I met Perry a few weeks ago. Heard his backstory about him becoming Orthodox…incredible man and was truly authentic when I spoke with him even for just a little bit. God Bless him ☦️

@TheTransfiguredLife

8 ай бұрын

He's an amazing man and a straight-shooter in the positive sense! ☦️

God is my witness that just a few days ago, I was praying for such a video with our esteemed brother, Perry!

@TheTransfiguredLife

8 ай бұрын

That's awesome!! How timely! ☦️☦️☦️

Perry is great, its also insightful getting an orthodox take into Anglicanism

@saint-jiub

8 ай бұрын

He's an OG. ☦️

@stevebarns9106

4 ай бұрын

Where can I get his take on Anglicanism. I attend an ACNA church but grew up Baptist.

@doubtingthomas9117

28 күн бұрын

@@stevebarns9106 he discussed it in the video. (I’m a fellow Anglican in the ACNA that also grew up baptist)

This is some good content. Looking into apostolic succession is one of the things leaning me towards Orthodoxy.

@TheTransfiguredLife

8 ай бұрын

Amen! It's such a strong case for the Ancient Faith! ☦️

@unknown-zy6dp

5 ай бұрын

I’d be careful… I was doing the same but the deeper I dig the more worried I get. You can see how messy and fallible the churches were with the apostles present And can see how many of the main extravagant churches strayed over 100 years later by not reading carefully what the apostles set as our foundation on big issues. They tried to figure out why they were silent on children when they are actually clear Children are sinless and baptism is for the forgiveness of sins and we are told belief is a prerequisite by every apostle. Why would god send a sinless baby to hell just because it was not baptized it has no control over that. You can see all through scripture Peter set beleivers baptism for the forgiveness of sins and nowhere ever is there any mentioning of infant baptism till 100 years later as well as many other distorted things. The apostles set the foundation and warned us wolves and vipers would come in and distort. Non of the apostles underlings stating anything to do w orthodoxy except a few. We are told to trust the apostles and have no record of apostolic succession. We can see that anonias and saphara were in direct communion with the apostles and were still able to lie and commit a sin so heinous god struck them dead They set in the foundation that children are blameless so they don’t need their sims they don’t have washed against their will.

Perry is the real deal. His "kind" of apologetics helps the Orthodox faith - truly.

@nikstrt

Ай бұрын

He freaking smokes the protestants . What a gem this man !

One thing I like to point out about St. Ignatius' letters is that St. Polycarp strongly endorses them in his extant letter, such that he copied them or had them copied in order to convey to the Philippians: "The Epistles of Ignatius written by him to us, and all the rest [of his Epistles] which we have by us, we have sent to you, as you requested. They are subjoined to this Epistle, and by them you may be greatly profited; for they treat of faith and patience, and all things that tend to edification in our Lord." (chp. 13 of Polycarp to the Philippians) So St. Polycarp is our guarantor of the orthodoxy of St. Ignatius' letters.

@hagereemedia

4 ай бұрын

But he didn't call himself a bishop but put himself equal wirh the episcopals. The bishop is not distinct from the presbyter in the New Testament. How do you see that?

@cyprianperkins

4 ай бұрын

​@@hagereemedia, don't be fooled by the change in terminology. The earliest church had a local two-fold ministry (collegiate bishops/presbyters and deacons), under the supervision of itinerant apostles. The apostles eventually began to establish a local three-fold ministry (monarchical bishop and presbyters and deacons), after which the term bishop begins to be withdrawn from the presbyters (just as the term apostle began to be withdrawn from any other than the 12 + St. Paul, although Sts. Timothy, Silas, and others were earlier called apostles). There is an abundant amount of independent evidence confirming this picture. Even St. Jerome, whom advocates of the two-fold ministry heavily rely on, tells us that the apostles established the three-fold ministry. St. Polycarp did not put himself on the level of the presbyters, he just said that they were with him. But monarchical bishops do sometimes in the literature refer to their "co-presbyters", I suppose for the purpose of solidarity or self-humbling. And a monarchical bishop is still a presbyter also (just as indeed the apostles were presbyters).

Wow you got the main man himself

@TheTransfiguredLife

8 ай бұрын

It's only right! ☦️🔥🔥

Wow, what a wonderful talk! Please bring Perry Robinson back many more times!❤ I'd love to hear him talk about the theme: "the Christology of Feminism", which he wrote on his blog Energetic Procession(2008).

@TheTransfiguredLife

8 ай бұрын

Thanks and yes we have a few more coming from Perry in the next few weeks. As for his article on "The Christology of Feminism", I'll look into it. We have an Orthodox sister who wrote a book on Feminism coming on The Transfigured Life sometime in November.

@user-zx1sm8bg3c

8 ай бұрын

​@@TheTransfiguredLife I'm very looking forward to your upcoming programs! 😊 Thank you for your effort.

@TheTransfiguredLife

8 ай бұрын

@@user-zx1sm8bg3c Thanks for noticing and you're welcome family! ☦🤍

Excellent content. Can't wait for part 2

Wonderful talk, it's fascinating and educational. Thank you! 🙏❤☦

@TheTransfiguredLife

8 ай бұрын

Thanks Nikki! ☦️💙🙏

This session is 🔥🔥🔥

@TheTransfiguredLife

8 ай бұрын

Thanks! ☦🔥🔥

Thank you for a very educational approach to theology and why we can't just accept all of the "worldly religions."

@TheTransfiguredLife

7 ай бұрын

Amen! Well said! ☦️

@unknown-zy6dp

5 ай бұрын

I’d be careful… the deeper I dig the more worried I get. The inspired scripture is a magic sifter that can sift through man made teachings I’d use it for that and test everything against scripture. You can see how messy and fallible the churches were with the apostles present And can see how many of the main extravagant churches strayed over 100 years later by not reading carefully what the apostles set as our foundation on big issues. They tried to figure out why they were silent on children when they are actually clear Children are sinless and baptism is for the forgiveness of sins and we are told belief is a prerequisite by every apostle. Why would god send a sinless baby to hell just because it was not baptized it has no control over that. You can see all through scripture Peter set beleivers baptism for the forgiveness of sins and nowhere ever is there any mentioning of infant baptism till 100 years later as well as many other distorted things. The apostles set the foundation and warned us wolves and vipers would come in and distort. Non of the apostles underlings stating anything to do w orthodoxy except a few things (belief repentance beleivers baptism and lords supper communion. )That’s all we need We are told to trust the apostles and have no record of apostolic succession. We can see that anonias and saphara were in direct communion with the apostles and were still able to lie and commit a sin so heinous god struck them dead They set in the foundation that children are blameless so they don’t need their sims they don’t have washed against their will.

This was explained so clearly and was easy to understand. This will be my go to video to share about this topic. Can't wait for part 2! Thanks for all you do!

25:00 I think it’s St Titus in Crete, St Timothy in Ephesus :)

@TheTransfiguredLife

8 ай бұрын

Thanks, good catch :)

Been missing Perry, glad to see and hear from him!

That "oof" sound effect at 18:45 sent me! Its the little things sometimes :)

🔥

You need to interview him on Universalism

I love the intro music. Is it clipped from a larger musical arrangement or just that short clip?

@TheTransfiguredLife

7 ай бұрын

Thanks! Just that short clip.

What is the fourth century ordination by presbyters that was roundly condemned, that he referred at around 1:04:07? Is this the case of Aerius that St. Epiphanius reports on in the Panarion, or something else? Thanks.

23:18 😂good one!

@TheTransfiguredLife

4 ай бұрын

Haha 😅

56:41 WhiteHeart flatly condemned by Perry 😢

Apostolic succession can be found in (1 Tim 4, 14-16)

@redbird9000

2 ай бұрын

❤ This is a long study I’ve done but it will help to explain why the Petrine theory built on *Matthew 16:18* is a heresy. Heresies disqualify us from entering heaven. *Galatians 5:20* 💙 ------------------ 882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." ------------------ Problem: Episcopal continuity was never authorized or commanded by Christ and it is not necessary. ------------------ - Looking at the words in the prior catechism, there’s a clear claim to supreme power over the entire church by the supposed Pontiff. Let’s look at ****Acts 1:23-26**** for reference as Peter is assumed by the RCC to be the first pope. In this passage, the apostles are seeking the Lord for a replacement for Judas. ****Acts 1:23-26**** 23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. ------------------ - ****Acts 1:23-26**** The pontification theory that the pope has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole church isn’t reflective here. The scriptures show that Peter exercised no supreme power to choose a replacement for Judas. In fact, they all prayed together and sought the Lord. ------------------ Eamon Duffy, an Irish Catholic historian, said, “There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament,” and “from all indications, there was no single bishop of Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the apostles”. -------------------- • ⁠If Christ was forming a papacy through Peter, there would be other scriptures to cross-reference the RCC theory of Pontification. Peter would have had to check with Paul and give him instructions under his popish authority. Instead, Ananias went to see Paul and Paul received his sight. ****Acts 9:10-19**** -------------------- • ⁠****In Galatians 2:11-21**** we can see Paul putting Peter in check for treating the Gentiles differently based upon their state of circumcision and Peter’s fear of criticism. This doesn’t look like infallibility. -------------------- • ⁠If ****Matthew 16:18**** was Peter’s proclamation of pontification, that leaves a huge issue. One of the biggest problems here is that if Peter is the rock, then the scripture wouldn’t say that Christ is the rock. That’s a contradiction. We can’t build our faith on contradictions. The Rock is spiritual, not earthly. -------------------- • The scriptures actually show no differences in the apostles. ****Equality amongst the apostles**** ****Ephesians 2:20**** “Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. ****Revelation 21:14**** “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” • According to the prophet John, he saw that Peter was no different than the others. We can see here in ****Revelations 21:14**** that Peter was still an apostle, not a pope. John saw a vision of the New Jerusalem, so if Peter was a pope, John would have said I indeed saw the city walls as such that there were 11 layers for the apostles and 1 for Peter the supreme pope. -------------------- - The Rock of the church is spiritual, not physical. There is only one Rock. ****1 Corinthians 10:4**** and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. ------------------ ****TWO DIRECTIONS**** ( 1 ) ****Matthew 16:18**** The Catholic Church uses this scripture to support their papacy theory, claims that tradition holds that Peter is the first pope, the rock, and that this scripture is proclaiming the formation of the Papacy. ( 2 ) ****1 Corinthians 3:11**** / ****1 Corinthians 10:4**** In both the Old & New Testament, the word of God says that Christ is the rock. Christ is the Rock for the wise builder. Christ is the Rock of Ages. Christ is the Rock that was cut out from the mountain. ------------------ • ⁠I’m choosing to go with the Word of God, not the dogmas and traditions of men. There is no evidence that Peter ever even went to Rome. So, I can agree with the Catholic historian Eamon Duffy that there’s nothing approaching papal authority in the New Testament. ------------------ Christ is the Rock, Peter is a stone, and we are all stones being built in a spiritual house. ****1 Peter 2:4-8**** ------------------ ****NOTE:**** - The scriptures tell us over and over to watch out for false prophets, false doctrine, and not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirit to see whether it is from God. We are supposed to verify what we are being taught. ****Acts 17:11**** ------------------ ****Conclusion**** - In conclusion, ****Acts 1:23-26**** illustrates no supreme papal powers and repudiates any theories of apostolic succession. No supreme power = false theory of papacy. What crushes this theory is that the scriptures don’t show Peter’s supremacy. What’s more, God himself chose Matthias. The apostles didn’t choose him as a successor. God chose Matthias as a replacement. Apostolic succession is also a heresy.❤

@JacobsLadderToTruth

Ай бұрын

@@redbird9000idk if you know this but this is an orthodox channel, not a Roman Catholic channel. And apostolic succession ≠ papal supremacy or the Roman Catholic Petrine theory as you put it. You didn’t address anything the video or the original comment talks about

Can you talk about the canons of Nicea 2 that condemns all to hell who use unleavened bread and all those who don’t bow down and kiss the icons? Also can you comment on the decree of dositheus that states not everyone should read the scriptures?

@TheMhouk2

8 ай бұрын

First off, anathemas aren't condemnations to hell, so much as being cast outside the church. St Paul does this in Corinthians - calling it "giving someone over to Satan". You should understand or do a study in Orthodox Canon Law, and understand the spirit in which they're written to be interpreted before assuming the mode in which they're to be applied and understood. Unleavened bread is a form of Judaizing which is why it carries a strong penalty, as the leaven used in the bread is linked to the resurrection/new covenant, and is the bread used in the New Testament (the greek word is associated with leavened bread, not unleavened). In passover, unleavened bread and bitter herbs are eaten to remember slavery and death passing over egypt, bar the israelites, contrasted with the joy of the resurrection, it is improper to use unleavened bread. Anathemas against those who don't venerate icons of Christ and his saints, are similar to the anathemas in Nicea I - it separates and excludes on purpose to draw a line in the sand, as, icon veneration is linked deeply affirming in the incarnation in the flesh and was an ancient practice. Dositheus states that its not good for everyone - but learned, discipline and wise people, this is because the scriptures aren't plain, and, can be damaging to those who read them without discipline, wisdom and humility. It's not a conspiracy against the common man ripped out of some Chic Tract.

@davidthenewtheologian7757

8 ай бұрын

@@TheMhouk2 you want me to send you the screenshots that say the anathemas are to where the worm never dies and the unquenchable fire?

@davidthenewtheologian7757

8 ай бұрын

@@TheMhouk2 show us in the apostles or ante nicene fathers veneration of icons ?

@nicodemuseam

8 ай бұрын

​​@@davidthenewtheologian7757 It's unfortunate that people waffle on the anathemas, but, yes, I would say that outside the Orthodox Church your odds of being saved are probably nil. The salvific grace of God is in the Mysteries of the Church, the first of which is Holy Baptism. As far as the veneration of Icons, I think St. John of Damascus mounts a cogent defense; You might well disagree. I think its clear that the veneration of Icons and the veneration of Saints and their relics go together. Icons and relics are physical means by which we can venerate the person represented thereby. You ever do a cold sell of the Gospel to an atheist? It's how i feel like talking to incredulous Protestants about icons. Both East and West accepted Nicea II, so there are, I think, two possible conclusions; Either the Holy Spirit guided the Church to uproot heresy like it did in the other Ecumenical Councils, Or, The Church as a whole apostatized. The second conclusion supports the ecclesiology of the Reformers, but then there are a whole lot of other problems with that can of worms, the least of which, God abandoned His Church.

@TheMhouk2

8 ай бұрын

@@davidthenewtheologian7757 the argumentation is covered on Kabane's channel

You need to have a healthy debate with a good Protestant scholar. That would benefit us all. The Protestant scholars don’t trash Iraneaus but have good arguments against your interpretations. I accept several of your good points. If Irenaeus believed in Roman Catholic doctrines why did he say so precious little about it in his hundreds of pages of writings? He didn’t shrink back from talking about some kind of centrality of the Roman church. That one single sentence you refer to doesn’t even say anything about the papacy or a supernatural transmission of apostolic authority and power. We all believe there was a succession of leaders, but was it a natural one like presidents of America or did it have a supernatural dimension? Leaders from every province were force to go to Rome for political & commercial reasons, and therefore it made practical sense to also bring Christian testimonies to Rome for collection, recording, and preservation. There were other centers of gathering history and scripture as Irenaeus seemed to mentioned. If Irenaeus meant to say that all churches were subject to the dictates of the bishop of Rome, &/or that Roman bishops alone had superior apostolic authority & power, he would have said it clearly. But he and other early scholars didn’t say that. There is confusion over the term “bishop.” New Testament meaning of the Greek word “episkope, episkopos” is used widely. The definition and meaning in context is: one watches over and cares for others (overseer), elder, preacher, bishop, minister, presbyter, and supervisor. It was later that “bishop” was used to mean a minister who had responsibility over several churches in a region. Layers of authority were added/invented as time went by. Each of the 6+ words were used by different churches to mean different roles.

@TheTransfiguredLife

5 ай бұрын

We're not Roman Catholics. This is an Orthodox case.

@unknown-zy6dp

5 ай бұрын

@@TheTransfiguredLifehis argument still applies to orthodoxy I’m gunna stick w the apostles I see no evidence or mention of infant baptism till more than 100 years after the apostles. Amd can see through scripture how messed up confused and fallible the churches were getting rapidly even with the apostles present with us. Non of the underlings of the apostles stated anything near orthodoxies extra ordinances and views it in fact contradicts the foundation laid. I believe primitive Christian’s continued outside of the hi jacked major churches who took all the confused churches under their wing

@unknown-zy6dp

5 ай бұрын

@@TheTransfiguredLife his argument still applies to orthodoxy I’m gunna stick w the apostles I see no evidence or mention of infant baptism till more than 100 years after the apostles. We’re taught belief is a prerequisite and it’s for the forgiveness of sins. Out of the whole town of Samaria no infants were baptized. Babies have no sin so why cleanse them of sims they don’t have against there will. It just doesn’t hold up Amd can see through scripture how messed up confused and fallible the churches were getting rapidly even with the apostles present with us. Non of the underlings of the apostles stated anything near orthodoxies extra ordinances and views it in fact contradicts the foundation laid. I believe primitive Christian’s continued outside of the hi jacked major churches who took all the confused churches under their wing

@unknown-zy6dp

5 ай бұрын

@@TheTransfiguredLife​​⁠ his argument still applies to orthodoxy I’m gunna stick w the apostles I see no evidence or mention of infant baptism till more than 100 years after the apostles. We’re taught belief is a prerequisite and it’s for the forgiveness of sins. Out of the whole town of Samaria no infants were baptized. Babies have no sin so why cleanse them of sims they don’t have against there will. It’s just silly Amd can see through scripture how messed up confused and fallible the churches were getting rapidly even with the apostles present with us. Non of the underlings of the apostles stated anything near orthodoxies extra ordinances and views it in fact contradicts the foundation laid. I believe primitive Christian’s continued outside of the hi jacked major churches who took all the confused churches under their wing

@amagnant3736

4 ай бұрын

Catholics didn’t start being called Roman Catholic or calling ourselves till the Anglicans started using the word Catholic probably in 1500s

One huge thing that Perry was very misleading about in this video, I assume unintentionally: The ACNA does NOT allow ordination of female bishops, only priests. He made it seem like the ACNA claim to Apostolic Succession is completely null and void due to pollution by women, but that only works if you think a single priest can somehow invalidate the ministry of every bishop in the Church.

@TheTransfiguredLife

7 ай бұрын

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm not sure Perry restricted his comments merely to the ACNA but yes it's true the ACNA has made a statement regarding women bishops. Would you consider the ACNA to be the true visible Church and other diocese/forms of Anglicanism that have women bishops to be heretical?

@KevinDay

7 ай бұрын

@@TheTransfiguredLife Right, he didn't explicitly say the ACNA had female bishops, just didn't clarify that. I am personally uncertain at the moment as to whether I would agree that it is an issue that marks a true church from a heretical one, but I certainly consider it a serious error. Not that my opinion matters to God who will judge anyway. And I do consider GAFCON to be a better representation of global Anglicanism than the CoE at this point. So yes, I consider the ACNA to be part of the visible Church, as I do the Eastern Orthodox as well. I think Christ's church is too resilient to have disappeared from either the East or the West in 1054 just because humans couldn't resolve their theological or political arguments.

Hello I had to pause the video at 20 minutes because the man said "the New Testament knows nothing of people claiming to be ministers" Because it sure looks to me as though some random person was claiming to be a minister. This is why I can't trust eastern orthodoxy, they either don't know the Bible very well or they are dishonest. Change my mind? Can anyone explain this event away from Mark 9? Mark chapter 9 verses 38-41 38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” 39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward. One more thing let us not forget how important Jesus made it clear that we are brethren. Call no man rabbi, teacher, father, leader. We have 1 Father and he is in Heaven we have 1 leader the Christ. I can't imagine how anyone will explain these away. Although I have heard the weak attempt to overcome the "father" thing. There is no way to explain away the occurrence in Mark 9 which I pasted. That is a stranger an outsider, claiming to be a minister and Jesus approves.

@TheTransfiguredLife

5 ай бұрын

We address that same question you asked in our Apostolic Succession series.

@br.m

5 ай бұрын

@@TheTransfiguredLife Yeah but nothing the people say is true or convincing. Sir, these people throw a dart at a wall and draw a bullseye around it. I'm cursed to be a little like Sherlock Holmes. Though I am not articulate as Sherlock, I see right through the flimsy lies the EO use to prop up their pagan cult. Sorry. That's just what it is. It's a business to them same as Rome. You should get out of the EO it's doctrines of demons. They say words, they answer nothing. 1 Timothy 4 is warning me against them, even that they restrict marriage and food. Yes, I am aware they will vomit out some lies to try to explain away 1 Timothy 4 but it is just lies and vomit. Trust me leave the cult. Bye

@unknown-zy6dp

5 ай бұрын

Agreed the deeper I dig the more worried I get. The inspired scripture is a magic sifter that can sift through man made teachings I’d use it for that and test everything against scripture. You can see how messy and fallible the churches were with the apostles present And can see how many of the main extravagant churches strayed over 100 years later by not reading carefully what the apostles set as our foundation on big issues. They tried to figure out why they were silent on children when they are actually clear Children are sinless and baptism is for the forgiveness of sins and we are told belief is a prerequisite by every apostle. Why would god send a sinless baby to hell just because it was not baptized it has no control over that. You can see all through scripture Peter set beleivers baptism for the forgiveness of sins and nowhere ever is there any mentioning of infant baptism till 100 years later as well as many other distorted things. The apostles set the foundation and warned us wolves and vipers would come in and distort. Non of the apostles underlings stating anything to do w orthodoxy except a few things (belief repentance beleivers baptism and lords supper communion. )That’s all we need We are told to trust the apostles and have no record of apostolic succession. We can see that anonias and saphara were in direct communion with the apostles and were still able to lie and commit a sin so heinous god struck them dead They set in the foundation that children are blameless so they don’t need their sims they don’t have washed against their will.

@br.m

5 ай бұрын

@@unknown-zy6dp Admirable effort. One huge problem with your argument. That is I am living proof that infant baptism is valid and is endorsed by the Spirit. This, friend, is where you need to get very careful, very fast. Lest you commit the unforgivable sin and blaspheme the Spirit. The same Spirit who has come over me and blessed me, even me who is baptized as an infant. You are wrong about Peter and the New Testament, there is NOTHING even remotely close to suggesting, nor implying that infants are not to be baptized. There is, however, evidence to suggest you should NOT stop the little ones from coming to Jesus. Friend I need not argue with you because on the topic of baptism of children I know. I only waste my time this way that you people might repent of your sin. I was baptized as a child and if you think that is invalid then you may blaspheme the Holy Spirit and commit the unforgivable sin. I pray you understand me now, friend. This is not a game for you to lose at I assure you. Good luck.

@unknown-zy6dp

5 ай бұрын

@@br.m doesn’t have to be an argument. Can be a friendly discussion or debate for the truth I don’t enjoy arguing. I’m told to test every spirit against the apostles teachings and the Bible. I also am not judging your claim. I don’t put god in a box. The gentiles received the spirit before baptism and in a different mode then what we are given for the normative I’m not gunna judge your walk. The only criteria we are given and allowed to judge if someone is in Christ is through their fruit (I don’t know you from Adam) and sifting what they state through the apostles teachings and the holy scriptures. So think I’m good on that front but thank you for your concern. And yes I can prove that the apostles set believers baptism for the forgiveness of sins as the foundational practice w scripture. And can explain with scripture that infant baptism contradicts the apostles with a lot of verses as well. Although granted the circumsision argument would be a really good one if it didn’t contradict the apostles foundational teachings on baptism, You can only compare circumsicion to baptism in the ways the apostles did. You can’t compare requirements that contradict the apostles requirements for baptism and build a contradicting theology off it such as the church fathers did without sifting their interpretations through the apostles and scripture and trying to fill in what they thought were blanks with their own interpretations. You make a lot of claims I don’t see proof of from the apostles and it in fact directly contradicts them so I challenge you………. I bet you can’t provide a single valid hint or proof of infant baptism being practiced by the apostles that I wouldn’t be able to unravel completely with scripture. Let’s go for it! Let’s put our theologies to the fire of the holy scriptures and be open to truth! I’m definitely down! And my church believes as well that Jesus accepts children…. Where we differ is you think he only accepts the baptized ones when they have no control over whether they are or not and that is just unsettling to me.

Gunna watch with an open mind but imo there is no sound reasoning for it. You can see how messy and fallible the churches were with the apostles present And can see how many of the main extravagant churches strayed over 100 years later by reading what the apostles set as our foundation. You can see all through scripture Peter set beleivers baptism for the forgiveness of sins and nowhere ever is there any mentioning of infant baptism till 100 years later They set in the foundation that children are blameless so they don’t need their sims they don’t have washed against their will.

@johnnyd2383

3 ай бұрын

Do you know that in those days no NT books existed.?

@unknown-zy6dp

3 ай бұрын

@@johnnyd2383 180 AD: Irenaeus: "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles." They were called writings but still there your point?

@johnnyd2383

3 ай бұрын

@@unknown-zy6dp "...at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures..." I was referring to the days when NT books were not written. St. Irenaeus' writing is late 2nd century.

@unknown-zy6dp

3 ай бұрын

@@johnnyd2383 late? It said 180 sir cope all u want I obliterated your point and if it was handed down to him it means it was earlier than 180

@johnnyd2383

3 ай бұрын

@@unknown-zy6dp Apostles wrote NT books not before year 48 AD. To Galatians was the first one. Latest was Revelation written around year 90 AD. Lord's Church was created at the year 33 AD. So for 15 years Church had not even have a single NT book. If we know that in those times production of the books was difficult and slow, imagine how slowly parishes were getting books once they were written. They were all copied by hand on an expensive material, in a form of scrolls. All in all, Church did not have any NT books for at least 15 years.

Just open your Bible and read what the apostles wrote. There is your apostolic succession. Need to stop leaning on fallible sources.

@carlykamps411

4 ай бұрын

The problem is, just “reading what the apostles wrote” has lead to literally thousands of different denominations. Everyone has their own interpretation of what the apostles meant to communicate. If it’s between modern day churches or even medieval, I will choose the one that dates back to the apostles as a place to search for the proper interpretation.

@soteriology400

4 ай бұрын

@@carlykamps411 I don't think anywhere in the bible, it states to lean on others interpretation. We are to check the scriptures. This is where hermeneutics really helps. Very few know how to use hermeneutics to understand authors intent. If you are interested, I have a video on hermeneutics in my channel. With this, I am the first person to solve when several prophecies occurred. Hermeneutics is key.

@carlykamps411

4 ай бұрын

@@soteriology400 I was tracking with your comment until you said you’re the first person to solve a prophecy. There has been no new large-scale prophecy since the apostles. The Bible talks about the faith “once delivered for all.” It was delivered once. God did not wait centuries to slowly reveal His truth. He provided us with His church. Read the earliest works, including St. Basil, Tertullian, Justin Martyr. Those people and Tulsa of commentaries from the first- third centuries will have a better understanding of what the Bible says than one person living in the 21st century.

@soteriology400

4 ай бұрын

@@carlykamps411 I didn't say I solved a prophecy, I stated I solved when it occurred. Doesn't even apply to what you said about no new large scale prophecy since the apostles. I am going by the scriptures, and what is written, as well as history to verify etc. Doesn't even apply to what you stated about waiting centuries to reveal a truth. The earliest works you mentioned, they did not say one word about when and where the gathering of the house of Israel occurred. That is what I solved, and was referring too when I mentioned I solved when they occurred. This video might help clear up the confusion. kzread.info/dash/bejne/gIqsrpOpc8Wch7g.html

@johnnyd2383

3 ай бұрын

@@soteriology400 (Acts 8) 30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?”