blood of Christ etc etc. This is easily demonstrable historically. Sola scriptura is like trying to drive a car with just the engine and no actual car!
Smiles almost the whole time just to say "dude" at the end. :-))
Lmaooo
“Jay Dyer and the Error of Sola Scriptura” sounds like a JK Rowling book lol
I love you guys and your content, you and our Orthodox brother Jay have helped me with defence of our faith and theological understanding.
While certain Scriptural verses may promote "Sola Scriptura", it's Never explicitly mentioned that 1 should Be Sola Scriptura...
Where in the Bible does it Explicitly say Sola Scriptura?
There are no verses promoting Sola Scriptura. These are just verses talking how important is the Bible ❤
It's thought of as an 'intrinsic' teaching - in other words, the whole of the Bible points to the authority of the Word itself. This is why atheists often argue that appealing to the authority of the Bible is based on its own statements about itself ("The Word of God") and is circular. Sola Scriptura does not state that tradition holds no value, but instead declares that everything should conform to the Scriptures themselves - all secondary authority is 'derived' from the Bible in so far as it conforms to the Bible. In this sense, traditions - if they do not conform to the Bible's statements and authority - will be rejected. The problem here is that often those traditions are condemned not by the Scriptures per se, but rather by an interpretation of the Bible and what it says. This is also why there are lots of Protestant denominations and different Churches -- they aren't always separate 'faiths' but they do differ on some point (or points) of theology that they interpret differently; it is a very difficult and contradictory position that is touted as 'clear' and 'Biblical', but tends to private interpretation and division. It is, in effect, a personal religion (or at least can become one). It also ignores what the Bible says about tradition in the first place - and because of that, ignores (or does not allow to speak) any tradition in Church history. This is why you will find the magisterial reformers often appealing to elements of tradition or early teaching from Church Fathers, but rejecting others. I say this as a Protestant for some 35 years :)
@@Theoretically-ko6lr and typically when it is speaking of The Word of God, *if* that is presupposed to mean a published written book, would be in reference to the tanakh
@@TheB1nary please become Orthodox
Right next to where is names the trinity--it doesn't. We deduce the trinity and sola scriptura from scripture.
That is how the church operated before eastern orthodox came to exist in 1054 due to political strife.
All scripture is God breathed. All men are falliable. That is agreed upon by both the early church fathers and by scripture.
What was the writing that Jay mentioned about John of Damascus about starting with the Trinity as opposed to the Catholic starting point
John of Damascus - An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith
please where i can read st cyril of alexandria writings related to eucharist is divine energy
Whether Scripture is or is not the only infallible rule of faith for doctrine and regardless of who put the final stamp of approval on the Canon, if your traditions clearly contradict or go far beyond the words of the Prophets, Apostles, and Christ himself, I will side with them over your traditions.
I had to watch this three times to grasp the importance of what is being said. It really does demolish the sola scriptura position.
The Logos is my sweetheart
Jesus blessed children and the disciples did not understand what He was doing at that time. Just as God is invisible, so too his little ones are invisible to the world and the establishments, even religious. God often speaks to his children but it is something that most scholars cannot handle and so they want to persecute Wisdom by using their intelligence. Scholars are often stoning God's children but we pray God have mercy on you
You suggest that wisdom encourages heresy? Or that heresy is innocent? Look at the world. The world is today what it is exactly because heresy. The fact that God don t judge a stupid man with high expectations, does not mean heresies are not deadly dangerous. A heretic is not a children of God if he opposes truth. That is not innocence. That is pride. Those who are in to the Church are the children of God, they don t judge the Orthodox Church, like a good child does not hate his mother, but he obeys his mother.
Our starting point is Peter whom you also agree to be an apostle, what?
Starting point should be God (Trinity), not Peter... which is what Jay was saying
@@flower6718fsd Well not even the same conversation. We also begin at God, we don’t believe God comes after Peter. Instead of them saying 12 apostles equally we say Peter and Apostles.
I was not going to respond but I have to say something especially since many say protestants have not done a good job backing up Sola Scripturea another reason I am going to respond is because i can't help but notice a huge wave of protestant believers turn to orthodoxy and or catholicism. First let me begin by saying I consider myself someone humbly blessed with having a background in Theological studies and having read the Bible from start to beginning before, that doesn't make me better than anyone but i'd like to show myself approved and state why i feel qualified to respond, I too have my own Podcast on Facebook but am more centered on preaching Christ centered messages on there, strictly Gospel, however I have flirted with discussing such topics as these. I proceed with this debate regarding the Scriptures aka The Word of God being the supreme and final authority for the average Christian to go by, why? Well I do not believe it is that difficult to perceive, first and foremost because since the beginning of time we have read how God with HIS Word causes things to exist and Happen, in Genesis 1 God "SAID" let there be light and there was light, John 1:1 In the beginning was THE WORD, there is an importance in The term used WORD and Christ being The living WORD himself, now call it Sola Scriptura or whatever you want to call it The entire Jewish and Christian Bible where btw The first Bible was not the Canon made in the 3rd Century, It was actually The Jewish Tanakh compiled and made into a book in about 450 BCE which contains the entire Old Testament 5 books of Moses, The Historical Books, The Poetic writings, The Minor Prophets and the Major Prophets and years later the Septuagint which was the Greek copy of the Tanakh later added the Apocrypha books if you will i'll use that word so people know what i am referring to but those were also Jewish writings, so essentially no one can attribute to the first Bible being brought by the catholic church when in essence we really got everything from the Jews, now there is also history recording that when pope damasus asked Jerome for a canon later named the latin vulgate (Which he took from The Jewish Tanakh) there were already many copies of a bible elsewhere but not approved by the catholic church, just a little historic background, now In scripture we see a major emphasis on the importance of God's word over all else or mans opinions, in Exodus 32:32 It tells us of a Book in Heaven that God himself has in his possession, also in Psalm 119:89 The Holy Spirit reveals "Thy Word is forever settled in Heaven oh Lord" then in Mount Sinai We see how important it was for God to have his people keep his Word recorded in Writings, God himself wrote his commandments on Stone for His people to see and keep written down, another major example is Christ himself in Matthew 4 when he is in the desert He does all but respond to Satan by "It Is Written" also in John 5:39 he clearly says "Study The Scriptures" Also when Jesus went into the Synagogue to reveal himself He does what? He opens the scroll of Isaiah 61, again call it what you want but I see an emphasis on SCRIPTURE ALONE being the ultimate authority! Lets discuss the early church for a second, when The Holy Spirit comes upon the 120 in the upper room what is the first thing Peter starts to do? It clearly states he begins preaching the Gospel proclaiming Christ and revealing him fulfilled prophetically through the Scriptures, what scriptures was he citing? The OT of course, now lets talk about The Apostol Paul for a bit, this man knew 14 Languages 7 of which he spoke fluently, he was a very studied Hebrew and knew The Tanakh, Torah thoroughly, i've heard bogus arguments from orthodox stating that it was absurd to think only because there are only two letters found written to the Thessalonians that you can take only those two letters and think that is the only thing Paul would intend to be used as the only measure of faith written for them doctrinally but what they have failed to understand is that Paul was actually a walking Tanakh, of course he preached Christ to them but what did he also tell the Church in 1 Corinthians 11:1? He said imitate me as I imitate Christ and Christ emphasized "It Is Written" How else can I challenge Scripture over mere traditions of men? Well it's quite simple, in Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men," So what did the Apostles teach and emphasize to the early Church? Have you not read 1 Thessalonians 2:13 where it gives us the answer stating "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe." THE WORD OF GOD! My main challenge to the orthodox and catholics is to ask them if then they attain to their so called "holy traditions" if they were truly of God and necessary why is it then that we do not see the early church in The book of Acts or The written in Pauls letters and the letters of the New Testament urging believers to practice many of those things they call traditions? were they not necessary? Another important thing to note is that many of the traditions practiced by 3rd century believers seem to have been passed down by a Roman Christianity, let's be honest the first christians were Jewish and did not have the same traditions as the gentiles with only the exception that they were now Jews who accepted Christ so that's my other observation regarding tradition essentially whos traditions and cultures are we referring to? I have so much more to say but I will semi end this time with this, Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Is The Same, Yesterday, Today and Forever More" Also in the Old Testament God in Malachi 3:6 6 "For I am the Lord, I change not;" "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35, a side note by the way one of the issues I encountered and I have against orthodox is that they won't call protestants brothers unless you are chrismated and or baptized into one of their churches which is sad because I do not need to be chrismated by them to know I am a child of God, John 1:12 tells me "But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God." Though I am not ready to say all orthodox or catholics are condemned I can only say like Peter said in 2 Peter 1:5 "5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love." Also you must "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15, anyone open to discuss this with me I am more than happy to do so, my Facebook page is found by Searching "Tony Vasquez" or on Instagram as "tjlimt" or simply respond to me here, Peace and Blessings.
DPH BABY
Protestantism asserts that Any man can pick up a Bible and become a " teacher"
Like Joel Osteen?
Joyce Meyer?
Kenneth Copeland?
Jim Baker?
Like Anything else, becoming a teacher requires
Study
Commitment
Focus
Tenacity
Determination
You just don't wake up 1 morning and say " I think I'll teach at Harvard or UCLA Today!"
Doesn't work like that....
You forget the most important.. we need God’s grace and guidance ❤
❤☦️
7:00 oof
Can you explain your channel name. Are you founding your own Church denomination?
No, he's Eastern Orthodox
@@obren100 then whats with the channel name?
@@gewargisgeorgios8186 Lord Jesus Christ
@@hummingbirdfeeder865 The Orthodox Church is the Church of the Eternal Logos. It's just a channel name.
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
What is the orthodox view on several of Johns verses where it states 'who ever believes in Christ shall have everlasting life'.
Does orthodox say this scripture is unture? If so, why?
Our response is simply to read elsewhere in John to see what the faith mentioned in John 3:16 should entail else where in scripture. Case in point John 3:36 wherein we read
"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life but whoever disobeys the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abides on him."
So we read from this verse another throughout the book of John and faith in Jesus does presuppose obeying him and following his teachings and Commandments.
I hope you're satisfied with my answer to your question.
God bless ☦️
@@willtheperson7224 Thank you for responding, I appreciate it very much. I have two questions, if you of course don't mind and are so inclined. How do we square these two contradictions/inconsistencies?
One verse states, whoever believes has enteral life. Then another states, belief and obeying, equates to eternal life. I see Protestants pick one verse and are technically correct and Orthodox picks the other and is technically correct. And as nobody is perfect like Jesus, one can't necessarily obey without fault, as we are fallen. So there will always be a disobeying act at some point. Therefore, everyone is gaureented God's wrath.
I know orthodox would then say God does forgive. My second question would be, when we do happen to disobey, how do we know if God can or has forgiven us for our disobeying act?
@@dillonc1900 We would say that both believing and obeying are one and the same, you obey him because you have faith in him. And we also point out in John 3:16 "whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have eternal life." We also say that you have eternal life in the present moment but you don't eternally have eternal life (we claim that's been read into the passage not taken from it)
@@dillonc1900 As for your second question we know that Jesus gave the power to "remit and retain sin" in John 20:22 and we can point to verses in acts and see that the early church practiced confession of sin to the Apostles (the clergy of the early church if you will)
And we find from 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins he (Christ) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us of all trespasses"
For this we say that there are scriptural proofs for confessing your sins to God when you know you do wrong or violate a commandment, but we say that in History the church has the power to forgive sin (because Christ gave that blessing to his Disciples)
So to answer your second question if you can find an Orthodox church we hope you convert and join in
@@dillonc1900 th-cam.com/video/MVm0r3kR_r4/w-d-xo.html this video should also provide more information about your second question
Jesus and his disciples quoted their own scripture written by Moses and the prophets. Jesus in his temptations with Satan, they both say " it is written" .
What's your point?
@@kenanthompson2075 pardon it is written not we have traditions from the church fathers. Jesus & his disciples Only knew one Father of their salvation. Isaiah 63v 16-17. Or read whole chapter to know why.
@@frederickanderson1860 How do you know that what you are quoting is in the Bible? You're begging the question.
@@kenanthompson2075 Isaiah chapter 53 is about the suffering servant, and who is this person??? Written long before jesus . The jews revere Their scriptures. Jesus was same , nothing he added or took away from their scriptures.
@@frederickanderson1860 How do you know that Isaiah 53 is in the Bible? How do you know that Isaiah is a Biblical book?
Give up the Solas and replace it with somas instead. 🥴
(1) The early church fathers were not orthodox and believed in the fallibility of man. Scripture is the ultimate authority to the church. “Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)
(2) EO is extremely similar to little g gnosticism who believe they have ultimate authority. It is not the trinity EO asserts, but their own authority.
(3) EO and RC are extremely similar in that they both rely on the authority of men. RC on the pope and EO on their synods. But scripture, which the church has always accepted, repeats that man is falliable and our understanding is falliable, and we will not understand until the end. The Church is like a field with wheat and weeds and not until harvest will it be sorted out. Scripture, on the other hand is God breathed.
(4) Why should one side with EO over RC from the great schism? Does not Peter have the keys to the kingdom? EO and RC suffer the same mistake of trusting man's falliable deductions from scripture as infalliable.
Scripture canon came from the church, so how can the scripture be the ultimate authority? There were a lot of debates in the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th centuries to determine which books belonged in the Bible and which didn't belong in the Bible. The Bible didn't just fall out of the sky... Church Fathers put the books together for us.
@@flower6718fsd Good questions.
(1) About authority, we make documents all the time that have authority over the people who put them together. Consider that when a nation has a constitutional convention, that doesn't make the participants in the convention somehow a greater authority than that constitution.
(2) You are right, scripture did not just fall out of the sky. And the church father did not *make* scripture, they described what scripture was. We have a letter from Athanasius that describes the cannon that protestants have today. There are fragments of lists earlier than that, including from the first century. Fraudulent epistles were weeded out based on if they were (a) apostolic (b) ancient (c) widespread (d) consistent.
1) Orthodox is only a way of defining correct teaching. You cherry pick Chrysostom's writing for your point, but neglect to highlight his theologically rich Divine Liturgy, which is the ultimate reflection of the basis of faith for the Orthodox Church. What about all of that? Where did it come from? Why do most sola scriptura believers not follow that? What did the other church fathers say? Yes, man is fallible. That is why they held councils, which even most protestants uphold in some form.
2) The Church claims it is the ultimate authority where? Last I checked, they share the authority with the scriptures, which clearly state that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. This point seems more opinionated than factual.
3) Again, there are councils. Bishops are to uphold this with their authority and also abide by it. The EO Church does not rely on a singular man to decide what is and isn't dogma, unlike the Roman Church.
4) Peter's confession is what the Church is built upon. But if we want to go down this road, he was both the Bishop of Antioch and of Rome, and both of these have successors. And again, it is done by councils. Councils have existed since the Book of Acts for the church to decide upon things, guided by the Holy Spirit.
I'm curious to hear what you have to say. I don't normally reach out on TH-cam comments, but I felt an urge to do so today. ☦️
@@SamuelWRWB 1) comparing the Bible to a constitution is a bad analogy because the constitution gets amended all the time to make additions.
2) What church determined whether the writings were apostolic, ancient, widespread, and consistent? You accept the canon the church put together, but then reject the church itself. You see the contradiction?
@@SamuelWRWB "(1) About authority, we make documents all the time that have authority over the people who put them together. Consider that when a nation has a constitutional convention, that doesn't make the participants in the convention somehow a greater authority than that constitution."
That is not an equivalent comparison. In your case, those people actually wrote the documents themselves unlike the bible so it actually makes your position much worse.
"(2) You are right, scripture did not just fall out of the sky. And the church father did not make scripture, they described what scripture was. We have a letter from Athanasius that describes the cannon that protestants have today. There are fragments of lists earlier than that, including from the first century. Fraudulent epistles were weeded out based on if they were (a) apostolic (b) ancient (c) widespread (d) consistent."
What? The Protestant Canon came from Martin Luther who removed the books and tried to change the verses. Unless you believe Luther had some level of divinity in him, he had no authority to tamper around with the contents of the bible.
The canon of scripture origin is truly a checkmate against Protestant. It undermines Sola Scriptura and turns it into a doctrine with a fundamental contradiction. And that's only the start.
I am very sympathetic towards the Eastern Orthodox Church but this was poorly constructed polemics.
3:28 - What if without your justification you can't figure out any of your trinity Christology etc?