Transcription
Preference is given to people who disagree. Got to unmute, bro.
>> Yep.
>> Are you a break?
>> Hey, what's up? How you doing?
>> Not not bad. I think I just found your stuff, so this is all new to me.
>> Okay. Are you a disagreeer, man?
>> Uh, depends on the subject. Uh, short answer being uh coming from the American side of sort of the reformed movement. That's where I stand. But I don't know if I from my travels can say that it's the same everywhere I go. Even in the United States, what you consider like reformed Baptist in the Midwest is like Presbyterian in the Southeast or Southwest.
>> Okay. So, so you're saying reformed Calvinist?
>> Closer to Yeah.
>> Uhhuh. Yeah. anyone who anyone who engages in the subject like we know that there's you've got your five points of Calvinism and it's like well the the label only goes so far. So
>> the label of Calvinism because you're a Baptist you mean?
>> Yeah. Like which which part of it? Because I think it's almost like it's got so many subsects now. But it would be let's talk about just theology. It'd be uh preference of sovereignty of God over the free will of man. Recognizing the tension of the two.
>> But you said you're coming from a what? Greek Orthodox position.
>> Well, I'm Orthodox, but I don't attend a Greek church. So, there's a lot of Orthodox churches that are not just Greek.
>> In fact, the majority Orthodox are not Greek, but yes, I'm I'm I I attend a Russian Orthodox church.
>> Russian Orthodox Church. Nice. So, I mean, they're they're definitely not common in the areas that I've lived. Where is the point of difference between an American version of a Russian Orthodox church as opposed to other options?
>> Well, I mean, differences are typically going to be uh like linguistic or kind of local traditions in terms of culture. uh theologically speaking sometimes there's a difference of emphasis but we all possess the same nino constant creed and we all believe the same the same 8/9 ecumenical councils so um if you're saying differences between orthodox churches the differences usually relate to uh if there's ever a schism or something like that most of the time it's something jurisdictional sometimes it's theological um but I mean the canonical orthodox church is all of the professing Orthodox churches that are in communion uh and follow the same canon law and the same uh patriarchal structure. So that's the Orthodox church that I'm talking about. Russian just happens to be a jurisdiction within that. But in terms of what you're talking about, um I'm curious if you want to get into the specifics of disagreements like because I I had a time where I was a Calvinist uh Baptist or reformed Baptist I guess you could say and I went to reformed Baptist church for maybe maybe a year. Uh, and that's when I moved into uh, covenant theology and Presbyterianism back in about 200 about the year 90 1998 20ou 99. So I was already a Calvinist by 2000. So 989 is when I was getting into James White and reading a lot of bapt reformed Baptist stuff, the reformed baptist confession and Spurgeon and all those guys. Um, so have you ever looked into the history of the formation of the biblical cannon?
>> Yeah. Uh, my degrees are in theology and philosophy.
>> Oh, okay. Excellent. Well, you sound like the perfect dude to talk to.
>> I enjoy it.
>> Yeah. So, um, so why should we accept the Protestant cannon of scripture?
>> Why should we accept the Protestant canon of scripture?
>> Yeah. Not the Orthodox cannon. Where's the difference between the two?
>> Well, I mean the Protestant church typically follows the Maseretic text. So, there's some differences in that minutia, but we also have the duteronical text.
>> Okay. So is there would it would it be worth saying that there is the core cannon and then there's the additional cannon like the difference between what what how does that have any play on something like solos scriptor or um authority of the gospels like do you see the addition the what you consider the additional I would consider the additional ones the additional canon to be just as authoritative as the protestant canon. Is that the argument?
>> Well, I would say if you look at the Petristic tradition, um they do try to prove doctrines from citing the duderonical text all the time. So, I would say uh they're useful for doctrine as well, but in the Orthodox view, they don't have the same emphasis and premacy that the gospels do. So in the Orthodox church for example in the liturgy itself there's a primance a preeminence that's given to the gospels even over Paul's epistles but we don't have a false dialectic to say that oh because there's a primacy given to the gospels that therefore ma means that Paul's epistles are uh facious or erroneous or something like that. Even Paul within his letters says that this I say of my own opinion and not of the Holy Spirit. So even at times in Paul's opinion, he says that not every every jot and tit is of the same level of importance. And so I don't have a problem saying that the deuteronical texts are less important than something like the gospels, but that doesn't mean that they're not going to be useful, for example, in proving doctrines like praying for the dead. So that's one issue of the doer canon itself. But the other issue is what is the epistemic principle that you have to know which is the right list of books. And how do you have that without the historic church that chose that
>> the Okay. So I'm I'm just putting this all together. It's been uh a while since we've had a conversation on this layer, so I'm enjoying it.
>> Right. Well, I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but you said you're philosophy you said you're a philosophy student, philosophy major guy. So,
>> what's the epistemic principle by which Protestants determine the true canon of scripture without reference to the historical church?
>> Would reference to the historical church be considered a negative or a positive? Well, I would say for you it's uh probably going to be a negative because the people that put the canon of scripture together don't believe anything of what you believe.
>> That might be a little bit broad. That that would have to be a little bit broad because saying that we don't believe any of the same things. You'd have to be more specific on that. Well, let's say let's say the classical reformation teaching for example that people that deny uh grace alone, faith alone, solos scriptura uh uh you know solid those people do not teach the gospel. So that would mean that all the people that put the canon of scripture together did not teach the gospel.
>> What do they teach then? I mean I I don't I don't see the difference because they're
>> they teach they teach the or they teach they teach Eastern Orthodox theology. I mean, you know, we can go read these people, right?
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, very fair.
>> I just don't know if I agree with your premise because the
>> Well, the premise was a question. How how could you disagree with the premise? It was a question or the premise that you don't believe what they believe. Which premise? So if the early if the early church fathers and the people who wrote or even even the um [clears throat] what we consider just even the reformed New Testament or the Protestant New Testament wrote what they wrote [clears throat] all took place before you had Catholic Orthodox Reformed and so on and so forth. So
>> well hold on. So the recording of the text is not the same thing as you knowing which which books go into the Bible. That's two different things.
>> So I would agree with I would agree with you that the apostles were inspired to write down the autographa, right? [clears throat] But that's a different that's a different issue. That's a different issue from you knowing what the specific apostolic authored texts were because you don't have a time machine to do that. You have to trust in the testimony of the bishops that handed those texts down for many centuries and that produced the canon of scripture in about the seventh century I think. [clears throat]
>> How is that any different than an orthodox position? Because we both receive the same texts.
>> Well, we receive it from a historic church. That's my point is that you can't divorce the canon of scripture from a historic body that preserved it and made the normative decision as to what books go into that book.
>> Yes, agreed. You cannot divorce the
>> Bible that we have now from people carrying it on through time.
>> Right. So what do you think the people who preserved and transmitted that text in the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh centuries believed? Give me give me give me a touch point where I can start on like about what salvation about was are we talking about like the last are we talking
>> Yeah. Did they believe in apostolic succession?
>> Oo.
>> Have you have you read for example the cannons of Nika?
>> Not for a long long long time. Only elements of it. So that's a good point.
>> But you did read the cannons of Nika.
>> Only sections.
>> Okay. What do you think were in the cannons of Nika?
>> Wouldn't be able to tell you anymore. This is a problem. Well, I'm not talking about the creed of Nika. I'm talking about the cannons.
>> Are we still talking about like um because then the creed had to do with the divinity and identity of Christ?
>> Well, that's part of what the creed dealt with.
>> Mhm. But then it also had to do with heresy and some of the other issues that they were dealing with.
>> Yeah. And it and the cannons, which I have up on the screen, deal with the sacrifice of the Eucharist. They deal with the apostolic succession. They deal with the episcopate. They deal with baptismal regeneration. They deal with the uh hierarchical clergy. They deal with excommunication. They deal with viaticum or giving the eucharist to those who are on their deathbed. Uh I mean none of this is reformed baptist. No, because you you wouldn't be able to make the argument that's reformed Baptist because what you call reformed Baptist didn't come around for quite a few centuries later.
>> Okay. So, so the church what was it in a blackout? I thought ma Jesus said in Matthew 16 that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the church. Where was the church in these centuries?
>> It was still with the people.
>> What people? These people are orthodox.
>> Is calling them orthodox in contemporary language a little disingenuous? Uh, no. If I'm literally showing you all of the things that they believe that we believe. Let me read you canon 18 of Nika. It has come to the knowledge of this great sinod that in some districts and cities deacons administer the Eucharist to the presitters whereas no canon or custom permits this. They should not give the body of Christ to them that do offer. Also, it has been made though that certain deacons touch the Eucharist before the bishop touches them. Is that sound like a reformed Baptist church to you?
>> No, not at all. because it has to do it has more to do with tradition and ritual than it does to do with theology and belief.
>> So tradition and ritual and not theology and belief. You don't think that liturgy is part of theology and belief.
>> It is. But I think that I think we're still dealing with the practices of man versus what is true.
>> Interesting. So where did the church get its worship service in the first and second century since you want to talk about ritual? It's worship service.
>> Yeah. I mean, you're saying that rituals don't matter. So, wouldn't God have told us a proper way to worship?
>> Uh, don't don't uh Oh, sorry. On that one, don't say that. I don't think ritual is important. I'm saying that ritual it's there.
>> Well, you're saying these are bad rituals. And I'm saying that where does the church in the first and second century derive its pattern of worship from? What's the proper way to do a church service? And how do we know that? Does the New Testament have a service?
>> No, we know this.
>> Oh, but the apostles established worship. So, is it Have you considered that maybe the worship services themselves are something that are not in the scriptures that are uh apostolically established?
>> They still be if they're apostolically established, they're still partially established by the dictates of man. You think that the apostles didn't teach authoritatively only what they wrote? Because Paul says, "All the things that I taught in Ephesus for three years to Timothy, you pass those things on." [clears throat]
>> So you just told me no, you only passed on. They only they were only authoritative in the written. to this day [clears throat] we can we is I think you're talking about authoritative and I'm thinking
>> well you're just begging the question because I'm telling you that the apostles established liturgies and so we worship the same way that they laid down that worship you know we can go read how in the first and second centuries the bishops of that time wrote about the worship of the church right Irenaeus
>> Ignatius
>> Cyprien
>> okay and they describe the same type of worship that we do in the orthodox church, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
>> And so in that argument and so in that argument, you're saying that the the Orthodox Church is the only church that follows that authoritative doctrine.
>> Absolutely.
>> Ah, so that's what and and what is that what does that have in relation to salvific principles or salvation?
>> Well, the Orthodox Church is the one true church and your church is, as you just admitted, a recent invention. Well, more recent. If you're going to call it an invention, maybe that's a stretch, but I can understand the point.
>> Well, now wait a minute. Do you have continuity with the church that I'm talking about?
>> Yes. Yes, we do.
>> No, you don't. What Orthodox bishops ordained any reformed Baptist elder?
>> That wouldn't make that doesn't necessarily mean it's the same thing.
>> Still like the the
>> Well, you began this but you began You began this discussion by talking about how many different divisions and splits there were in the world of of reformed Baptists and Calvinists.
>> Yes. But that that argument can be applied to all of Christianity.
>> No, it can't. That's my point. Because Jesus said that the body of Christ would be like his body, indivisible. There's one Lord, one faith, one baptism. As the nice creed says, one holy Catholic apostolic church.
>> One holy Catholic apostolic. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So your argument, so the argument that you're making is that there is only one true church and that is the
>> part of the ar argument I'm making. Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> How many bodies did Jesus have
>> as a physical body? The one,
>> right? And the church is the extension of that incarnation of his physical body.
>> Yes.
>> So there can't be two, three, 50,000 churches.
>> Do you believe in the knowetic effects of sin? I believe there are noetic effects of sin, but I don't believe what you think about the noetic effects of sin because in your view, even after regeneration, the noetic effects of sin are still in effect. And so it should be precluding you from making any normative or dogmatic statements. That's why the reformed confessions all say that nobody can bind another person to their interpretation. Right? Freedom of worship, freedom of conscience. So then are you are we talking just about a difference in aesthetic because you have more
>> No, I mean I literally right I'm not being rude to you. I'm just literally just said that heterodoxy versus orthodoxy inside the church outside the church. So no, it's not a matter of aesthetics.
>> Okay. So then is it beyond [clears throat] is it beyond reproach to say that the Orthodox Church views only people within or you your position within the Orthodox church only sees people within your or within the Orthodox Church to be Christians at all and everyone else is on some form of heresy.
>> Correct.
>> Where's the line between No. Correct. Where's the line between Christianity and heresy?
>> The Orthodox Church.
>> Well, so a it's membership to a human body. Jesus's church is a philanthropic institution. It's not a human institution. And that's precisely what your heresy is. In the New Testament, Paul in many places says that the church is the body of Christ. And you're saying it's a human institution. So you right there just kind of gave the game away.
>> It that's a good call. Give me a second here. That's a good call. The point the problem though is that I don't know where you draw the line of who is inside and who is outside the church. Well, I mean, again, [clears throat] there's either you're either Orthodox or you're not. So, are you in communion with the Orthodox Church or are you in communion with a recently invented group?
>> What does it take to be considered truly Orthodox?
>> Well, I mean, it's not just being a member. Obviously, you also have to live it and believe it and, you know, participate in the sacramental life of the church. So, I'm not saying you can just notionally think it, oh, I think that I'm Orthodox. No, it's actually like joining the the visible group known as the Orthodox Church. This is a
>> which Orthodox church is the right one?
>> The one I just explained to you, the public canonical Orthodox church that exists throughout the entire world. It's the second largest Christian communion, so-called Christian communion in the world.
>> And how many V or how many different Orthodox churches make that same claim? Like it's cuz this is the point that I'm understand it's this fundamental misunderstanding of what orthodox theology and ecclesiology is. Different jurisdictions doesn't mean different churches, man.
>> You understand that the guy that Paul was talking to in Ephesus, Timothy, that there's still an Orthodox church in Ephesus today that descends that descends from Timothy.
>> And you're from father to father to father.
>> That's apostolic succession. Correct.
>> Mhm. That's Timothy's the Paul's letters to Timothy. I laid hands on you, Timothy. You lay hands on men after you because the giving of the Holy Spirit is transferred. And he says, don't lay hands on men light-heartedly. make sure that they're good men who can pass on the entire deposit that I committed to you which as he says in Acts was three years day and night teaching not just written because he didn't he as far as we know there's only two written letters to Timothy and yet he tells Timothy to pass on the entire deposit of what he taught for three years straight. Mhm. [clears throat] So the I think where the the issue is going on here. I think where I'm going to I draw the line on this one is that I don't know if I would want to place I don't think I don't think you can place salvation within man's institutions. Even though we're
>> you keep calling it a man man's institution. I'm telling you that Jesus said in John that the Holy Spirit would be given to the church. I mean, don't you think Pentecost was significant
>> that he says the comforter will lead you and guide you into all truth? And you're telling me that at some point apparently the Holy Spirit left the visible historical church and then it had to be restored by whatever sectarian person you follow. Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. The church is the kingdom. It's a visible society set up by the apostles in history. And so what you want is a church or a group divorced from that historical institution. It is not a man's institution. It's a divine institution. That's the point.
>> Well, saying that I want it might be a little disingenuous. Let's start there because this
>> Well, I'm saying but if you if you when I say you want it,
>> I'm I'm coming into understanding more and more about the orthodox. Okay, fair enough. It hasn't been prevalent. Well, what I meant by you want it, what I meant by you want it is not to impugn bad motives, but to say that your defense of the reformed Baptist position would mean that's what I meant by you want you want you want to defend the reformed Baptist position and that's what I meant.
>> Okay. So then is calling it reformed Baptist itself causing it to become heretical? It's the lack of uh connection and communion with the church in history and the heterodox beliefs that make it not a true church, not the name itself.
>> Yeah, we could go with the heterodox beliefs for sure.
>> The connection to people um the connection but you just keep you just keep patriarchal lying.
>> You just keep re you just keep assuming that there is no apostolic succession. And I've given you two points already that the Bible itself was put together by these people. And that's why Paul says to Timothy that the church is the pillar and ground of truth. He doesn't say that the written texts are the pillar and ground of truth. And he tells Timothy to pass on this inheritance, this deposit by the laying on of hands. That's a historical continuity succession. You remember the Old Testament?
>> There's a laying on of hands and the giving of the Holy Spirit. Moses, Joshua,
>> there is. Yep. There's the father. Yep. I'm familiar.
>> Okay. So, the apostles are modeling that same structure for the spiritual Israel and laying on hands not on the basis of biological descent, but to induct men into the Melkisedcian priesthood because Jesus's priesthood is a continuing presbuterate, which is the Melkisedcian one. Allah, Hebrews 7. So then what is it? So then what is left for those people who exist in the world? I mean I know I know half the answer to this one. What is it left for those people who exist in the world who have not had connection to or communication with an Orthodox church or their their understand they're the Orthodox churches or people who claim to be Orthodox um are even [clears throat] stretching between you know like
>> hey by the way um I don't mean
>> I don't I I think the point the problem is the world is big how do we deal with that because I think there's a solution to be had Hold on. You have to request to speak. So, I'm not This woman says I'm muting her. You have to request to speak. I'm not muting you. And also, by the way, people are saying in the chat for Christian Wagner, if you want to come on, they're saying that it does now work on PC. So, um, [clears throat] uh, spaces didn't used to work, uh, on
>> computer.
>> Yeah, that's what people are saying. But [clears throat] yeah, so I mean the question of uh, what happens to people who don't know about Christ, we we leave that to God. That's not we don't know that.
>> So you know God's going to deal with them in the way that God deals with them. But there is re the doctrine of recapitulation which means that all men do by the virtue the universal nature that Christ assumed have a connection to Christ. But um we're not told about their ultimate destiny. Um but we know that it's our it's our duty to tell people to repent and come to the church. You can't you can't divorce christologology from ecclesiology is my point. That's why the church can't be a purely human institution.
>> Oh, no. I agree. [clears throat] I agree there. It can't be a purely human institution. The different the then the argument being how much of the Orthodox church is human and how much of it is of God. But
>> fair I mean it's a good argument. I I do appreciate it to be clear when I where my experiences within theology are much more focused on orthodoxy as opposed to like bloodlines or patriarchal follows. But then you're also looking at like I'm sure you're you know you you know exactly what I'm talking about because you came from some of the more reformed area and you went into um an orthodox. I think I would like to hear how that happened and why you chose it.
>> Well, I mean I've got I've got videos on I've got videos [clears throat] on that so you could go um you know watch those longer videos where I kind of break that down. So I won't I won't restate that whole story but uh you know I had I had a long time where I spent in both Calvinism and the Roman Catholic Church. Uh and so to make a long story short uh the church fathers the formation of the canon reading all the Eastern uh church fathers and and seeing which lined up with scripture ultimately was the kind of final decider for me on that topic.
>> So then yeah no that that makes sense. It's a it's a useful thing to discuss, especially as far as um as we as Christians grow out of that fourth grade version of faith into something a little bit more solid and meaningful. We have to look at history as a whole.
>> Uh well, yeah, let's we're going to give somebody else uh I'm not going to be rude to you or I'm not being mean, but uh
>> I appreciate it, man. I I I really enjoyed this one. So,
>> yeah. Well, hop hop back on. You're welcome to uh chat anytime or bring any other issues or questions.