This is so helpful and fascinating! Thank you for sharing. I came from a Mennonite background, went to Baptist college and then married and ended up in the Anglican Church for a decade before making my way slowly towards Orthodoxy. I am so ready to be home but trying to be patient with the creeping pathway and the movement through all these pieces. It's great to understand all these pieces of my past and culture and how they line up with Orthodox teachings.

@Sainthermanofalaskastaffordva

3 жыл бұрын

God bless your journey! Thanks for watching.

Calvinism has to be one of the most insidious doctrines today, and sadly its taking hold of many millennial Christian believers, in particular the men.

@skyred2

2 жыл бұрын

How so?

@tangokaleidos1926

2 жыл бұрын

@@skyred2 TULIP

@Hezron389

2 жыл бұрын

Dude I agree. Not sure what it is though, it’s like the appeal is the rigidity and strict dogmas masked as a “string foundation”. They think they’re getting “back to the roots” of Christianity.

Pedro(BHOG): STRAIGHT forward and honest ..... BEEN LOOKING FOR THIS FOR A LONNNNG TIME

@alexschexnayder8624

2 жыл бұрын

I mean. We're not hiding it from anyone. Its... right there.

Thank you very much! Hello, from Siberia, Krasnoyarsk!!!

Thank you, Vladika!

Bump for interest, and hello to Met Jonah!

This is making my head spin

I'm beginning my journey to Orthodoxy after 20 years as a Evangelical/Calvinist Protestant. I'm grateful for God's love and grace. I do have an honest question. Is there any proof there are 30,000 or as stated in this video, 50,000 Protestant denominations? I've done a little bit of research on this and I have seen articles numbering it around 250-300, which is still too many. My concern is to speak truth in all things.

@jterrellielli7058

2 жыл бұрын

Depends, as with everything, how denomination is defined and how to rank/group sects like “non-denoms”. At its most generous count it’s several hundred. If you compare that this one non-denom differs with because of, the count is higher. The number really explodes when you get into house church and Pentecostal circles. I ran down this rabbit trail long enough to stop caring what Pastor Jim Bob, whomever she/he associates with, thinks. It’s very much choose your own adventure. Even in the most formulated of Prot denomination.

@sealevelbear

Жыл бұрын

Do not forget all the stand alone “churches” which are as official as renting a storefront and someone calling themselves a “pastor”. This is where you get tens of thousands. They are everywhere!!

//Election [salvation] was not conditioned by any action of man// 31:30 This strips the Incarnation of salvific worth since He is a Divine Person fully Human as well as fully Divine, or puts a human person with the human nature of the Incarnation. In practice, the Calvinists chose the latter Nestorian solution while decrying it nominally. To check this, ask them who received the wrath of the Father on the Cross - they can't say the Son, since that breaks the Trinity.

Please please please upload the “temple theology” classes if you can.

@Sainthermanofalaskastaffordva

3 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately we didn’t record that series. Please forgive us. Highly recommend this series as much of the same content is discussed. www.holyaof.org/sermons-lectures-etc-blog/2019-prophetic-visions

Do you have a video on orthodox understanding of eternal punishment of the wicked?

@Sainthermanofalaskastaffordva

Жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/q3p1preeiqmuYLw.html

What is the source material for the Calvinist and Arminian views presented here? I’d like to read them.

@Sainthermanofalaskastaffordva

3 жыл бұрын

Will try to scan and post after next week’s class. Please check there and then. Thanks for watching!

@Sainthermanofalaskastaffordva

3 жыл бұрын

Here you go. www.fivesolas.com

@ctdprather2064

2 жыл бұрын

The Synod of Dort, provides a full in depth explanation of both. It is part of common confession amongst the Reformed.

If man hates the light and has enmity towards God how is he free

アルミニヤンであってアルメニア人では無いであろう。チューリッヒ系の教会とジュネーヴ系の教会が一致した『新教出版社の信條集の二冊目の解説』（漢字が現行漢字なので著作権には当たらない）によると第二スイス信條の処に「一五四九年に聖餐に於ける見解の一致が「聖餐に関する協調文」（Consensus Tigurinus）が作成交換せられてより、改革派的伝統は、ツヴィングリ主義とカルヴィン主義とが合同して形成せらるるに至った。……～～それ以来十八世紀に至るまで、全改革派教会に於いて重んじられたのである」当時はツヴィングリ系の為に低地ドイツ語のオランダには再洗礼派の亡命者がたくさんいたようでした。改革派と再洗礼派がゴッチャに成っていたようでしたが、ミュンスターの事件で再洗礼派は根絶されて仕舞い、その後にメンノー・シーモンズの組織したメノナイトの再洗礼派の教会と、あとフッタライト（フッター派）もヨーロッパなどとか、アメリカへも亡命もしている者が再洗礼派（アナ・バプティスト）として残っているのでもあろうが。ラテン南アメリカへ亡命して共同体を作っている再洗礼派もいるようでもあるが。正教は正統信仰を保っているのであろうが。神は凡てが救われるように望んだのであるが、自由意志によってもアルミニヤンですが自らの自由な行為の言動であっても神の御意志も無効に出来ますが。教皇の擁護者からの授与された「信仰の擁護者」ってヘンリー八世のことですね。英国高教会はアルミニヤンの聖職ですが。高教会はカトリックも遣って行こうとしていて、秘跡なども盛大に遣ろうともして居るようですが。世俗権の教会の恥ずべき頭（かしら）って東方正教会ではありませんか?ヱホ証はカトリックの煉獄のようですが?ヱホ証は聖霊においてプロテス…を認められませんが。マリヤ崇敬が根本的には出来ません。エキュメニスムは教皇への声が掛かりますが。西方教会の立体的な像崇拝はわたくしは同意も出来ません、ギリシャ正教の画像もそれに対して祈るのでは無くして聖書を前にしてヱホバに祈りますが。改革派はツヴィングリ主義で遣って行けなかったので英国の世俗権の頭に成ったのでしょうか?地上の人間だけが堕落をしたので全宇宙もは関係がありません。エデンの最初の約束が聖書の最後の贖いによる救いにまで貫いています。モーセの律法契約は後から付け加えられたのであり、約束の胤のギリシャ十字架の踵が砕かれることのそれの犠牲に成ることを指し示していました。

Love the Orthodox position... spot on regarding Calvinism... shame it's always so terribly wrong regarding replacement theology and the place of Israel in the plan and heart of God.

Paul teaches in Romans 8 that God foreknows men and women, and then He predestinates them by calling them and then He justifies them and then He glorifies them. God knows beforehand which men and women will love Him and will choose to be saved if the gift of salvation is offered to them. He then predestinates those people for salvation. How does He predestinate them? By calling them and by justifying them and by glorifying them. Paul teaches that God's predestination follows from His foreknowledge of men and women. God does not predestinate arbitrarily, but based upon His foreknowledge of men and women's willingness to be saved. This does not occur in the order of time, but in the order of causation, for God does not exist in time, but outside of time. And God is just, because He loves all, and is no respector of persons, and He saves in accordance with our willingness to be saved, not because He is an arbitrary tyrant who chooses to save some while condemning others for the sake of declaring His majesty, for in that case He would not be love, but something less than love.

@HigherInfluence

Жыл бұрын

This is a man centred view of the scripture and Calvinism, it’s Molinism, a false understanding of the scriptures. God in Romans 8:29 is referring to certain people, not decisions and events in historical time.

@thomaspalmieri6038

Жыл бұрын

​@@HigherInfluence You said: "This is a man centred view of the scripture and Calvinism, it’s Molinism, a false understanding of the scriptures. God in Romans 8:29 is referring to certain people, not decisions and events in historical time." I respond: PART I: So I take it that you agree with John Calvin's notion of God's "horrible decree", which with deliberate forethought predestines men and women to damnation and eternal punishment for the purpose of displaying His majesty before all of creation? Calvin, it must be said, could not answer the Scriptural objections that were brought forth against his wicked doctrine, for his responses were laughably pathetic when his opponents confronted him with the following scriptures: "FOR I HAVE NO PLEASURE IN THE DEATH OF HIM THAT DIETH, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye." (Ezek 18:32) [God takes no pleasure in damning anyone - but desires that we come to Him out of love, not compulsion.] "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" [The Son of God willed to save the rebellious Jews, but they willfully refused HIS WILL TO SAVE THEM.] "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if ONE DIED FOR ALL, then were all dead: and that HE DIED FOR ALL, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again." (2 Cor 5:14-15) [CHRIST DIED FOR ALL, not for some.] "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise...but is longsuffering to us-ward, NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH, BUT THAT ALL SHOULD COME TO REPENTANCE." [God does not wish that any should perish.] Calvin replied to these darts shot into the heart of his heresy with the following cavil: "Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was His pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, IT WAS HIS PLEASURE TO DOOM TO DESTRUCTION." [Institutes III.21.7] Now THAT is a man made interpretation of Sacred Scripture if ever I heard one, to directly contradict the word of the Lord Himself that HE TAKES NO PLEASURE in the death of the sinner, and to defame God by contradicting His very own word assuring us that HE TAKES NO PLEASURE in the death of the sinner, by daring to speak in His stead and to state on His behalf that HE DOES INDEED TAKE PLEASURE in the death of the sinner! What satanic pride John Calvin displays here! What utter blasphemy! See how like his father the Devil he dares to ascend above the heights of the clouds and to be like the Most High (cf. Is 14:14)! Calvin offers yet another cavil, when he states that those scriptures that state that God wants to save "ALL" refer to "all that God intended to save", which really means that Christ only intended to die for some, but not for all, and that those who resisted Christ's will to save them were actually working what He had pre-ordained for them, to wit, that it was His predestining will that some men should oppose His will to save them, which I may remark, is not only absurd, but out and out blasphemous, to say that Christ has a contradictory will, "who is the same yesterday, today and forever" (Heb 13:8). Calvin argues that "the will of God is necessity" (Institutes III.21.8), but his conception of God's will is most cribbed and deformed, for he shivers in fear at the thought that God might grant free will to His creation, and he whimpers when he contemplates that that might indeed be the case, "where will be the omnipotence of God"? [Institutes III.21.7] By these statements Calvin betrays his utter incomprehension with respect to the doctrine of the incarnation, wherein the Word was made flesh (Jn 1:14), which, being in the form of God and equal to God, emptied Himself of His glory and took the form of a slave for the sake of our salvation (Phil 2:6-8), and by this act of INFINITE HUMILITY He revealed Himself to be "Christ the POWER of God and the WISDOM of God" (cf. 1 Cor 1:24), for when He wills it, His POWER shows forth its perfection in weakness (cf. 2 Cor 12:9). Thus God demonstrates the POWER OF HIS LOVE by withholding the exercise of His infinite and all mastering power, in order to give life and volition to others, that they too by exercise of their volition might themselves become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4), in order that they might become lovers of God (cf. 2 Tim 3:4), in accordance with the divine decree (cf. Mk 12:30), for as St. Augustine, Calvin's great preceptor, says, 'love is will' (cf. De Trinitate XV.38). Christ Himself teaches us that God's greatest commandment is that we should love Him (Mt 22:37), but how can we love God if He does not allow us to will whether to love Him or not, inasmuch as love itself is nothing but will, as St. Augustine himself has taught us? God Himself commands that we should love Him. Is God's command something that is contrary to His will? God forbid! What God commands is an expression of that which He wills. How, then, can God will that men should fail to perform that which He wills them to perform, when His will is expressed in that which He commands? And thus we observe the dullness and the feebleness and the unimaginative mindset which animates Calvin's doctrine with respect to God's POWER and WISDOM and His LOVE and His WILL. END PART I

@thomaspalmieri6038

Жыл бұрын

@@HigherInfluence You said: "This is a man centred view of the scripture and Calvinism, it’s Molinism, a false understanding of the scriptures. God in Romans 8:29 is referring to certain people, not decisions and events in historical time." I respond: PART II: In light of these considerations, how can it possibly be affirmed that is God love (1 Jn 4:8), if He creates with the specific intent of destroying that which He creates? This would make Him far less loving than any human mother. Rather, we interpret Romans 9, the outlier scripture, in terms of the multitude of scriptures which refute the doctrine of predestination to damnation, for the word "predestination" is always used in reference to salvation, and never to damnation, in Sacred Writ. St. Paul's purpose in Romans 9 is to show that no human merit attaches to God's offer and effecting of our salvation, but God does indeed expect us to cooperate in our salvation, as Paul says: "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12). If Calvin's erroneous doctrine of eternal assurance were true, why, then, does St. Paul enjoin us to work out our own salvation in fear and trembling? We observe in Romans 11 that Paul introduces the doctrine of free will and human responsibility into the discussion he has been carrying on with respect to our salvation, summing up what he began in respect to the doctrine of election when he states that the Gentiles have been grafted into the tree of life by God, but that He will graft them out again if they continue not in doing good (Rom 11:22). In 1 Peter 1:10 Peter states that we must be diligent in the practice of the virtues in order to 'make (ποιεῖσθαι·) our election (ἐκλογὴν) sure (βεβαίαν)'. Here humans themselves are involved in 'making their election sure', not God only. St. Paul is a dialectical thinker, and dialectics is the art of presenting argumentative contraries and synthesizing them at a higher level of truth. Thus in Romans 9 he begins his dialectical argument with respect to the doctrine of election by stating that no human merit attaches to our salvation, for it is all the grace and choice of God alone - thus quelling human pride - but then he says in Romans 11 that God has grafted the Jews out of the tree of life, and has grafted the Gentiles in, but that if the Gentiles do not persist in holiness, He will graft them out again, and that He will likewise graft the Jews in once again if they should come unto Christ, which witnesses to the fact that at this second stage of his dialectical argument human free will and responsibility has been introduced into Paul's doctrine of election, and thereafter we observe at the end of Romans 11, in the third and final stage of his dialectical argument, that Paul synthesizes the two preceding dialectical contraries or argumentative momenta into a higher unity or let us say into a unified whole, when he declares: "for as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all." [Rom 11:30-32] What, we may ask, is St. Paul's ultimate teaching with respect to the doctrine of election, now that he has led us to the summit of his discussion, having taken us through various affirmations and negations relating to the will of God and the will of the Jews and of the Gentiles? God's election, he tells us, is nothing less than His glorious mercy - for 'He has bound up all (πάντας) in unbelief (i.e. both Jew and Gentile), so that He might have mercy on all (πάντας - again, both Jew and Gentile).' St. Paul does not conclude his discussion with respect to the doctrine of election in Romans Chs 9-11 with an affirmation of God's predetermination to condemn certain men and women unto destruction, as John Calvin would give us to understand, but on the contrary, his symphonic presentation of the doctrine of election reaches its climax with a glorious affirmation on his part that it is the will of God TO HAVE MERCY ON ALL (πάντας)! Now this is a theme that is worthy of the God of love, not Calvin's demonic conception of a God who takes pleasure in the death and destruction of His very own children. Predestination, then, involves the means which God has chosen to effect our salvation, viz., the incarnation of Christ, His saving ministry, His death on the cross for the sins of all mankind, His resurrection victory over death and His ascension to heaven in glory, which we too might participate in (cf. 2 Pet 1:4) if we put on Christ, (Rom 13:13-14), in order that we too might become "joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together" with Him (Rom 8:17). John Calvin took the initial argument (viz., dialectical movement) within St. Paul's tripartite dialectic with regard to the doctrine of election as elaborated in Romans 9-11, and made it the basis of his systematic theology, fashioning a 'God' in his own fallible and delimited image - aridly intellectual, stern, authoritarian, didactic in nature, deeply rigorist and all too lacking in compassion in practice - if his autocratic rule in Geneva gives us any indication with respect to his character. The doctrine of double predestination provided Calvin's theology with an organizing principle which allowed him to construct his system of Christian doctrine with his own cherished features, consisting of a unified directing will, whose function it was to meticulously organize all of the elements within his system in accordance with a preset plan, the finished product of John Calvin's theology representing a system builder's dream. Alas, for Calvin, the idol of God that he had fashioned for himself and for those who followed his teachings happened not only to be fundamentally flawed from the standpoint of Christian doctrine, but in an even more important sense it proved itself to be false both to life and to spirit, and above all else to be false to God's love. END PART II

@HigherInfluence

Жыл бұрын

“God does not predestinate arbitrarily” That is correct, he predestines some for glory and some for wrath according to his sovereign divine decree. He doesn’t decree those for wrath that want to be with him in heaven. Reprobation is a stumbling block for many who can’t deal with the reality of God’s sovereignty. Underlying this is something found in mans fallen nature, he continues to hold onto a belief that he has a complete and autonomous free will. He believes he knows more than God, he can plan and do things that God doesn’t know about but has to learn about and try to incorporate into his plan for us. From Rom 9:21 “from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?” Romans 9:19-24 NKJV You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" [20] But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" [21] Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? [22] What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, [23] and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, [24] even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? There is nothing unjust in the Lord making some vessels of wrath for destruction, as they are already evil (in Adam). The elect receive grace and the non elect receive justice. Let me just add that we will never understand the mind of God completely. As Christians we need to live in faith, humility and gratitude in the understanding that our Lord is a just Lord.

@thomaspalmieri6038

Жыл бұрын

@@HigherInfluence All you are doing is restating Calvin's pathetically weak arguments that he makes in his Institutes, which are easily refuted out of the gospel, and you did not even address any of the scriptures I cited which disprove his satanic theology. On the other hand, I showed you that there are 3 distinct arguments Paul is making in Romans Chs 9-11. Calvin basis his entire doctrine of election on St. Paul's first argument, and dismisses what he has to say about human freedom of will in Ch 11, and God's ultimate purpose of election being that of having mercy upon all, as he states later on in that same chapter. In a court case, the closing argument takes precedence over the opening argument, for the closing argument represents the final conclusion of all that has been set out before. Calvin adopts Paul's opening argument with respect to election - which is set forth to prove that salvation is God's work, and does not rest on human merit - and treats it as if it was his closing argument, which it certainly is not, because he brings in human free will as the middle term to his overall argument in Ch 11, and finally in his closing argument he concludes that the purpose of election is to show that God will have mercy on all, both Jew and Gentile alike. As for Calvin's revolting argument that "there is nothing unjust in the Lord making some vessels of wrath for destruction, as they are already evil (in Adam)", have you not read what the Lord Himself declares: "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. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved." [Jn 3:16-17] Does Christ say in this passage that God loved some of the people in the world and desired to save them, or does He say that God loved all of the people in the world and desired to save them? According to Calvin's heresy, God sent His Son into the world precisely for the purpose of condemning those whom He had previously elected for destruction. These are the arguments of Satan, and not those of Christ. Abandon ye Calvin, and embrace the gospel (good news)!