47:42 Purification, Illumination & Glorification is the EO soteriological explanation… you can go to the Services of the Church and this is very clear when you participate in the Holy Mysteries and life of the Church

I’m not even Methodist but this channel is awesome. God bless you.

@methodministries

3 ай бұрын

I appreciate it and great to have you!

@frankperrella1202

3 ай бұрын

Martin Luther you should read how he wanted to get rid of many books in the Bible, I'm Catholic✝️✝️🇻🇦🍷🍞🗝️🗝️💯 Catholic in Jesus Christ to his Apostles Matthew 16 -19)

@allfleshisgrass.

3 ай бұрын

@@frankperrella1202 I sincerely hope your comment is a joke.

Faith Alone is indefensible.

@w4rsh1p

3 ай бұрын

Evidence alone is defensible.

@bradleyperry1735

3 ай бұрын

@@w4rsh1p No clue what that means.

@w4rsh1p

3 ай бұрын

@@bradleyperry1735 It means that anything can be justified with faith, but only a few things can be justified with evidence. You need evidence and only evidence to believe something. If you believe something because you believe it or because believing it is a virtue, then evidence doesn't matter to you.

@Dizerner

3 ай бұрын

@@w4rsh1p You are mixing up two categories here as an objecting unbeliever, lol, they are not speaking of verification of God's existence, but rather the method for people who already believe in God that will spiritually justify us. Kind of butting in on an "in house" debate, so to speak.

@Dizerner

3 ай бұрын

Do think justification by faith alone is indefensible, as James clearly tells us it is. However, the statement is kind of ambiguous as the "alone" needs a referent of what it is "alone" to, as nothing at all is fundamentally "alone" in and of itself. Here's a little article how I personally harmonize faith and works: One tricky little argument Calvinists use is that Armininians are "works salvationists." Yet if we study James 2, and believe this is in fact the inspired Bible, we see James specifically says faith alone does not save-in fact he makes a big point of it. Does this ruin the whole faith/works dichotomy that the Reformation set up for us? Only if we misunderstand the term works and start equivocating with it. If we make the word “works” both: anything we might theoretically do; and also something that never can be a part in saving us: Calvinistic double predestination necessarily logically follows. In fact, by giving them that one point, there is no way to avoid their conclusions. But that point does not need to be granted them. There is, in fact, a different kind of works and we can prove James is not using works of the Law here. It's quite an easy harmonization to simply assert, not all works, are works of the law, and show in fact, a logical existence of something that could be defined as a “non-meritorious work,” that is, an action that produces a result without earning it (much like reaching out to receive a gift). James says a faith without works cannot save, explicitly and forthrightly: What is the profit, my brethren, if faith, any one may speak of having, and works he may not have? is that faith able to save him? (Jam 2:14 YLT) The implied answer here is clearly, “no.” In case we try to squeak around that somehow, he repeats the point with more force: You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. (Jam 2:24 NKJ) This is a very clear statement. How are we to harmonize this with Paul’s declaration, “By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified”? Not, as many Lordship Salvationists do, by somehow twisting this into "works just necessarily follow without contributing." If something necessarily follows, it cannot logically be a part of the cause, it cannot be the "by" the thing, the instrumental means. That is, it should say "justified with works" instead of "by works," the cause resulting in another condition. Faith is clearly laid out by Paul as the instrumental cause of salvation, and James here adds that this faith needs works along with it. So how do we know the works James tells us here, are not works of the law? By considering the works James gives us as an example. 1) Abraham attempting to kill his son. 2) Rahab lying to save the spies. James switches sharply from altruism, when he had plenty of OT examples of altruism to work from, and this is significant, for he is not saying the altruism justified apart from trusting the work of grace Christ wrought for us on the Cross. When James says, “I will show my faith by my works,” but in the same place says breaking one law breaks the entire law completely and constitutes you a law-breaker, we know he is talking of a kind of works that are not works of the law, because James just admitted everyone's works must necessarily break the law in some sense, because when they broke one law they broke them all, necessarily breaking it due to everyone's necessary moral imperfections. If James wanted to be clear that good works were what merits our justification, he would have used only positive works as an example of a salvific work, works that more clearly exhibited the moral and/or ceremonial laws that were at the heart of the Mosaic Law, but instead James references a "Royal Law" which he later describes as "The Law of Freedom," meaning it cannot be obligatory or demanding upon us. Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? (Jam 2:22 NKJ) For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (Jam 2:26 NKJ) Rahab the harlot also justified by works (Jam 2:25 NKJ) We cannot now claim the Bible nowhere associates the idea or word of “works” with salvation or being made righteous, if we see this as salvific. There are several proofs James 2 is talking about a salvific justification: Firstly, the oft used "justified before men" is both not anywhere in the passage, and justifying before men is straight out condemned by Christ and would not be advocated (Luke 16:15). James is clearly addressing Paul, to clarify ways he felt Paul was being misunderstood, and Paul was using justification in a salvific sense used with faith. James uses legal language describing relation to Law, that which relates to man salvifically: transgress or fulfill; convicted and guilty of all or heirs of the kingdom; all final judgment language-declared righteous, judgment without mercy, was made perfect (compare Jesus saying “be perfect” and “it is perfected”). So in the end, the phrases “doing well” and “profiting” are thus to be seen in a context, not as that which profits materially above salvific faith, but that which actually leads to the profit of salvific faith, above demons-a non-dead faith. We might begin thinking, “I’m concerned that I would be adding my own merit to faith by adding an action.” But this is just religious dogma that has been foisted constantly upon our thinking, it does not actually stem from the Bible or logic itself. It's versions of the much used arguments, "What makes you different then someone who rejects salvation?", or "If your choice determines you got saved, then you get all the credit." The Calvinist is forcing a false dichotomy here: either something is a meritorious work, or it is no work at all. Once you accept that, you are inevitably led down the trail to removing all volitional activity, and God alone decides who is saved because otherwise we contribute “works.” This is also why the same logic that if you can reject the atonement, that means you are necessarily attempting to merit the atonement, fails for defending eternal security-a free will decision is not necessarily attempting to merit something, it can be a choice made with a non-relation to merit altogether. If we free ourselves from that logical error, we can show the non-sequitur of insisting that actions which produce results are necessarily meritorious in nature, and then have a salvation that is contingent upon our actions without it necessitating any merit (both before and after regeneration). Otherwise you will automatically feel like all works are bad and there is no such thing as a non-meritorious work, leading you right into the trap of unconditional salvation, for all free will decisions will be called works attempting to merit salvation, even the mere bare acceptance of faith in Christ. The Calvinist can call your version of faith a work because it’s contingent upon something you do. But he is simply leading you to a false dichotomy, that something has to be earning it if it produces a result. The "obligation" to works then, is not an obligation to meet some percentage demand of perfection and partially fulfill the Law of God-it is a simple obligation to accept and allow a measure of God's grace to do its work within us, producing a changed nature and faith in the Cross-work, empowering us to exhibit that faith by what we do in some way, even in as simple a way as the thief next to Christ who exhibited the good work of faith-filled and humble words admitting his sin and asking Christ to remember him. These works are not pure and meriting and righteous-they are facilitating grace. If I do something, and then something results from what I do, that does not logically mean I merited the result. This is a weird non-sequitur Calvinists often throw out there and it's strange how it seems to convince people. If I receive a gift, that does not mean I merited the gift. That simply does not logically follow. And thus free will decisions that allow grace to work in our lives bring us no credit or glory or merit towards our salvation. These are "non-meritorious works," and we can see their presence illustrated from the passage on works in James. Of course, people often use "faith alone" in a condensed imprecise way, to mean "not by any human merit," rather than "nothing you do matters salvifically." Thus, in a sense, they already allow a faith that produces an non-meriting action of some kind. It really should be more precisely stated as "salvation by non-merit," and people should stop using "salvation by faith alone" in this imprecise way. We still have to do certain things to show our faith. Non-meritorious works solve all the tensions and paradoxes concerning faith and works.

The reason EO won’t get on board with what you mean by “faith alone” is because, despite claims otherwise, it is presented as being merely mental or intellectual assent to a set of propositions about Christ. We believe we are justified by faith which works through love (Gal 5:6-7). I’d be happy to answer any questions you two have about EO. It sounds like you’ve made a good faith effort to learn about us, but I suspect you use a western phronema when you read or hear what we say about ourselves, and therefore you don’t really understand what we mean. The reason you get different answers to the question “how are we saved,” is because it’s not a question we ask (or, at least not in the same sense you do). An answer that I believe you would understand and which every EO would agree is, “we pick up our cross and follow our Lord.” We are not really focused on finding some way to avoid hell. We are focused on theosis, which necessarily includes salvation. And, it only sounds like we don’t distinguish between justification and sanctification because we don’t believe that justification happens in a singular moment when we first “think” the right things about Jesus.

@w4rsh1p

3 ай бұрын

Do you have a methodology to measure God's love? Otherwise, you could say a tornado and a tsunami proves God's love just as much as finding your car keys when you're late for work.

@Dizerner

3 ай бұрын

@@w4rsh1p Scripture tells us that God's love is communicated to us by a supernatural assurance of what Christ did in suffering the punishment for our sins after living a morally perfect life on our behalf, then ascending to intercede for us throughout our lifetime as we maintain faith in that source of justification. Not answered prayers. Supernatural knowledge and realities naturally come to us through supernatural means, and that can seem subjective and arbitrary to an outsider-this I fully acknowledge. But you can experience things subjectively that you know are real, without being able to prove them to others, or to me. For example, you could never "demonstrate" to me that you experience self-awareness, as you could be an automaton that just looks self-aware, yet you can know with 100% that you do-you know a thing you cannot give me adequate justification or evidence for, even though it is subjective.

@w4rsh1p

3 ай бұрын

@@Dizerner That's cool but I don't know why I should trust scripture. You can't demonstrate that I haven't been inspired by a deity to have the truth. Does that mean you must believe me? I can invent a scary afterdeath realm if it would help you believe. I really don't understand why you believe in animal sacrifice.

Ephesians 1:13-14 is very clear. At the moment a person responds to the Gospel by faith, that person is sealed by the Holy Spirit. From the point on we are to disciple the new believer to help them grow and be sanctified as a daily follower of Jesus that lives out the faith. This is a life long journey and investment as well as a process.

@N1IA-4

Ай бұрын

Nope. Faith alone is heresy

The Orthodox Church is the only True Church. I say this as a former Reformed Baptist. Salvation is a process.

@MrJimMac

3 ай бұрын

Lol

@Wesley_Todd

3 ай бұрын

What if live 5 hours away from any Orthodox Church? Can I not be saved?

@alt-monarchist

3 ай бұрын

@@Wesley_Todd Salvation is a process. There are always exceptions to everyone's situations. We are not rigid regarding extreme situations no matter how hard Protestants try to portray us as such.

@bobtaylor170

3 ай бұрын

Forty years ago, I was acquainted with a lady who was certain that the denomination, the Church of Christ, was the only true church. "That's why it's called the Church of Christ, Bob!" She believed it. Salvation is a process only in that sanctification is a process. But Jesus will present every true believer in Him to the Father. And none of will have achieved perfect sanctification in this life. Remember Paul's groaning to be freed from "the body of this death?" He wasn't hoping for salvation. He had that. He was longing for the completion of his sanctification. You probably know that in koine Greek, "church" is "ecclesia," and it includes all believers in Jesus Christ.

@internautaoriginal9951

3 ай бұрын

@@alt-monarchist Philippians 4:3 is an amazing verse. It says: And I urge you also, true companion, help these women [Euodia and Syntyche] who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life. Paul had assurance, if you don’t have assurance in your religion I don’t know what to tell you.

I never had any respect for Methodists, until I watched this video.

@methodministries

3 ай бұрын

Happy to hear! 🤝

10:40 Yes, Hebrews says those things about boldness and confidence. It also says a lot of things (particularly in chapters 10 and 12) about not failing to obtain the grace of God and increases the reverence and awe due to Christ our salvation (and the judgment to come if we trample it) *beyond* even what reverence and trembling was due in the first covenant. This aligns with the many other NT warnings against falling away and rejecting God's grace. It certainly seems to me like the Scriptures are holding two things in unresolvable tension: be bold, be confident, know you are saved; and also have reverence, awe, trembling, humility, and "strive mightily" (Col 1v29) for endurance and perseverance in that salvation. I'm just not much moved by appeals to any doctrine or denomination being able to tout "assurance of salvation" or "do you know you are saved" as their litmus test of which doctrines/denominations really have got a true/good version of the gospel. For my money, every single doctrinal approach raises just as many questions as it solves. Faith alone saves -- how do I know if I really believe, or if my conversion experience was real? Which set of doctrines are essential for salvation? With what degree of certitude or level of detail? Judge the fruit -- we all have some bad fruit; what then? Declaration in the secret eternal will of God -- how can I know that it happened? Etc. I really wish we Christians would get away from making this a sword that only cuts one way (handily, toward those we disagree with), and get on with working out our own salvation in "fear and trembling" (Phil 2v12). That's the core of what I took Tyler to be saying, personally.

I was raised Methodist. My father is a Methodist pastor. Methodism is bankrupt.

@methodministries

3 ай бұрын

There are still faithful Methodist today. Praise God.

@bradleyperry1735

3 ай бұрын

@@methodministries I know there are faithful Methodists today, but if Methodism isn’t true, then what does it matter if you are a faithful Methodist?

@GabrielWithoutWings

3 ай бұрын

@@methodministriesAsk how old he is. He's got an Orthodox Meme Squad avatar.

@bradleyperry1735

3 ай бұрын

@@GabrielWithoutWings I’m 37 years old. Married for over 18 years. 3 kids. Over 18 years in the military so far. Been a police officer for over 8 years. Converted to Orthodoxy on October 9, 2022 after 6 years of intense study. Have a bachelor’s degree from a major university. Anything else you’d like to know so you can attempt to impugn me personally? Edit: I forgot the four combat deployments that I have to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, all as an Infantryman. I left out the most crucial aspect, which is prayer. Mine for sure, but my wife’s diligent and heartfelt prayers for the Lord to lead me to the Truth, especially if it meant NOT Orthodoxy. She is now the Head Sister at our parish.

@GabrielWithoutWings

3 ай бұрын

@@bradleyperry1735 You made the mistake of thinking that I wanted to know all of that in the first place. You come off as a typical Protestant to Orthodox pipeline convert. I suggest you change your avatar or you're going to be seen as a sperg.

#Justificatio_Sola_Fide Amen!

I appreciate you making this video. I try to look at blow sides of the argument. And to be honest with you, I don't have any assurance of my salvation.. But I want to stay methodist. Because I know that we not be perfect. But I think we do the most to love God and to show God's love to others.

@bobtaylor170

3 ай бұрын

Read John chapter 11, and pay special attention to verses 25 and 26. Do you believe Jesus? If you do, you should understand that you are saved. Methodism is wrong in its inability to affirm eternal security. God wants us to rejoice in our salvation and to live out our lives in the joy of the Lord.

@w4rsh1p

3 ай бұрын

Do you think the authors of the Bible were perfect? Seems like a contradiction.

@Dizerner

3 ай бұрын

You can find assurance by not trusting in your works. Whatever part we play, is not the meritorious part-it's not the contribution that "earns" something. All we are required to do, is say "Yes" to grace. That's it. Just say "Yes" to grace, and grace will do the rest for us. If what I am required to do, is something I know with all my heart I really can do, there is no grounds anymore for a lack of assurance-where all doubt comes from is the idea that "Maybe I can't do it."

@petros810

Ай бұрын

@@bobtaylor170Methodism affirms conditional security just like the Lutherans. Once saved always saved is a novel Doctrine that came by Calvin. To the best of my knowledge there weren’t any church fathers who affirmed this. It certainly was foreign to the church for the 1500 years.

@bobtaylor170

Ай бұрын

@@petros810 which doesn't mean it's incorrect. I'm 72, and have been delighted to see in my adult lifetime a far greater regard for early Church history among Protestants than was so when I was 20. However, while The Cardinal Doctrines are beyond dispute, there are many doctrines/interpretations/ideas which are not. Jesus said that He gave unto them eternal life, that they would never perish, and that no one - including the person himself - would be able to pluck them out of His hand. I know all of the verses your side musters as evidence. I'm also aware that there are other interpretations.

I thoroughly enjoyed Dunning. It's standard for Nazarene systematic theology. I also am reading "A Theology of Love" by Dr. Mildred B. Wynkoop. Dunning quotes her quite a bit in his book.

24:47 - what works are required for my justification? Participation in the life and death of Christ. “If we die with him, we will be raised with him” (Rom 6v4-8, 2 Cor 4v10, 2 Tim 2v11), and also: he was raised to life for our justification (Rom 4v25). It is his life that saves, and there is a difference between justification and salvation (Rom 5v8-10)

@methodministries

3 ай бұрын

You enter by faith, not works (Romans 3, 4, and 5.

@spencerowen7565

3 ай бұрын

@@methodministries As a Protestant (who is Ortho-friendly), I value and appreciate the attempt to navigate the Scylla and Charybdis between "easy believeism" and some kind of "earning your salvation". I'm just not at all sure there is a coherent position there. If we enter by faith -- but "faith" absolutely must have good works as its fruit, or else it isn't faith -- then this undercuts the assurance detailed in the video. Even Calvin highlighted union with Christ (which is what I mean by "participation in the life and death of Christ") as essential to justification/salvation (for him they were the same). I'm of the opinion that we just need to bite the bullet he could not and say that this union consists of our faithfulness and the faithfulness of God working synergistically: co-laborers with Christ.

@Dizerner

3 ай бұрын

Works is an ambiguous word, that means different things in different context. We clearly see faith requires an action, a work of faith, it's required. Believe in your heart and confess with your mouth-why did Paul add an action? Why didn't he just full stop at "Believe in your heart (period)".

@petros810

Ай бұрын

⁠@@spencerowen7565An Arminian view would postulate that assurance is for past and present salvation. For future there is hopefulness but not the same type of assurance as the present because the possibility of falling away is still possible.

@spencerowen7565

Ай бұрын

@@petros810then I fail to see how this assurance distinction is cognizable. Of what value is present/past assurance, if it cannot provide any eternal security? If a person can be assured of their justification in the past and present, but has no assurance of future - and final! - justification, I don’t see what value this adds to the question. I certainly don’t see how it provides the kind of confidence about eternal destiny spoken of in the video. To be clear, all my comments are geared toward problematizing the entire project of “assurance” in toto. I don’t think *any* theological position actually provides “assurance” of this kind, except perhaps universalism.

Patriarch Bartameow in Constinople he's letting a lot of nonsense going on with the LgbtQ stuff, The enemy is trying to get into all the Churches. God bless we all need prayers in the Faith & Sacraments 🗝️🗝️🍷🍞✝️🙏 God bless

Eric Yarbarrra, Dr James Likudius ex Greek Orthodox now Catholic & his Family he does multiple Debates into his 90's still, Bellarmite & Dwong on KZread even Truilla who used to be on Reason & Theology he was a cool EO Apologist. Why don't you like Lofton?

42:10 He summarizes Protestantism well here…The problem is that doesn’t look anything like how Scripture describes The Church. Take for example, Ephesians 4 11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head-Christ- 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. kzread.infoUgkxyH-Uw_zLN23PgKHSb882FG1LP3dTeAfM?si=s712nPQderI_cE5M

@methodministries

3 ай бұрын

That passage does not contradict Protestantism. In Christ, we're united.

@bradleyperry1735

3 ай бұрын

@@methodministriesBut what does that mean?

@internautaoriginal9951

3 ай бұрын

Don’t see your point

@methodministries

3 ай бұрын

@@bradleyperry1735 To be united in Christ you mean?

@bradleyperry1735

3 ай бұрын

@@methodministries Yes. What does it mean to be “in Christ?”

Philippians 4:3 is an amazing verse. It says: And I urge you also, true companion, help these women [Euodia and Syntyche] who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life. Paul had assurance of his salvation and his companions salvation..

@bradleyperry1735

3 ай бұрын

Well that’s not what means at all.

@internautaoriginal9951

3 ай бұрын

@@bradleyperry1735Im pretty sure God revealed to you something different right ?

@internautaoriginal9951

3 ай бұрын

You reject such a clear statement for no reason

@bradleyperry1735

3 ай бұрын

@@internautaoriginal9951 No.

Imagine being accused of a crime, and when you go to plead your case the judge says they have faith that you're guilty. Well, I guess that's it. Faith means they can't be wrong, and no evidence would change their mind. How wonderful does that sound?

@Dizerner

3 ай бұрын

That's not really what we mean by faith. Do you think you're guilty of anything morally wrong in your entire life?

@w4rsh1p

3 ай бұрын

@@Dizerner Do you think God is guilty of anything morally wrong in his entire life? I don't really see how I'm any worse than God. I didn't drown babies in a global flood.

@internautaoriginal9951

3 ай бұрын

@@w4rsh1pI don’t get how you can get moral norms from nature and primates. God can’t be measured by carnal rules.

@w4rsh1p

3 ай бұрын

@@internautaoriginal9951 how do you get moral norms from a god that drowned babies in the global flood and ordered his people to commit genocide? maybe you just lack knowledge on the basics of evolution which explain moral norms?

@w4rsh1p

3 ай бұрын

@@internautaoriginal9951 God can't be measured by anything since he's a myth in our heads.

Another thing I see Orthodox is that they are not aware that Faith is not born of a Man but of God. Romans 12:3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you Also good works are products of Gods grace. (Ephesians 2:10) For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Paul explains the work/faith dilemma well here. We don’t have to do a certain number of good things before Jesus accepts us. That’s not how it works. But once we are His, we’re being transformed into God’s handiwork, and our good works are a consequence of God’s work in us. Redemption isn’t just about us; it’s also about our relationship with our Creator. And He has redeemed us in Christ Jesus to do the work that He has prepared for us. So what’s their point ? Are they saying we will to saved ?

@bradleyperry1735

3 ай бұрын

We have literally 2000 years of the Truth. We know what Faith is.

@internautaoriginal9951

3 ай бұрын

@@bradleyperry1735Doesn’t seem like it

@bradleyperry1735

3 ай бұрын

@@internautaoriginal9951 Because you don’t know what Faith is. Because your religion is less than 300 years old.

@w4rsh1p

3 ай бұрын

Sweet so you're saying that it's because of God that he'll send me to hell for not believing in Him? Finally we have proof that God is evil.

@N1IA-4

3 ай бұрын

Sounds Calvinistic. Which is decidedly not a feature of the early church, who were Catholic.

What evidence shows us that animals like us evolved to go to an eternal afterdeath? 4:00 I'm not worried about this so called "salvation" and I don't know why anyone wants to pretend it exists. Fear of death? Fear of hell? Is there evidence that hell is real?

@Dizerner

3 ай бұрын

I see you on other religious channels. Why are you looking into religion?

@w4rsh1p

3 ай бұрын

@@Dizerner I'm not looking into religion. I'm asking theists why they're so certain the myth they believe is true considering the lack of evidence and plethora of natural explanations to explain the creation of religions. Considering evolution is true, it is the height of quackery to assume we evolved suddenly to go to an afterdeath realm, as going there would provide no benefit during life when evolution is actually happening. Why aren't you being more skeptical yourself?

@Dizerner

3 ай бұрын

@@w4rsh1p I love you how say you're not looking into religion, and then literally describe yourself doing what looking into religion is, lol. I'm a naturally skeptical person, maybe really we all are. However evolution is completely compatible with a God concept, why wouldn't it be?

@w4rsh1p

3 ай бұрын

@@Dizerner I wasn't aware there were any supernatural selections in the theory of evolution. Perhaps evolution is compatible with a god concept, but it's not compatible with Christianity which is based entirely off of Genesis, which evolution refutes. I acknowledge that there are many Christians who believe in evolution, but when pressed they tend to say it's somehow theistic in nature when that provides no explanations. When pressed on Genesis, they say it's just a metaphor, a metaphor that establishes original sin and the required death of Jesus to absolve it? End of the day, I just want to be able to explain why religions exist. What are the options? People invented 5,000 religions completely naturally, except for one? Special pleading. Ah, wait, people invented 5,000 religions because if you pretend Satan is real, he tricked people into making them! Wait, so your God invented an angel that could create thousands of religions that would make people completely ignore Christianity? How powerful.

@Dizerner

3 ай бұрын

@@w4rsh1p Okay fair enough, but slow down there. I mean by default if there is ANY real religion, it's generally only going to be one, right, lol? Why is that weird? Even if you say, well "all religions" are a religion, that's still a distinct belief system. Why should we assume that God has no good reasons for allowing evil, it seems really presumptuous? Obviously, if there is a counter force to God, a real truth and lie out there, then whoever is doing the bad stuff is not going to sit on his hands right? If God allowed the devil for some reason (under Christianity), wouldn't that be enough to adequately explain so many different strange ideas confusing which one is true?

John 3:15 KJV That whosoever believes in HIM should not perish, but have ETERNAL LIFE. 16 For GOD so loved the world, that HE gave HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, that whosoever believes in HIM should not perish, but have EVERLASTING LIFE. 17 For GOD sent not HIS SON into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through HIM might be saved. 18 He that believes on HIM is NOT CONDEMNED: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the NAME of the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD." Note: If you do not know where you will immediately go when you die then you deny that you already have ETERNAL and EVERLASTING LIFE and are NOT CONDEMNED as CHRIST said, therefore you deny CHRIST.

25:36 It’s the works of the Holy Spirit that transforms us and the Holy Spirit does work through baptism and the Eucharist…and as I Peter (et. El) says, Baptism does save. We can’t be unbaptized but we can lose the grace of our baptism. We are cleansed and become partakers of the Divine Nature. Salvation is not by Faith Alone its through transformation. By you saying that you are saved by your faith alone, that’s you putting your salvation entirely in your hands and that’s why it’s not a teaching of the Christ and His Church. It’s a teaching of Martin Luther…

Probably just a poor choice of an analogy, but you never jump out a perfectly good plane without 2 parachutes.

@Wesley_Todd

3 ай бұрын

Haha true

@Dizerner

3 ай бұрын

If you deploy both at the same time, they might get all tangled up, and neither be effective.

@troyyurchak3213

3 ай бұрын

@@Dizerner that is why I said it was probably a poor analogy...breaks down as soon as you start thinking about it.

@Dizerner

3 ай бұрын

@@troyyurchak3213 Well, we don't want to tangle up works of the law with works of faith. We only want one parachute, Christ's atoning Work.

Here for Al Gore's Rhythms. I don't know why any Protestant would become EO. I'm not even Augustinian but I can still affirm Justification by faith alone. If you don't like most Protestants hard-line Augustinian anthropology you can always find a home in many baptist or Anabaptist groups without going down the "one true church" triumphalist folly. If you're going to be triumphalist just be Catholic bro, they have a much better claim to that argument.

@w4rsh1p

3 ай бұрын

What religion based on supernatural concepts doesn't operate by faith alone?

@N1IA-4

3 ай бұрын

Was Jesus "triumphalist" to say He will build his Church ? (singular, not plural). Were the NT apostles "triumphalist" to teach that unity is an indispensable feature of the Church? Dude, you should be aware that the Nicene Creed says Catholic. The early Church fathers were Catholic. The Saints were Catholic. Were they "triumphalist"? There is only one Church. Jesus didn't hand out multiple choices and options.

@petros810

Ай бұрын

@@N1IA-4Catholic simply means “universal and whole”. Your reading back into the fathers your Romanism. Newsflash! There was no infallible and surpreme bishop in the first four centuries. The church was conciliar. “Simon says” is definitely not Catholic!

@N1IA-4

Ай бұрын

@@petros810 It means that true.....but the Catholic Church has always been the Catholic Church from the jump. Unless you can tell me what man started it.

@N1IA-4

Ай бұрын

@@petros810 The only ones reading back into the Fathers are Prots & EO. Incidentally, EO often make many of the same arguments as Prots contra Rome. Which makes it quite suspect. The True Church wouldn't need to resort to Prot argumentation.

I have faith alone that deities are made up by people and special pleading is not an actual argument.

@Dizerner

3 ай бұрын

Maybe you should find a way to give evidence and demonstrate there is no supernatural, so you don't assert it as special pleading by your faith alone...

@w4rsh1p

3 ай бұрын

@@Dizerner All experiments on the supernatural have proven they're just natural psychological tricks. Prayer has been debunked. NDEs are debunked. How could I design an experiment to falsify a god that no theist has defined?

...you too also lovers? 😆 🤣 😂

Your faith BETTER have WORKS or it's not REAL FAITH buddy.... * holds gun to head *. _"Thank God we are the ones who believe in faith ALONE."_

@Wesley_Todd

3 ай бұрын

But if you are justified on the basis of your faith alone (with no good works factoring into it) there is now no threshold of works to attain to get justification. Rather the more fruit you bear the greater confidence you have in your faith. You do good BECAUSE you are justified, not to ATTAIN it

@petros810

Ай бұрын

@@Wesley_ToddAmen! It is so simple this gospel but is a stumble block because carnal Man just can not accept that only thing we can bring to the table is our consent which also has to be enabled grace.

This all comes down to definitions. Can you be justified and saved if you never once in your life obey Christ, not even one single time? If the answer is no, that means your definition of faith includes the "works" of obedience, and you affirm works are necessary. To my understanding, the requirement of obedience is the EO view. The EO would not say that man "earns" or "merits" like a point system his own salvation, just that man does not have actual faith if he is not obedient to Christ. "Faith alone" is sort of defined against man meriting his own salvation, faith alone is not defined against obedience, so i am not sure in this context "faith alone" is in opposition to the EO perspective, unless you are saying "man can be justified without ever once obeying Christ or repenting of anything", then yeah you would be in opposition.

@w4rsh1p

3 ай бұрын

How could we verify that someone is saved when science cannot study myths?

@Dizerner

3 ай бұрын

I like your first point here, that even an initial free will decision would be a work by their own definitions, and this is true. Just so you know where I'm coming from I should explain my own position on works. I'm a Classical Arminian who embraces penal substitutionary atonement and the Trinity, and denies all forms of eternal security, believing in non-meritorious requirements to be saved. I appreciate the emphasis on the importance of holy living, but find that legalism actually hides sin and does not produce any real holiness. I am always blessed by the testimony, the spirit and desire of all who wish to understand the things of God. I have some thoughts on balancing faith and works here, it is very difficult to understand how holy we have to be or what exactly even is this holiness. I like very much like the idea there are two ditches on either side of the road, pursuing sin or self-righteous works. I can, as a strong advocate of grace, still agree with certain “legalistic” sounding things: 1. The Law is good. 2. The Holy Spirit will produce good attitudes in us by his grace. 3. We will be rewarded for good works. 4. There are unpardonable sins that forfeit the atonement. But this is as far as I can go. I cannot agree the Scripture promotes the following: 1. Self-effort and self-goodness are the way to righteous living. 2. We are under the demands and obligations of the Law, which are clearly said to be perfection. 3. We will be judged for sins we are repentant of, including current struggles. 4. We have to fulfill a certain percentage of perfect character for righteous living. 5. We can live sinlessly perfect. 6. Our good works merit and earn for us a place in heaven. If we go back to attempting to live righteously by our own efforts and under the perfection the Law demands, or if we mix grace up with works, claiming grace is just to put us back under the Law with a little helpful boost where we restart over and over to try to reach as much perfection as we can muster, while continually condemned to always falling short to just get "cleaned up" so we can try, try, again, like the little engine that could-the Law will produce sinful things in us, it will arouse our sin nature to lusting, it will encourage our pride in our own self-righteousness, it will secretly give us a sense of achievement even while paying lip service to grace, it will put us under demonic powers because we are attempting to earn God's favor, it will produce condemnation, shame and a constant sense of falling short, it will produce fleshly striving and a performance mentality where we are always under a sense of demand and pressure to produce more righteous living and try to atone or make up for past failures, all while minimizing the "little" sins we have that we can’t help, implying they don't count for much and are not really “hell worthy,” and inflating our sense of self-holiness, and on top of all this, it will encourage feeling superior and looking down on those who seem more sinful. And all of this-all of this-instead of simply resting in the Work of the Cross, proclaiming its finality, and watching the Holy Spirit work miraculous grace inside of us with no burden of self-improvement or threat of judgment for falling short. The automatic rejoinder is always "But that means we can sin all we want!" yet what we need is an inner change, not forced actions. Freed from law, no longer do we spiritually navel-gaze at how good or bad we are performing, but come to a complete place of reliance and dependence and peace in the knowledge that God will do it all in us, constantly being covered in mercy, no matter how weak we feel or badly we perform. Be aware that the focus and preaching of "Lordship Salvation" and righteous striving, produces secret spiritual pride and places one under the Ministry of Death and Condemnation the Law was always meant to be. One cannot promote verses that say “keep the law” or “keep the commands” and just explain away and ignore verses that clearly and directly say we are not under the law, we are dead to the law. Sneaking legalism back into Christian living is very tempting because it appeals to our self effort and our prideful desire to earn things and feel good about ourselves. Yes, the Law is necessary for the Gospel, yes, the Law does not ever die in and of itself, but the true Gospel is that we died to the Law and all of its demands because the Law was perfectly fulfilled on the Cross. Wanting to contribute to that Work of the Cross with our own efforts and goodness is the perennial temptation of the sin of self-righteousness. Whatever God requires of us in the matter of holy living, cannot be based on the demands of the Law that only grace could fulfill for us. These are non-meritorious requirements fulfilled by grace itself in us, not as an expression of fulfillment or requirements of the Law that only the Cross could fulfill for us, but as the non-meriting demands of a gracious Savior whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light, and who asks nothing of us that he himself is not willing to fulfill through us and in us, just the bare acceptance of the free gift of grace. Yes, we know this will produce some kind of change in us and we cannot outright reject that grace, but sneaking the Law back in is a subtle and nuanced attack on grace itself as addressed in Paul's letter to the Galatians, and removes the power, freedom and confidence of walking without any demands from God that only Christ could ever fulfill for us and in us. Through the Law I died to the Law. By the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. The Law manifests sin. If a Law could give life, the promise would indeed come through the Law. The Law brings wrath. The Law is your tombstone, the warrant for your arrest, the diagnose of your incurable disease, the sure death knell of all your own goodness and efforts, the Law is sent to kill you, show you that you are not good enough, and display your bondage to Satan, and that is its spiritual purpose. The Law is merely a symbolic shadow of the good things to come. Cling to the Cross alone as the only adequate and full fulfillment of all the Law's requirements, and every other requirement the Lord asks of us must always and only be met by his grace alone, it will happen freely and automatically as a gift when we quit striving in the flesh and learn to rest in our gradually improving imperfections. Scripture gives us some sins that will either temporarily lose salvation or be unpardonable, even with the atonement not being based in merit. Blaspheming the Spirit, refusing to forgive a person, refusing to trust in the atonement for righteousness, denying faith in Christ before men, deliberately pursuing pride, rebellion and the occult. These sins do not lose salvation because we are on a merit-based system and Jesus' atonement is insufficient, but because Christ has the authority to set non-meritorious requirements. Murder and certain higher sins would lose salvation but can be restored with repentance, as King David clearly says salvation was restored to him in Psalm 51. But murder is not "the greatest sin," that is a man-centered valuation. And causing a person to go to hell through false doctrine would be spiritual murder, far more serious than physical murder. But all sins against God (even so-called "tiny" ones, like not loving God perfectly) are all more serious because God is the center and source of all valuation, not his creation, and that is why they require a correspondingly great punishment for devaluing God. Under this system of grace, one actually more upholds the seriousness and evil of sin, and produces more real emphasis on loving the Law of God as a gift of grace instead of effort. The reason is, not that suddenly sins become permissible, but that instead of trying to conform outwardly to a standard, we are instead changed inwardly. We become holy accidentally more than we ever did on purpose, and boy how that offends our pride in achieving something, but shows a real instead of superficial love for holiness.

@w4rsh1p

3 ай бұрын

@@Dizerner What are you saved from?

@w4rsh1p

3 ай бұрын

@@Dizerner So all I have to do is blaspheme the holy spirit and it won't brainwash me to believe in animal sacrifice? What's a good way to blaspheme the holy spirit?

@internautaoriginal9951

3 ай бұрын

EO believe that you are saved through Holy works and you can’t be saved until you die. We believe we can experience salvation without adding works.