https://newtube.app/user/TonyHeller...

Nasty. So true.

Washington, Lincoln, and Trump, not necessarily in that order.

I think the recent phenomenon of social media drives a lot of the Trump love.>

Who knew social media were:

1) Honest
2) American
3) Republican

I think I'll sign up for facebook/twitter, and ensconce myself in "Trump love."

I believe, doing what he ran on, and standing for God/America/Freedom, is what makes Trump loved.

Before Lincoln, we had a Republic. Since Lincoln, we've had an empire instead, and an ever-growing, ever more oppressive, Federal government.

At 1:45, Trenham claims the nature of Sola Scriptura is related to the tradition of the church. Who says? Besides him, I mean.

He makes the point that because Protestantism is wrong, Sola Scriptura is wrong. That's an obvious fallacy, but part of the RCC/GO template of argumentation.

Whether any councils were right or wrong mean nothing to me, so all of that was irrelevant and I ignore it.

Whether any Protestant churches teach differently means nothing to me, so all of that was irrelevant, and I ignore it. I do attribute the errors of Protestantism to an overreaction to the worst excesses of the Middle Ages apostate church. Instead of appealing to the Scriptures to find what is right, they went too far the other way against the clearly overly works oriented theology of that time to the clearly false theology of Calvinism. I will note that the various councils of the RCC and GO teach differently through history, so he's making a case against his own position.

The Acts 15 Council was comprised of men who could raise the dead. Why should we trust Peter and Paul? Because they could raise the dead. As Jesus himself said, “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” John 10:37-38

As Peter said about Jesus in Acts 2:22, "“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know" Why should people believe in Jesus? Because of the signs he did. What signs did anyone in any council ever do that we should believe in them? I'll give you Peter and Paul. Now you tell me why I should believe anyone else.

Trenham tries to equate disagreeing with later councils with disagreeing with the Acts 15 council. Nonsense. I believe the Acts 15 council because I believe Peter and Paul raised the dead. I have no scriptural reason to believe anyone else.

At 4:53, he tries to equate the apostles and the church as trustworthy. No, <the apostles> were trustworthy. We know, because they could raise the dead. The same can't be said of the church, the whole church, some subset of the church, the RCC and GO have a real problem defining it, and his fuzzy language in that regard is typical.

The way I see it, the first Catholics were those among the Galations whom Paul had to correct, because they were led astray almost as soon as Paul left them to move on with his ministry.

They were taught another gospel that is not another, a gospel that blended grace with works. Paul straightened them out, but this false gospel never entirely went away. It ended up as the base for the Catholic church.

The Catholics say, "Believe us. We go all the way back to the beginning".

We might have this idea that the Christian church has changed over 2000 years, that the message and spirit of it has change much like a message changes in the telephone game. One might think that True Christianity has been lost in the sands of time, and if we simply studied the words and works of the early Christian fathers, we could understand today what real Christianty is and therefore how we should think, act and pray today.

So we find Christian leaders from the 2nd century or 3rd century and study their works, looking for insights.

The problem with this is the Christian church has suffered heresies right from the very beginning, meaning in the years 40-95 A.D. Even as the NT was being written, the works + grace people (early Catholics) were ruining everything, causing Paul to have to write corrective letters to his planted Churches. He had to make clear that Jesus had given to him the dispensation of the gospel of <grace> and grace alone.

Therefore, we can't gather any insight about an alleged <true Christianity> from the early Church fathers that may have been lost in time. Going back to the second or third centuries isn't going to do the trick.

No. The Satanic seed of deception, of distorting the saving gospel of grace, was planted immediately, even before the whole of the NT was written!

The gospel to the gentiles was given to Paul and no one else. That is, the gospel of grace was given to us from Jesus himself through the apostle Paul and it is recorded in the NT in the epistles, Romans and other books written by Paul. If you want to know real Christianity, read Paul.

Actually, that is not the argument. At this point I think it is opportune to link to the two-part interview from which the clip was taken:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piV...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs0...

Each is about 70 minutes long.

Anyway, "our tradition is right because we say so" is about the worst misrepresentation I've ever seen you make, <Ohio>.

Now, let's see if I can give a more accurate description of the case for Orthodoxy.

As James told us, the Christian faith was "once delivered" to the saints by Christ and his apostles.

When clarifications were needed, and when heresies were introduced, ecumenical councils were held in order to answer the heresies and clarify ambiguities. These councils are guided by the Holy Spirit.

The traditions, liturgies and teachings from Jesus and his apostles have been preserved 2000 years in the Orthodox church. The East-West schism was fomented by the Latin (Western) church making changes that the Greek (Eastern) church obviously knew were not teachings of the early church.

Or, to say it a different way, the Orthodox church kept doing things the way the early church was taught to do things by the Apostles.

Sola scriptura doctrine does not encompass a great body of oral-only teaching. For example, St. Paul the Apostle taught the church at Thessaloniki for over a year. Yet his canonized writings to them consist of only 2 books, 8 chapters. So are we to believe that upon the death of St. Paul that all his oral teaching should be discarded??? And only the written part retained?

As a former RC, I cannot fathom this statement.

There are a dizzying number of venerated saints in both the RCC and EOC, so many it seems daunting to me to learn about them all. And what are the criteria for sainthood? Isn't a 2-miracle-minimum one of them?

You can go see the relics of an EOC saint without leaving America:

http://www.fatheralexander.org/book...

https://orthodoxwiki.org/John_(Maxi...

As for ecumenical councils, just who do you think were the members? They were the church leaders who were alive at the time the councils were convoked! Men like Saint John Chrysostom, iirc.

Who decides that?

<and when heresies were introduced, ecumenical councils were held in order to answer the heresies and clarify ambiguities. >

Who had the authority to decide who was on the councils, and why did they have that authority?

<These councils are guided by the Holy Spirit.>

Who says?

<The traditions, liturgies and teachings from Jesus and his apostles have been preserved 2000 years in the Orthodox church. >

Who says?

<The East-West schism was fomented by the Latin (Western) church making changes that the Greek (Eastern) church obviously knew were not teachings of the early church.>

I have no interest in that. I'll point out both sides claim the same history. If one can be wrong, both can be wrong.

<Or, to say it a different way, the Orthodox church kept doing things the way the early church was taught to do things by the Apostles.>

Who says?

<Sola scriptura doctrine does not encompass a great body of oral-only teaching. For example, St. Paul the Apostle taught the church at Thessaloniki for over a year. Yet his canonized writings to them consist of only 2 books, 8 chapters. So are we to believe that upon the death of St. Paul that all his oral teaching should be discarded??? And only the written part retained?->

Yes. How are we to <know> what his oral teachings were? Oh yeah, the Orthodox will tell us.

<But anyway, I am a poor apologist for Orthodoxy, having only been studying it for a short time. I encourage you to watch the full interview.>

I agree.

<They were taught another gospel that is not another, a gospel that blended grace with works. Paul straightened them out, but this false gospel never entirely went away. It ended up as the base for the Catholic church.>

Agreed again. I am a former Catholic and am persuaded the RCC was a large, early heresy.

<The Catholics say, "Believe us. We go all the way back to the beginning".>

Yes.

<We might have this idea that the Christian church has changed over 2000 years, that the message and spirit of it has change much like a message changes in the telephone game.>

That's an analogy I often use.

< One might think that True Christianity has been lost in the sands of time, and if we simply studied the words and works of the early Christian fathers, we could understand today what real Christianty is and therefore how we should think, act and pray today.

So we find Christian leaders from the 2nd century or 3rd century and study their works, looking for insights.

The problem with this is the Christian church has suffered heresies right from the very beginning, meaning in the years 40-95 A.D. >

Bingo. I also use the very first High Priest, Aaron, creating a golden calf within days of his consecration. Can we point to him to justify worshipping a golden calf today? No!

<Even as the NT was being written, the works + grace people (early Catholics) were ruining everything, causing Paul to have to write corrective letters to his planted Churches. He had to make clear that Jesus had given to him the dispensation of the gospel of <grace> and grace alone>

Therefore, we can't gather any insight about an alleged <true Christianity> from the early Church fathers that may have been lost in time. Going back to the second or third centuries isn't going to do the trick.>

"When Jesus reached the edge of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples who the people said that He was. He then stated, “And I say also unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”

Matthew 16:18.

I don't believe for one second that "true Christianity" is lost to the sands of time.

Abominations such as accepting homosexuality (even flying rainbow flags!), ordaining women, and so forth? RCC has lots of homos in the priesthood. And you will find ordained women and even ordained homos is various protestant denominations. The Anglican church is famous throughout the world for having a homo Bishop.

Shouldn't "sola scriptura" result in everyone agreeing about what the bible says? I mean, if it's written down for everyone to read, why should there be any argument or disagreement about the content?

Why are there so many different protestant churches?

Why is the Bible so long? Why didn't God just give us an A4 sheet of paper setting out His requirements? Since He gave us the ten commandments why do we need anything else? Why didn't Jesus just hand out a short booklet covering everything for the next 2,000 years and beyond? Why was so much of the apostles teaching in oral form rather than just handing out pamphlets?

What did everyone do before the invention of the printing press? Before bibles were published and distributed? Before literacy became widespread? How did "sola scriptura" apply back then?

Does "sola scriptura" mean that Christians have to believe the universe is only 6,000 years old?

How was the canon of the Bible compiled? By the bishops of the Catholic Church meeting in Council, but since only the Council of Jerusalem counts, we should disregard all those Catholic Councils which established the canon of the Bible! Not sure where that leaves "sola scriptura"?

Protestants always say "The way I see it ..." and then proceed to expound their own unique interpretation of the Bible and church history which always includes Catholic-bashing and proffering their own bizarre explanation which nobody else agrees with, resulting in the formation of another protestant church.

Protestants also say "And here I disagree with you greatly ..." since no two protestants can ever agree on anything in the Bible. This is why protestantism is a shambles!

Lord Jesus Christ, at your Last Supper you prayed to the Father that all should be one. Send your Holy Spirit upon all who bear your name and seek to serve you. Strengthen our faith in you, and lead us to love one another in humility. May we who have been reborn in one baptism be united in one faith under one Shepherd.

Who decides that?>

Have you ever done any teaching? I have, when I was in grad school, and I also tutored a woman in physics when I worked at a large computer chip manufacturer.

It is evident to any good teacher when something is not clear to the student. You can see it on their faces.

<<and when heresies were introduced, ecumenical councils were held in order to answer the heresies and clarify ambiguities. >

Who had the authority to decide who was on the councils, and why did they have that authority?>

Haven't you studied any church history? Although I have, I am by no means an expert. But my understanding is that authority was given by the unbroken chain of succession from the Apostles (who were also Bishops, I think) to the Bishops that followed after them. Anyway, you'd do better to listen to the full two-part series, because Fr. Trenham talks about that stuff - authority, church hierarchy. I bet you could even send him an e-mail with your questions and he could recommend a good resource for you.

<<These councils are guided by the Holy Spirit.>

Who says? >

The 2-part interview was to promote Fr. Trenham's book, <Rock and Sand>. I am thinking of getting the book myself, because this man is extraordinarily knowledgeable about church history.

In fact, if you are wanting a serious discussion of these questions, rather than just being dismissive, then I will buy the book, read it, and then gift it to you after I read it.

I have no interest in that.>

You have no interest in that? I am saddened by your statement.

Are you not part of Christ's One Holy Apostolic Church?

I am awed by the fact that Christ's Church flourished for 1000 years, united, and then both dismayed and fascinated that such a schism could occur.

< I'll point out both sides claim the same history. If one can be wrong, both can be wrong.>

Of course. But I as well will point out something. Actually, 2 things.

1. There are not "both" sides, there are "three" sides, since we must include the Protestants with the Orthodox and Roman Catholic parts of Christendom.

I worded one of my posts very poorly, so it is unclear.

I wrote <thegoodanarchist: <<<I'll give you Peter and Paul. Now you tell me why I should believe anyone else.>>>

As a former RC, I cannot fathom this statement....>

I am NOT a former RC. What I meant was, <Ohio, since your are a former RC, I cannot fathom...>

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5277)

Agreed again. I am a former Catholic and am persuaded the RCC was a large, <<<<early>>>> heresy.>

Define "early", please.

And this brings me to my next question, the ecumenical council of Nicea.

I mentioned this in an earlier post:

<Also, I am not quite sure what your exact objection is here. Do you reject the Nicene creed? It was created by an ecumenical council. But you don't 'believe' it/them? <<<It is the dogma of the Christian faith.>>> Rejecting the Nicene council and creed is rejection of Christianity itself!>

What is your reply?

I also mentioned that the councils were composed of people such as <Saint John Chrysostom>. Is such a man not good enough of an authority to respect?

Today, sure, but what about tomorrow after the next council convenes?>

2000 years, and who knows how many councils (and counting), yet a hard "NO!" from you is still the answer. Based on what "could" happen tomorrow.

Again, I am no expert on Church history, but please tell me how many millennia the EOC needs to remain unchanged, to convince you?

<What if, moved by the Holy Spirit, they clarify the ambiguity of different sexual expressions and gender roles?>

What if, what if, what if?

Always, your focus in this discussion is "what if"?

Never able to see "What Is." 2000 years of not deviating.

At what point do you, or will you, ask: Why HASN'T the EOC followed the RCC and Protestant Churches down the proverbial primrose path to Hell (paved with good intentions)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYA...

<Saved by Grace through Faith, Not by Works>

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPk...