God bless!

May God bless you and those you love✝️

Reconsider. wait until his dialogue with Trent Horn. It’d be interesting to hear your thoughts

@@basedzealot3680 I had the discussion already. It'll be posted soon. It was a good discussion. none of us changed our minds but we gained better clarity of each others' views

@@basedzealot3680 then who is the real church? EO or RC? Both of you say the same thing. Dont you guys hear yourselves when outsiders hear it or you just listen to your own echo chambers?

Eastern Orthodox Sacraments are valid but illicit

On Catholics taking orthodox communion: It is generally considered illicit by being a schismatic act *unless* a church in communion with Rome is unavailable, like getting exiled to Russia as an example. Catholics do not have a blank check to go to orthodox churches.

im confused. so Oriental orthodox and catholics can take communion together but easterns cant?

@@Yulas-yu5ucEastern Orthodox is allowed by the Catholic Church to take Communion in a Catholic Church, but Eastern Orthodox do not allow an Orthodox to take Communion in a Catholic Church nor a Catholic to take Communion in an Eastern Orthodox Church.

@@Yulas-yu5uc- the Catholic church allows both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox to receive Catholic communion, but the Orthodox generally don't return the favor.

You guys are the reason I had to say “usually”

LMAO@@redeemedzoomer6053

As the old song goes, "If you believe in the Real Presence, We'll call you cannibals, But then get mad when you won't commune us!"

@@NotAGoodUsername360 Who cares what we teach about the sacraments?

@@redeemedzoomer6053 Why are u getting hate bregaded

I love kyle but he is too pridefull

@@BasiliscBazalong with jay dyer

Lol

no...

​@@BasiliscBazExactly my criticism

How dare he

I guess just misrepresent what Catholics believe

He means the brand name isn't "Infallible"

Kinda 😭

No, it's Cheerios.

Well yes, hes making a highly contentious claim that Protestantism is correct when he himself is not an expert, considering he even made a couple of objective mistakes that are just untrue (such as at 1:57) so of course people can argue with him.

Lol. Protestantism is a bunch of “experts” reinventing Christianity after it has already existed for 1500 years. You really think real Christians give two craps about anything Protestants have to say.

​@@mdw546"Couple of objective mistakes" - only gives one "mistake" and even that one is disputable since the only exception to It is that the Roman Catholic Church allows Orthodox to have communion with them (but EO don't) but only in extraordinary/emergency circumstances and even that is disputable by some Catholics.

@@pedroguimaraes6094another error in the video is saying that historically all Protestant churches don't believe in one denomination being the one true church, Lutherans historically did claim to be the one true church, the LCMS continues to do it to this day

@@applegaming2345 No it does not. Lutheranism traditionally affirms the priesthood of all believers rather than claims of being the "one true church" in a hierarchical or exclusive sense. This is not their traditional believe. Whastmore, although affirming "close communion", the LCMS does not affirm exclusivism in being the "one true church" and they have a list of sister churches.

I thought the main thing the holy spirit does is sign and seal us for the day of redemption Hes our second nature per say

this is exactly what i was thinking, christ said the holy spirt would descend onto the church and claimed it would not go astray, that debased the entire argument

@@yuunoaboi21 Another major function, but when Christ introduces the disciples to the Holy Spirit in John 16, this is what He says: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into the fullness of truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you."

@@bradyhayes7911 It's *absolutely* true what 2 Thessalonians 2:15 said, but we must recognize tradition for what it is; tradition. Also, I'm not certain the Bible and the teachings of the first Apostles (written in the New Testament of the Bible) can be called sacred tradition, I think calling it "tradition" devalues it, _even if_ one calls it sacred tradition. I recognize the preservative value of tradition, but ultimately, it's most important to preserve the Bible itself and our faith in Jesus. No hard feelings, God bless.

Protestants do believe the Church is the pillar of truth but there is absolutely no promisse of infallibility for the Church in the Bible and almost the entire NT is a proof that the church, even while being personally visited and instructed by the Apostles, could go ashtray.

Yet you excommunicated others and created your new religion

@@sus527so, catholics excomunicated others, and then excominicated themselves from the church ! Waouw, you are great !

@@adelbertleblanc1846 They excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, and with him all of the EO congregation. They also excommunicated Martin Luther, and with him most of Germany. Seems like painting yourself into a corner, but that's your choice if you want to make it.

@@Procopius464 Ok You won and I loose ! good job ! Have a nice day !

@@Procopius464 And, if I may, please notice that : RCC has NOT excomunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. You invented that. That is the Patriarch of Constantinople that went OUT of Holy Catholic Churc, because he decided so to do. Please also notice the Pope did NOT excomunicated "Germany" . You invented that. the truth is that some Germans princes decides to get out the Holy Catholic Church and to follow the dochtrines of Martin Luther. But you are TRUE when You say the Pope excomunicated Martin Luther. Yes indeed, you are true the Pope excomunicated Martin Luther !

Wow, for me it's the same causes. If you have some time, i will talk about my history My protestant friends showed me Jesus, and after i reconized Him as my Lord, they showed the protestant doctrine. So I was "protestant" but I never claimed it because I wanted to know what I was saying, or what "to be protestant" mean. After some months researching, and with all of this doctrine confusion(its more than 500 years of discussion), I found the writings of Saint Ignatius of Antioch(diciple of St. Peter) and Saint Justin Martyr about the Eucharist. The protestant doctrine didn't make a lot of sense to me, and I was trying to understand it, until i found out the truth of Eucharist, than the Catholic doctrine and its authority made a lot more sense to me. But I still try to understand protestants so we can have a better conversation, without stereotypes, because if we can achieve unity again, it is through this real dialogue. (Im not that good at english, i hope you could understand 😅)

If you’re interested in hearing what I believe to be defeaters of transubstantiation, they are the following: 1: There are 7 places in the Old Testament that expressly ban the consumption of blood. The most explicit verse being Leviticus 7:27, “Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people”(ESV). The Douay-Rheims Bible translates that verse as, “Everyone that eateth blood, shall perish from among the people”. This is a command and part of the law from God. God commands us to abstain from consuming blood under penalty of death. If Jesus really did make the wine “become” his blood, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in paragraph 1411 in reference to what validly ordained priests do, then this would be a case of Christ encouraging his followers to break the law of God. Also, it would mean that Christ broke the law as well since he ate the last supper with his disciples. (Luke 22; 7-12). In verse 11, Christ tells Peter and John to “Tell the owner of the house, “the teacher asks you, “Where is the guest room where I can eat the Passover with my disciples?”’’ This would mean that Jesus was not a perfect sacrifice as he had committed sin. However, we know that he did not do that because 2: AFTER his resurrection we have several verses that indicate that the Apostles did not believe that they had consumed blood at the last supper. Act 15; 20, “but instead we should write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from eating anything that has been strangled, and from blood.” Earlier, we read in Acts 10, that Peter had a vision of animals that were formerly forbidden by the dietary laws. When commanded to kill and eat, Peter said, No, Lord! For I have never eaten anything impure and ritually unclean.” This would mean that Peter did not believe that he had consumed blood because if he had, then he could not make the statement he did. Then, all together, the Apostles agree that the command to abstain from blood would continue to be binding on all believers. How can it be both binding to abstain from blood while at the same time, the consumption of blood be the “heart and summit of the church’s life….”(CCC 1407)? The only thing I can think of is that there is no substantive change of the wine into blood. Instead, there is a real reception in our spirits of the blood of Christ in a manner that our spiritual thirst is satisfied by his blood and atoning death when we drink the wine. I hope you find this interesting and that it helps you in some way. 🙂

I'm sorry but "along the way it became lost" is a major heresy. The Church is infallible and CANNOT defect. Please repent of your heresy and read the Catechism.

"Do this in remembrance of me." I see it as symbolic. It represents his body and blood. Much like how the Passover (and other celebrations the Israelites had) serves as a reminder for the judgments and Exodus from Egypt, so communion serves as a reminder of Christ's sacrifice.

@@TheOtherPhilip Thank you for your response. I always enjoy hearing other's perspectives. Everything you said would likely be correct except that the use of "substantive" change is not being applied correctly. This is an extremely common misunderstanding. There is a difference between the accidents and the substance of a thing. In mass, the accidents of the bread and wine do not change - this means they remain gluten, wheat, grape, sugar, alcohol etc But the substance changes - meaning what the thing actually IS changes Normally, all the ingredients in wine make what we call wine - but in Mass the substance becomes Jesus's literal blood, while appearing as the ingredients of wine. I encourage you to look more into what I am trying to explain in case I am not doing it well. If Peter were indeed consuming the accidents of flesh & blood, skins cells, blood cells, proteins, platelets, etc, etc, that would be cannibalism, and your points would make sense. Thanks friend

I was raised Missionary Baptist, wound up Catholic and then Eastern Orthodox. The purity of Baptist Churches still move me. RZ is a positive influence in Protestant circles.

@@uverpro3598God bless you brother and your journey to Orthodoxy🙏✝️ May the lord save us for we are wicked sinners✝️❤️

I do not agree with his posit that Baptist is restorationist...

@@uverpro3598 Same here. As a former one, I can confidently say that Missionary Baptists are absolutely clueless on theology.

@@anthonyprose4965 ​ @anthonyprose4965 I don't believe that Baptists think the church died out. I'm sure some Baptists think it did, but I don't know any that do.

Me too but I don't believe in God..

Restorationalists aren't protestants and many exist as a response to Protestantism and are known as the sixth branch of Christianity

I very much disagree with Baptists being in the restorationist camp! Baptists were in protest of rome since the beginning and were not created as a product of the reformation.

@@anthonyprose4965 Except Baptists are radical reformers who broke away from church history to interpret the Bible _their_ way.

@@anthonyprose4965 Zero historical basis for that. False claim.

@@ihiohoh2708 Are you kidding me? Maybe according a catholic or presbyterian that has no knowledge of anabaptist and baptist history. You are calling my belief false as if it doesn't exist. I'm here, therefore it does. Church history is not reformed history.

💯

Ein feste burg ist unser Gott

Can confirm. I smiled and started humming.

@@Swaggless I just knew it was inevitable, haha!

IT IS OCTOBER 31ST UND I HAVE GOT SOME THINGS TO SAYYY

I also want to know where he found that they don't claim to be the one true church. The only thing I found regarding the Church of the East and claiming the one true church was the wikipedia article on "One, True Church", which just quickly says that the Assyrian Chuch of the East and the Ancient Church of the Each believe they are the one, true church

He also puts Baptists in the Restorationist category, but I've never heard any Baptist claim the church died out. At most they say that biblical Christianity became a minority that survived in remote locations where the Catholic Church couldn't enforce its doctrine against them. I'm guessing he's referring to the sort who object to being called Protestant because they reject the idea that the Catholic Church ever was a legitimate body. The "Constantine founded the Catholics" types.

Source? Not a "gotcha" - I'm genuinely curious for a source on that claim.

Commenting to get a notification if he replies

Every Assyrian I knows claims that they are the one true Church and that they alone have the correct Christology. They even deny that Nestorian reformed groups are valid. And, I love how we are just making up new words now. Ecclesiaists? All of the Apostolic Churches are categories unto themselves.

literally?

@@merial9not literally, actually.

Yes, because there is only one Catholic sect

Seriously Bro... I thought of the same thing, it's like some whenever there's a disagreement. SPLIT

@@basedzealot3680 But it has 8 main line protestant churches.

fr

Correct many territories were Lutheran because of the nobility

The Reformation literally only survived because heathen HRE (which wasn't H, or R, or an E) governors were interested in weakening the Church in their favor, and naturally decided to protect an heretic just like them, who was neither the first nor the last in all of (true) Church history.

That might've been the point honestly. I've heard the "peer pressure from dead _____" argument used against Protestantism quite a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if this was meant to make fun of those kinds of arguments.

Ok real talk do all RC and EO people that watch RZ are like this? literally have 0 sense of when he's making a joke or not in the video cus this happens all the time

@@user-tb5sq6jm2y Help me out

Because the Arians' beliefs contradict scripture. The anathematization was only a declaration pointing out this fact.

@@haydnenthusiast That’s ridiculous. That’s like saying the Trinity is true because the Bible says so. Yes, it is, and yes, it does, but that Bible is interpreted by the reader. If someone really wants to read Calvinism onto the text, for example, they can and they will. Then they’ll just say “Calvinism is biblical.” Same thing. If anathemas are just saying a belief contradicts Scripture, the Calvinists today would have to anathematize the men in the councils and of the first 1500 years of Church history for the very canons at the councils they like to inconsistently quote from when convenient and then turn around and argue against believers today for having the same opinions the people they’re quoting have because the Calvinists believe it contradicts Scripture. All data, including Scripture, needs to be interpreted. There’s not some magical perspicuity that prevents people even the well-intentioned from falling into heresies. Vaguely saying “it contradicts Scripture” is begging the question because that’s exactly what the councils met to decide-who is interpreting Scripture correctly and who is not. It needed to be interpreted at the council, so you can’t just say they anathematized them because they were more biblical. Otherwise, what do you do when you get to the Great Schism? Just go with the “biblical” one? According to what, your own reading of the text?

@@user-tb5sq6jm2y Help me out

@@user-tb5sq6jm2y Which part?

Nothing said by a man or any Council of man is infallible. The church has an infallible means of making decisions you might have heard it referred to as the word of God or the Bible perhaps

If councils were infallible, why they needed to be corrected by newer councils? That is something that even saint Augustine said in the 4th century. We have the word of God to guide the church through the ages. What happens if the church contradicts the bible? See, as a catholic you can not even entertain that possibility.

@@umnovomundo3738 Local vs ecumenical councils.

This is why it's dangerous to give status to tradition. Only Scripture is infallible, and it contains all we need to practice our faith

Christ the Kings “Al Habayit” is the only person on earth that can speak infallibly on earth. So says Jesus Christ “If they hear you they hear me, if they reject you they reject me and the one who sent me.”

Bros gonna flip

Noone Cares. God Blessed

Hes gonna "debunk" it

Let lil bro do whatever.

Least obvious RZ glazer

God doesn't "need" to do anything

@@TemperedMedia fair point I’ll rephrase

The reason Adam and Eve sent to this world is they didn't obey. After we disobey, we are saved. You are right.

You could also say they didn’t have enough Faith in God. Without Satan they wouldnt even have eaten the apple in the first place. Without the temper there is no tempting. Without Faith there is no works to begin with. which is exactly what paul stresses in romans. We are saved by Grace through faith and Faith alone. James affirms this. “Without works our (“faith”) is dead” they coincide so imo neither or are wrong but it is really evident that God does save then justifies us making us better in Christ. I was in love with sin before i came to know Jesus and his sacrifice✝️❤️ Glory to God and may he bless you and all those reading this.

⁠@@xHollow.Paul never said we are saved by faith alone. The only time the term “faith alone” is used in the Bible is in James 2:24. Paul would say “show me your faith without works, and I will show my faith through my works”

- guy who clearly hasn’t watched the video

It'd be pretty weird to stay in his church if he didn't think it was the most correct one, wouldn't it?

The basic Common Sense required to assume that someone thinks their church that they personally attend is the correct church seems to elude you

Why this un-godly division? When did he imply that "his particular sect of Protestantism Ala the tradition of Johnny C is correct"? @@captainfordo1 It seems to be that way...

I'm not sure where you're drawing this conclusion from. The bible itself makes it clear that individual churches are fallible and easily corruptible.

Are you really saying that pre-Incarnational Judaism was no better than other religions? What? The Holy Spirit hasn't kept the Church from splitting (even if you think only one of the remaining parts is the true one), it is not inconcievable that the HS does not provide absolute protection of Ecclesial corruption. If the Old Testament Israel is a prototype of the Church, there is certainly a reason to think the purity of the Church is not a given, but something that needs to be fought for and sometimes renewed.

Also misses what Jesus said. He upheld thier teaching and instructed the crowd to obey.

Huh. My comment mysteriously disappear for anyone else?

@@TemperedMedia I only have comments of mine disappear when I bring up certain topics and people. I didn't see what you originally said.

Thats because they do fall under pressure from Dead Byzantine emperors and Orthobros. Also for the fact of how (i will admit) aesthetically pleasing on how much The EO idolize their churches. I will throw in the fact they do kinda have the best looking bishops as well. thats more or less besides the point. When he mentioned the Assyrian Church he did not claim they are better then EO. He made a tier list clearing putting EO above them because the Assyrian Church are near heretical. *Even while trying to be “Nice” you still end up insulting him over your misinterpreted screwed perception of what RZ was trying to say.* “Your videos are nothing more then Superficial ads of your personal beliefs.” The fact you say that but continue watching him for information is insane. - Lol imagine if someone said that EO is led by Jezebel and is a failed recreation of Graceo Buddhism repackaged as Christianity, You would lose your mind over someone saying that. Absolutely shameful to make such a ridiculous CONTRADICTING claim. He bases his theology and history and reformed theology that is also based on the word of God. Reformed protestantism is the catholic church reformed by the word of God

@@xHollow. 1. I didn’t say that he was claiming that the Assyrian Church was better. I was pointing out the fact that he’s using a “near heretical” to support his view of ecclesiology. This seems a little weird, saying essentially “I may not agree with them on all of these things but I’ll use their argument against this group. 2. I wasn’t trying to be nice, I was trying to be honest. I do enjoy RZ’s videos. I will continue to watch them because he has a firm grasp on different Protestant denominations. I like to be informed and I like when my presuppositions are challenged. 3. My opinion is not in contradiction. I think that he gives the barebones, face value perception of churches outside of reformed traditions. So I will continue to watch his videos on reformed theology… because he knows his stuff in those areas. 4. I said when it comes to his “interdenominational videos” they are superficial ads for his own beliefs. He clearly props up beliefs closely related to his own, which is understandable but it’s not what I’m here for. I was raised reformed Presbyterian so I’m by and large looking for unbiased takes on other interpretations and traditions. 5. I have no idea where the whole Jezebel thing came from but it wouldn’t really upset me. I’m not EO, have never been in an EO parish, have never spoken to an EO priest, I’ve never attended a Divine Liturgy. I’ve been searching for the truth and I have been reading/watching content about EO theology. 6. I was saddened because I’ve found a wealth of understanding and theology in the EO tradition. Enough that it has lead me to consider them seriously. 7. I could have handled this comment better. I didn’t mean to insinuate that ALL of his videos are ads for his beliefs. I also should’ve stated that I’m kind of outside the argument between denominations. Like I mentioned before, though I’ve studied a TON of theology, I was raised Presbyterian but haven’t been to church in many years. So after an experience with God that shook me, I have been trying to find the truth between the different traditions (which is why I clicked the video) and get back to church.

@@xHollow. Also the word “superficial” may not be the best word. “Impromptu” might have been a better choice. I don’t think he necessarily planned to prop up his own beliefs but it turns out that way.

Amen, brother!

Since Calvinists also hold to real presence, may I ask, why?

@@ihiohoh2708 They don't believe in physical presence, but merely say it's spiritual, which is very wrong.

they dont have an authority, its just made up.

“Sola scriptura”, but only the parts Martin Luther likes I guess 🤷‍♂️

He literally made a video about this yesterday... 💀

@@thegmanislegit why not include that explanation here? Kinda makes sense doesn't it?

@@thegmanislegit also I don't watch every video that comes out

Infallibility means that the person is protected from error. It's not from man, it's from God.

Similarly to how Moses was not infallible, the apostles aren't either. Again, this is gonna be a very long discussion on the canon of Bible, epistemic uncertainty, our fallible knowledge, and the infallibility of the word of God.

You are correct about the origins of the Baptist faith. They came about from the first great awakening not Anabaptists. Useful charts does a great video on that with his Christian denominations family tree

@@applegaming2345 While the Baptists arose to major prominence in the First Great Awakening, there are at least a handful of notable Baptist confessions predating that event by decades. Baptist originated in the 17th century, not the early-mid-18th century. Indeed, the earliest Baptist congregation in the USA dates to 1638; a century before the Great Awakening! Further, best I can tell from modern sources: using the Smyth-Helwys thesis, Baptists seem to be the result of an ecclesiastical one-night-stand between a few expat English Dissenters and some Dutch Anabaptists who met in Amsterdam around 1607-1608; the English DIssenters returned having fashioned a brand-new-sect. So there evidently WAS a direct influence from the Anabaptists, but it wasn't a splinter group so much as they strongly imprinted on some impressionable Dissenters, who took some of their ideas and ran with it.

RZ is so smart about everything except Baptists. His level of expertise on most church history is top tier, but whenever he talks about Baptists you'd get a better answer from a boiled egg baloney casserole.

Well good luck convincing Presbyterians of believers baptism from the scripture alone, or as RZ says “sola apostolica”

@@JacobsLadderToTruth funny because Presbyterians can't claim apostolic succession either

I think he’s actually Russian Orthodox, since he prominently features Russian liturgy and architecture whenever he discusses the good about Orthodoxy. The Russians are currently in schism with Constantinople, so it’d be more like Kirill ordering Kyle to make the series. Idk if this is for sure tho, he’s never confirmed it to my knowledge.

Patriarch Cyril Lucris' confession is pretty based, no Prot has the courage to read it 🔥

@@christophecrist2171 It's still the same thing the schism is more of a political thing between clergy. Kyle can still take communion from a Greek church if he wanted to.

@@friedchickenlover7291 It’s difficult to say. My local Greek church lost a huge chunk of its members that identified as Russian Orthodox back in 2018, they’ve rented out a room of an episcopalian church and have a Russian priest visit every now and again to celebrate the liturgy. It’s been a sad situation all around

@@christophecrist2171 Thats crazy and saddening. Ive been going to a Russian church near my university and a greek church near my house and haven't had any problems. I even asked about the schism and they told me to just worry about my own salvation.

that combined with Imperialist Christianity being a thing does make quite a compelling case

@@redeemedzoomer6053 The Catholic Church was never a state Church. The pope is not subject to emperors.

Yeah I noticed that too, it totally doesn’t follow

AC of the East is technically protestant, then.

Its good for starting out but you really shouldn't stick to his content for understanding theology

@@applegaming2345 midwit take. there's nothing wrong with RZ's content. Stop trying to overcomplicate the scriptures; the gospel is written in a way for children to understand.

I go to a church of Christ college. Pretty much no member of the church of Christ believes this here. There are some that do, my parents grew up in churches that thought that way. But they are a tiny minority as far as I can tell. Like all Protestants, church of Christ believes that they are members of the one true invisible church, but not that they are the entirety of that church. In fact, one of the most famous church of Christ sayings directly contradicts your claim, “we are Christians only, but not the only Christians”.

@@rok4028 thanks for that insight.. I’ve heard that saying but thought the ones that say it were the minority. May I ask where your college is geographically?

@@Seekingchristdaily southern u.s.

*A strawman of protestantism Fixed.

@@Mic1904 ☝🤓 unless its stated verbatim it is not being implied or meant.

@@Chromebreaks Nope, no idea what avenue you're going down now, but enjoy!

@@Mic1904 pointing out when protestants claim we know what the bible says, that statement is presupposing you even have the complete bible and you are interpreting what is means correctly. Not a strawman.

Praying to saints is wrong. No evidence for apostolic succession either. There is only one mediator between God and heaven.

Are you roman catholic?

The Pope is infallible as long as he speaks truth, if his words goes against the Church and the Bible then he is not infallible.

My comment is being censored but the Pope is infallible as long as he speaks truth, as soon as his words go against the church and the Bible he is not infallible.

This is a modern version of the infallibility of the pope, forced by Protestant dialog over the centuries. If that was the church position in the time of Luther we would not have the reformation, because if the pope is infallible only when he does not contradict the scripture, guess what pall, this is Sola Scriptura. That is why it is a waste of time debating Catholics, you think you can change the past because your infallible church now chanced position, and it was all a misunderstanding, and you now have to project this new position to the past because your church can not err, why would we change views if we can not err right?

Denmark, checkmayte bottom text 😎

That's why correlation doesn't always equal causation. Also funny that the countries he mentioned score higher in antidepressant use and susceptibility to atheism, with "HDI big" being a frequent atheist argument, and "literacy big" being a typical pro-USSR argument too.

@@lain7758 so basically we can both agree that atheism has actually caused Germany to struggle

@@Caligulashorse1453 yes, and it all started with the Reformation

@@lain7758 and why did the reformation happen? why did the pope make indulgences a thing? Either way, obvious dude with a female cartoon profile picture -- opinion discarded LOL

Yes we believe that, the apostles have infallible authority, in their time sola scriptura was not possible, but, time goes on and all of then died, so now, their written testimony (i.e. the NT) is our infallible authority, as it is the OT with the prophets, so, Sola Scriptura is the recognition of the true infallible authority of the prophets and apostles, but only then. So I don't even know why you are surprised

@@umnovomundo3738so ONLY the Apostles were infallible, not their successors or their disciples? Why not?

​@@famtomerc many reasons, but I sense you are committing the same error all Catholics do, you read fallible as "will always err, and never get nothing right" we are just saying that the Apostles can not err on what they wrote, but some priests or pope later times can in rare accusations err, but in the course of 1500 years, rare cases have accumulated and reformation was needed, the something applies to us, the Church needs a second reformation against the Communism that have infiltrated all branches of Christianity, I live in Brazil, and the Catholic Church here (because is the biggest denomination) is basically a left party with gay priests and lesbian nuns, the same is true to a majority protestant county, you can turn a blind eye, or you can fight for God against these communists. thanks God we don't make our church an idol to be followed blindly

Peter considered Paul’s epistles to be scripture already during their lifetime. “as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other *Scriptures*.” - 2 Peter 3:16

Alright 😂😂😂

he said he was raised Catholic tho.....

That's true, which is why we believe adopting the orthodox phronesis takes a lifetime. Over time all of that liberalism will go away.

what are you yapping about

@erc And he was a secular Atheist before that (if I remember correctly, maybe he was baptized Catholic and there was a time when he was serious about being Catholic and became a tradcath and then Orthodox). That makes two former secular atheists turned ChristoTubers.

He can't, he's a jew from the north

A Mighty Fortress is our God by Martin Luther

You didn’t watch the video

@@redeemedzoomer6053 I did I still stand with my point that protestants are heretical,beacuse the church founded by Jesus Christs and Apostels was/is/will be guided holy spirit.That means they cant go astray if they do that would mean Holy Spirit can make mistakes(He cant).I am not a theology master thats just my understanding I could be wrong

@@redeemedzoomer6053 I dont know if my last comment got deleted but I will say it again Church cant go astray beacuse its guided my Holy Spirit and he cant make mistakes.Thats why protestants got liberal beacuse Holy Spirit didnt guide them. Its my opinion I dont know if I am wrong I am not a theology master

Well, there’s also a split back then see the Sadducees only used the first five books of the Bible and the pharisees had the rest of the Old Testament as in the Tanakh the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew and or Aramaic and included Jewish tradition such as Maccabees but even within the Jewish community it was never seen as authoritative merely the traditional history of the Jewish people. Although you can learn from Maccabees, I personally do not believe it is authoritative. (Btw I a nondenominational biblically based Christian)

​@@Caligulashorse1453 First I am not talking about oral torah vs written torah. Everything except the first 5 books as you said were considered "oral torah" at the time and wasn't written down at all until hundreds of years after Christ's death. Sephardic Jews today do not accept the Oral Torah but the Ashkenazi do. We are not talking about modern jews though... Apocryphal books like Maccabees found in the Septuagint might not be considered scripture by modern Jews, but they were DEFINITELY considered scripture by Jews in the Greek-speaking world at the time that Jesus was born (Like Jesus himself). In fact, theology from 1 Maccabees is thought to be a predecessor to the philosophy of the Sadducees. The Hannukah story for example, is an account of the Maccabean revolt which is documented only in the apocryphal texts. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadducees The original version of KJV even included some of these texts. I could go on and on.

@@mullinaxdarren but did the Jews considered those books authoritative? Or just apart of tradition?

When has he flipped out? All I've seen is him pointing out RZs mistakes and misconceptions. Which this video is loaded with.

@@physicalgrafiti12345exactly. Kyle even acknowledge the Orthobros being incorrect in spamming memes to RZ. There is a respectful way to go about debating and Kyle has been that

You mean refute it

Flip?

I'll ante up: do you think he cares about whether you "accept Him as a saviour" or repent of your sins (i.e. obey and follow)?

Catholics and especially Orthodoxy think they are the arc of salvation aka closest to how God wants to be worshipped. Without being apart of either or, you’re less closer to God. Thats what they believe but imo its not what Jesus necessarily preached. After all Jesus told one of his disciples to not stop a person (OUTSIDE HIS group) to cast out demons. A lot of apostolic fathers teach if there is a true church(Not mormons or JH’s) look to the scriptures. Evidence of the Holy spirit CAN be found in other denominational churches. So Yes Jesus ultimately cares if you accept him as your lord and savior.

I believe that Jesus looks at people's hearts individually, so I don't think denomination is the main basis for judgment. Jesus will reveal the truth/Himself to those who genuinely seek the truth/Him in order to prevent us from being led astray by false teachings.

@@TemperedMedia but wait, are you saying to repent of sins for salvation?

​@@OmgKyoyes. Modern Western churches are filled with people who accept Jesus as their spiritual limit-free credit card with no interest and have no desire or plan to change for the sake of the gospel.

Dr. Gavin Ortlund from the Truth Unites channel does it far better. This is excellent too tho

Its not a good defense of Protestantism as a whole, its a good defense of Calvinism tho

@@applegaming2345 Not really, I would say it’s a good defence for *historical Protestantism , which includes non Calvinist like Lutherans and Anglicans too. It doesn’t work for modern evangelical/ no denominational Protestants tho

@@sjappiyah4071methodism is a rejection of Calvinism and Lutherans historically did claim to be the one true church His points are very pro-calvinism

Then Protestantism is done for lmao

No such thing

Yeah but Jay Dyer is also a clueless clown.

​@@drjanitor3747 D Y E R W A V E

​@@drjanitor3747Based on?

​@@drjanitor3747 Online Orthobros are a sad representation of Eastern Orthodoxy.

​@@gilgamesh2832I've been exploring orthodoxy for a while now as someone raised Presbyterian (the good one, not PCUSA). I don't know who the true church is, but I do know that Jay Dyer and most people who bring him up are sorry examples of the orthodox. I'm still considering Orthodoxy, but terminally online orthobros seem to forget that it's about saving eternal souls rather than scoring points in the debate.

Wrong 🗿☦️

cap

which one catholic church?

bro that's a heresy, Santa told me so

You lie.

Sorry to hear that. I wish you went deeper in the truths of the Catholic faith. If you have any questions, recommend you call Dr Dave Anders on EWTN radio M-F at 2 pm EST. He was deep into the Reformed Church and went to Wheaton College with a PhD from Univ of Iowa, majoring in the Reformation. He can answer any of your questions. This radio show is specifically for non-Catholics.

Additionally, many assertions he makes on the Catholic Church are not correct in this video. If you know Catholic theology, you will quickly note the misleading statements and outright errors. Imputed grace is a word Catholics don't use. We believe in sanctifying grace that gives us a supernatural grace which leads to holiness. It is not the works that make us holy, but God's grace, which from that comes good works.

@@Shawn-nq7du There's no need for treating me like fool, trust me ;-). Ahh I love how Romanists treat people who oppose their Talmudic theology as stupid. "U don't understand Teaching bro". Anyway, Im used to that, so let's go to meritum. As for sanctifying grace... this is a classic example of Roman sophism. You must adapt biblical terminology to the system so as to retain both, bringing about a situation where in fact a works system (since salvation is accomplished through the use of means both in the form of sacraments and from smaller means in the form of novenas, Friday and Saturday privileges that can help salvation, etc.) And so, in practice, justification is achieved no other way than on the basis of works done with the help of grace, and your understanding of "not by works" is limited only to in the cynical statement that nothing that PRECEDES these actions in the state of sanctifying grace does not in itself merit grace, but after baptism or confession it is of course a different conversation... However, it is worth mentioning the essential problem here, namely the claim that sanctifying grace is effective grace , and its loss is caused by a free decision of the will that leads to mortal sin. The error is that you ignore the fact of the bondage of the will, its natural inclination to sin, which makes falling from the state of grace impossible in pure practice, and EFFIECY of grace only exists hypothetically, which fully justifies the accusations of semi-Pelagianism. The true Gospel makes it clear, that because of the inevitable judgment of the Law on man who is incapable of not sinning, he is justified freely on the basis of fully effective, fully sufficient, and personal redemption made by Christ for everyone who believes. The consequence of this is that no condemnation threatens a sincere convert and believer, therefore any religion that essentially consists in maintaining and renewing the constantly lost gift of grace is blasphemous and attributes a higher value to human channels than to the pure mediation of Christ itslef, wich is grabbed by empty hand of faith, and it isn't held in iron fist of any sacerdotalist institution. Not to mention the doctrine of purgatory which directly rejects the sufficiency of Christ's atonement, and the exit from purgatory is facilitated by HUMAN MERIT, both those of saints coming from the "treasury of merits" and in the form of Marian privileges, such as those associated with the scapular. There is a lot more to say, but I said enough. Papist doctrine, is based on sophisms, and won't ever let people to know the simplicity of pure Gospel, of Christ perfect atonement. For all those justified by faith, there IS peace with God, because He imputed sins of all who believe on Him, and poured His Holy Wrath on Him. His ressurection is message, that everything what came on the world through Adam, is forgiven once forever. Belive in this, and you will have eternal life. Add or remove anything from this, and you will be condemned. Reject this Babylon, and embrace the truth, brother.

​Excellent reply, brother in Christ! ​@@tbrskiv

dumb take. the words of christ are infallible as per your faith. If you believe that then you're a closet atheist. The old testament has continuity because of the Jewish people and Jesus was fulfilling prophesy. You don't need the RCC to help you read the bible; it's meant for those to have the faith of children to understand and accept.

@user-tb5sq6jm2y I've seen it, not convinced. All I hear is association fallacy. All other arguments he has are the typical protestant denialism, like "just because something supernatural happened, doesn't mean it's from God." As if satan is powerful enough to be capable of such wonders. His arguments are nothing new of substance.

Had it not for my functional brain i’d might have been a Protestant too.

@@user-tb5sq6jm2y Seen it, not convinced. All I hear is association fallacy. Other arguments is a typical protestant denialism that has been debunked hundreds of time, nothing new of substance. He's arguments is basically "just because something supernatural happened doesn't mean it's from God." As if satan is powerful enough to do such wonders. But hey, for the sake of argument, say the Fatima message is unbiblical, how about the Eucharistic miracles? You'd be too blind if you deny Christ real presence in the Eucharist. It's what the Scripture, Church fathers and Jesus himself teaches. Another thing, who is Jordan Cooper anyway? Does he have apostolic succession?

@@user-tb5sq6jm2y Seen it, not convinced. All I hear is association fallacy. Other arguments is a typical protestant denialism that has been debunked hundreds of time, nothing new of substance. He's arguments is basically "just because something supernatural happened doesn't mean it's from God." As if satan is powerful enough to do such wonders. But hey, for the sake of argument, say the Fatima message is unbiblical, how about the Eucharistic miracles? You'd be too blind if you deny Christ real presence in the Eucharist. It's what the Scripture, Church fathers and Jesus himself teaches. Another thing, who is Jordan Cooper anyway? Does he have apostolic succession?

Miracles only prove God's grace and nothing else

Some Protestant denominations think that way, but that's certainly not entirely the case, nor was creating a new church the intention of the Reformation. It's in the name. They were trying to reform the Catholic faith. I don't think people started to make a clean break in their minds from direct continuity with the historical Catholic Church in the minds of some Protestants (I would include some of the ones not listed as such here in the video) until you started to get the heavy handed persecution of Protestants and the ongping bitter wars of religion in Europe. I do have to agree with RZ that the "tens of thousands of denominations" rhetoric from the RC and EO is nonsense. Today it's based on really flimsy data that even presents divisions within RC and EO in ways they wouldn't agree with. Depending on how particular you wanna get, there really are only about 8-12 denominations within Protestantism (within which I would include the bottom right Restorationist quadrant). I'd also disagree with that rhetoric because they would also lump groups like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses in with Protestantism.

7:40 mark

@@HeavyHeartsShow I think the one true church is one unified institution. How can you have one unified church teach different things to the point some churches would call it heretical? How are Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, and Non-denominationalists unified? They all teach very different things to the point some would call others heresies? And if a church teaches something heretical and hold to beliefs and doctrines as heresy ( I do wanna add what a church teaches and how the members of that church act can be very different and I want to add that to be fair to everyone) then those beliefs can lead a soul to damnation. How can the church Jesus Christ established teach and profess things that would lead souls to Hell? That would mean the gates of Hell have prevailed over the church and Jesus is wrong. I see a lot of issues with this that I don't think are reconcilable with all due respect to you brother.

@@anthonyramos169 the idea you presented here of a unified church is an institution. The Protestant idea of the unified church is the household of faith worldwide and across time. Since we can not know who is truly a believer and a pretender, we can not say just one denomination is the “true church,” but rather all who worship in spirit and truth. But we do know from Revelation 2-3 that some churches get it right more than others, and some individuals get closer to the truth than others. But no one institution can validly claim infallibility, especially not at this point in time.

A might fortress is our God written by Martin Luther

I do agree. RZ seems to kind of paint the same brush onto non-denominational Christians as Catholics like to paint onto Protestants. I have seen non-denominational "Christians" that do fit that stereotype of being new age and weird, but I've also met Christians that seem very invested in the word of God with a strong and uncompromising love for Christ.

I don’t like dealing in hypotheticals much, but if Jesus was to come back, would he prefer us having spiritual unity as brothers in Christ or to be continually divided?

@@protoindoeuropean if Christ were to come back the unity would be around who’s following him

They are not exclusive. In fact, I argue that to have institutional unity you need spiritual unity.

Yankees are like that

because to people that don't live in the South, anyone with that accent is just stereotyped as dumb or ignorant.

@@microsoftpain Yeah I think RZ would admit he probably shouldn't do that. Besides, not everyone from the South is Baptist. I'm from the South and I'm not Baptist and never would be again.

@@microsoftpain if I was from the north I'd probably be offended by that. Lol

@thegreatandmightyseff7214 lol exactly. That's why I said to the feller down in yonder comments, "if i was was from the north, then I'd probably be offended by that." Haha, oh, regional dialectical division is fun. (But for real, much love, God bless America)

Pretty sure either WELS or LCMS does too.

Yes. I’ve been to PCA and ECO and EPC many times

Calvinists obviously claim they're right (everyone does), but no calvinist denomination (barring some extremists) claims to be the one only true denomination.

@@redeemedzoomer6053 My understanding of Calvinist perpsecitve on salvation is 3-fold: 1) Calvinists who say there are other Christians outside of Calvinism (RZ is here) 2) Calvinsits who say that only Calvinists are saved (most Calvinsits, at least in my experience, are here) - this broad group will usually but not always tolerate 4 points Calvinists but definitively reject any free will advocates as outside the Christian faith 3) Calvinists who say not only # 2 is correct but also if you personally declare that people outside of #2 can or are saved, then you yourself are also not saved (minority view but not exactly what I'd call rare) RZ/others: Please feel free to give different perspectives here

@@spyridon7669 Do you have any references for you beliefs regarding Calvinists that I could look up?