Amen, the Roman Church does not define what tradition is. Context is around the gospel, we can't infer from that, that somehow Paul was teaching them about the Bodily assumption of Mary. These traditions were later put into written form in the Bible because we have no evidence of traditions that trace back to the apostles that aren't also contained in scripture.

Notice it says word OR epistle. That means what they received by word was the same as what they received by epistle. Paul cleared that up in 1 Corinthians 4:6: -Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other. If your traditions contradict what is written, then what’s written supercedes your tradition. Jesus always appealed to Scripture when the Pharisees were appealing to tradition. Mark 7:6-9 6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips,
 but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me,
 teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” 9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!

@@scottsponaasvery well put brother

@@c-qpo thanks! I just started my faith walk a few years back and I came very close to joining the Eastern Orthodox Church because I knew a lot of people doing it. After hearing all of the arguments for Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestantism, rereading the Bible a few times, and much prayer, it’s clear that Jesus set down the pattern of always going to Scripture. The Holy Spirit is the only qualified interpreter of Scripture. When you start appealing to traditions that aren’t mentioned anywhere in Scripture, you are saying that the Holy Spirit missed something in our instruction manual for faith. When you appeal to church interpretations as your ultimate authority, you’ve elevated human authority above God in your eyes. Big mistake. I think the interaction between Peter and the Council also sets a nice example. Peter said that they needed to obey God and not man (the Council leaders.) Acts 5:26-33 26 Then the captain went along with the officers and proceeded to bring them back without violence (for they were afraid of the people, that they might be stoned). 27 When they had brought them, they stood them before the Council. The high priest questioned them, 28 saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” 29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. 31 He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.”

@@scottsponaas Excellent analysis! The RCC and EO religions are by definition, humanistic. There is a dichotomy between God and man, and we must elevate one as our ultimate authority in truth and salvation. It is very obvious that the RCC and EO religions have chosen man and the actions of man over God. Also, I'd like to add that Acts 17:11 destroys the claims they make to be the originators/cannonizers of written scripture. They use that claim to usurp authority, and smuggle themselves in between the Lord and His elect. But as it turns out the scriptures predate both of their humanistic religions and were present in the days of Paul.

BP,......The Bible does not teach a trinity, it is only the apostate church that teaches this heresy. The Bible teaches that God is seven spirits, not three. This is why the Menorah has seven lamps/lights and not three.

​@@tonybasoni8443 false

@@ibelieveitcauseiseentit9630 ,...I have given you the truth. There is no trinity. That is a 100% false manmade CONcept. Again, the Bible is clear, God is seven spirits and not three. You have been deceived.

@@tonybasoni8443 so god is a seven-Tity ?

@@BrotherInChristDK ,...Yes, the Bible is clear, God is seven and not three as the apostate church has deceived everyone to believe. This is why the Menorah that represents God has seven lamps and not three as I have already stated. Revelation 5:6 "And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth." Revelation 4:5 "And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God." Revelation 3:1 "And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead." Revelation 1:4 "John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;"

You are citing social proof as what backs up your faith

@sweatincowboy4692 You are flying off a tangent The social proof here is "people leaving calvinism in droves" So what?? In arabia in the 8th century people were leaving christianity in droves So what? In europe in the 20th century, people were leaving christianity in droved So what? In the the early 4th century elites were leaving trinitarianism in droves So what? All that is meaningless social proof

If you actually read the early church fathers, you'll find like all history, it's a messy chaotic sea of different ideas, canons, developed doctrines, etc. Both catholics and EO pick and choose their favorite teachers, and pick and choose what they teach to go even further. Protestantism leaves the Christian free to let the early church be the early church. They're a useful resource, but they are not binding on the faith.

​@@KevinSmilewe use a consensus. When the fathers are unanimous on interpretations we know that was the faith that was handed down. Like the real presence, baptismal regeneration, etc. when you intentionally drop these doctrines you left the faith of the apostles.

@@KevinSmile I agree. as Matt Slick always says, "my church father can beat up your church father." They contradicted each other all the time.

U mad

Ha! Right. Seems like Dr White was presenting his own dilemma. Maybe he wants to go further (?).

This is exactly what popped into my mind as well.

How about parfait? Everybody loves parfaits! Lol

😂😂

If you worshiped Jesus as much as you worship that guy, we might start to believe you when you call yourself a Christian.

Do internet orthobros worship Christ or the KZfaq Patriarch Dyer?

Probably bcuz it’s challenging the boundaries of his Faith.

​@@L2A815Because he has to? He is a scholar! He has to teach things he learns. He does apologetics. What else would you expect? He knows an awful lot about Islam and can even speak and read Arabic because of the importance of Arabic to followers of the Islamic religion.

Because exvangelicals are leaving Calvinism for the Orthodox Church, myself included.

@@johnjelinek3983I’m close haha

Because many Evangelicals and reform folks are leaving Protestantism and Calvinism for the Orthodox faith. And so this is James White's preemptive strike, however it's unfortunate that he refuses to actually engage in any meaningful discussion or debate with Eastern Orthodox apologists, probably because it's not his strong suit and he's not a philosopher thus if he was to actually engage with a qualified and learned orthodox theologian he knows that he would be unprepared and thus damage his own reputation and potentially offend and provoke the faith of Protestants within his tradition to encourage them to investigate Orthodoxy for themselves.

Orthodoxy-works

*and Mary, and Icons. You forget those pesky anathemas that bind you to absurd dogmas.

Entirely vague - we don't know from your question which beliefs in particular you claim James White believes to be 'central', to exactly what extent he considers it central or essential (i.e. what 'circle' of the onion is it in), and we don't know which of these beliefs you claim is 'nowhere to be found in the early Church'. I mean, I raise this because you're quite clearly asking a question ('How can Dr White...', etc) but I don't see how you're going to get an answer to a question that nebulous. Unless, of course, it's not an answer you seek - you just want to make a point.

@@Mic1904 of course the "imputed righteousness of Christ" is a central belief in Protestantism. Isn't that the formal cause of Justification as it has been held in Classical Protestantism?. Even Alister McGrath, a top protestant scholar in the history of justification, will say that the reformers view is a "theological novum" that appeared in the Christian tradition in the XVI century. Go and read Iusticia Dei, and you will see the evidence for yourself. In light of that there is no way Dr. White should be talking about orthodoxy, because what he is going to do is cherry pick whatever fits in his theology that arised XVI centuries after Christ and the apostles.

With all do respect, and thank God I’ve had the opportunity to meet and love Eastern Orthodox believers, but I have found this type of argumentation from both young Orthodox and new Catholic professing believers. We can understand completely how the church in America has gone from the Puritans to what we see today and that’s simple the Satanic inversion of the Puritan church. This is not confined to only the Western church but every other institution. Roman Catholics have a Pope that dresses the part but is as opposed to Orthodox Christian theology as you can get. (And by Orthodox I mean it in the literal sense, though Eastern Orthodox will claim it’s one in the same). But what I’ve found is that whenever I have questions I rarely get answers outside of “read the early church fathers…” There seems to be a theme in Eastern Orthodoxy in the West, it’s VERY difficult for a Western thinker to wrap their heads around what a Western Eastern Orthodox Church member believes? They’ll tell Reformed Christians they’re wrong, but I don’t get much beyond church fathers?

The early church fathers are not the fathers of the church.

@@HosannaInExcelsis _cherry pick whatever fits in his theology that arised XVI centuries after Christ and the apostles._ This is the biggest Achilles heel for Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox folks. You simply just parrot popular arguments you heard once. I talked to a Roman Catholic a few days ago, this guy was very well learned about councils and church history but his Bible knowledge never went past Matthew 16 and James 2. That's the sad reality of it, and whereas Protestants tend to suffer from not knowing church history at all, RCC and EOs tend to suffer from not knowing the Bible at all beyond specific proof-texts. The only "new" thing that happened in the 16th century was that for the first time in church history, the common man could read the Scriptures for themselves and they didn't have to rely on a pope telling them how much to pay in indulgences.

Jesus had nothing to do with “Holy Icons”. EOC went completely off the rails a long, long time ago. Aerial Toll Houses? Kiss the icons or you are damned? Scandalous. And at the same time horrifying that people think these lies are Christian beliefs.

Perish the thought! How dare God make a decision without first consulting the will of man!!! /s Also, we are commanded to destroy every lofty argument (including EO dogma) raised up against the wisdom of God... so there's that.

Authority is the Bible. We don't need your fallible church as the authority. James White is very knowledgeable on church history so he doesn't need to attend any liturgy. How about arguing against his presentation.

We need to ask Dr. White why the term "New Covenant" is not found in the 1689 LBCF? It is found in the Bible multiple times. What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below. New Covenant Whole Gospel: Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. 1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Watch the KZfaq videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.

Protestants don't have a 'Pope' or a 'Bishop'. How hard must it be for your papists to view the world in a different way than your normal way of worshipping Mary, pope or your traditions.

@@likeabauss5096 I am Lutheran and I don't care about your Calvinist tears.

@@Catholic_Papalist_Hunter Then don't talk about pope this or bishop that. At least try to understand what you are criticising

@@likeabauss5096 I don't care about your Poop.

SO,....What Calvin laid out as far as mans condition and salvation was 100% correct Biblical doctrine, and Biblical truth.

And? Some eastern orthodox monk did?

@Nathaniel J. Franco Hey brother. I couldn't help but detect pride when you assert that "this is Church history 101." It is Church history 101 that St Anthony was Eastern Orthodox? Would you please cite a source for that claim? Moreover, your post is irrelevant to what was originally being discussed. You're not trying to assert that St Anthony or Athanasius were walking around in Judea with Jesus are you?

@@mkbr1992 Wonderful response.

@Nathaniel J. Franco We know precisely the opposite from history - Calvin was ordained (of which the laying on of hands is a part) amd this was not a point of controversy amongst his (many) opponents. Just stating something as being 'known from history' doesn't actually make it true. 'The moon is made of cheese - we know this from history' isn't actually true.

Hey mate! That depends on what dou you mean by that. Two minds in the sense that there is a human jesus who became deified by God Jesus entering him, then definitively no! But rather God the father created a body for his son to become human. In theology we speak of jesus having two wills. That is because jesus freely chose not to make use of certain godly attributes sometimes and took on a human nature as well. For example we see christ showing a natural human fear of death in the garden. God does not fear death but a human does quite naturally. Thus christ has two wills. A human will and a Godly will. But he's always putting his human will under his Godly one... hope that helped :)

By jesus choosing not to make use of certsin attributes i mean that he sometimes for example did not make use of his omniscience. For example in MT 24 he sais that he does not know when he would return...

this is the issue that Nestorius ran into when trying to understand Christ

maybe not something that needs explanation especially if scripture does not talk about it

@@hondotheology The Church that gave you your Scripture taught it 🤣

You'd have to point out what these "new beliefs" are amigo. Was "The Trinity" a new belief when it was codified in 325? We'd both agree it wasn't.

​@@choicemeatrandy6572how about justification? Alister McGrath has an excellent book on the doctrine of justification in the early church, which clearly demonstrates that the protestant view of justification was not taught prior to the reformers.

@@Donk3y-K0ng Have you read Calvin's institutes?

As if you RCC/EO types know the scriptures. LOL Your humanistic traditions directly contradict what is written.

@@kevinmiller6443 same old ad hominem BS from your crowd. Don’t see an argument tho. Humanist traditions lmao, Protestantism is literally the forerunner to humanism. Our tradition comes from the continuity of Christ and the Apostles. Yours come from turd eaters and French lawyers etc

You didn't listen or did not understand his argument at all.

@@likeabauss5096 he’s inconsistent, sola scriptura is inconsistent. Provide an argument or go cry more

@@kevinmiller6443 how do you know which books make up the scriptures?

Ok...God loves you

Jesus Christ is everyone’s only hope

Dim people who can't read Greek quote this as though it doesn't fully support what white is saying, and condemn papist nonsense. Lol. Do better.

@@sovereigngrace9723 ,.....No, it is not a symbolic number, it is an actual number just as there are seven actual candles/lights on the Menorah. There is no trinity. That is a 100% false manmade CONcept. God is seven and not three. The seven spirits of God sent into all the earth to accomplish Gods will for mankind are,...... 1, God 2, Jesus 3, The Holy Spirit 4, The Bible (the two witnesses) 5, Lucifer 6, Michael 7, Gabriel These are all God/Jesus. These seven are the only non human spirits/entities that have interacted with mankind throughout history. And Lucifer is with 100% certainty God/Jesus. The church has no actual Biblical understanding just as the old testament jews had no actual understanding of God and had everything wrong. The church has followed right in the footsteps of Godless Israel.

weird...

@Nathaniel J. Franco ,.......Yes, exactly. When one looks only to the Bible for what the Bible teaches, they will find the truth. When one looks outside of the Bible and to man for Biblical truth they will go astray. The entire church looks to men for Biblical truth and not to God/the Holy Spirit. They look to the apostate church fathers that were no different than the Pharisees and Sadducees. Anytime you see a preacher/teacher with a bookcase full of books behind him you know he is astray and does not understand the Bible. If he did there would only be a Bible behind him in his library. My entire library consists of one book.

"...The Bible clearly teaches, and the actual Christians know God is seven spirits and not three....The entire church looks to men for Biblical truth and not to God/the Holy Spirit." Is it a typo or oversight given you referred to God as Holy *Spirit* when it should be Holy *Spirits* ?

@@daome2012 ,.....I am not sure what you are referring to? We are taught the truth of Gods word by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is one of the seven spirits of God as I have explained. 1 John 2:27 "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." Those few who Jesus has made spiritually alive are anointed with the Holy Spirit, and this is who teaches us. The people of the church do not have the anointing of the Holy Spirit they only think they do. These many are not taught by the Holy Spirit; they are taught by the men of the church who were taught by the men of the church just like them that came before them. This is why they believe in all kinds of false teaching and perversions of scripture such as the trinity.