Redeemed Zoomer quoting a lot of Bishops that all were unified in the belief that Church tradition was in-line with Holy Scripture. He seems to really love quoting them. What else did they believe about the scriptures? What they said? How they interpreted it? How does Redeemed Zoomer know which scriptures came from an Apostle and which didn’t?
@@icxcnika2037 zoomer is not the authority for Reformed Theology. Be brake and read the 39 Articles or the WCF. Anglicans affirm the apostolic succession and Presbyterians don’t.
Redeemed Zoomer looks like he works in a 1950s icecream parlor, Luigi looks like a highschooler who thinks he's Andrew Tate because he put $300 into bitcoin, and Zen just has a big ass forehead.
43 likes for childish bullshit. Unfortunately no one talkes religion seriously. This isnt fantasy football. Its the most important decision or life choice you will ever have to make.
In response to Redeemed Zoomers question about the canon which says you can't go to a Jewish Doctor, its important to take into account the time period for this canon. At the time there was not widespread secular healthcare. A "Jewish" doctor in this case would have been a Rabbinical Jewish ritualistic sort of medicine, which a Christian absolutely should not participate in. It isnt the equivalent to going to a licensed healthcare provider today, who is Jewish. Its like going to a Pagan Shaman, or a Kabalistic Jewish ritual, in the hope that they will heal you. The canon is essentially saying not to take part in medicinal practices that include practices from false religions.
Theres similar canons saying that a Clergymen should not attend any Theatre Performances. But its important to note that Theatre Performances at this time wouldve been Roman Performances which would have exclusively included Nudity and Pagan themes.
The Protoevangelium of James contains Traditions we find in our services. This does not mean that these Traditions come from that book. It is a written witness to these Traditions.
Luigi is impressive young man with his knowledge. Awesome to see the young guys having a desire to delve deep into these issues. God bless him for his defense of Orthodoxy.
Orthobros are some of the best at defending their faith. Confessional Lutherans are pretty fierce too. I would like to see a debate on Eucharist and the “presence” between EO and a confessional Lutheran.
Luigi- beautiful opening statement 🕯️. I look forward to learning more of each of your examples to share with others seeking truth with a humble heart. Prayers for all attendees 🙏💕
Redeemed Zoomer claims that under sola scriptura he could claim his bishop was wrong and fell into heresy, the problem is, using sola scriptura, you could also claim your bishop was right, even though he was wrong. Under sola scriptura, you could claim that Aryianism is correct, under sola scriptura you could affirm calvinism or you could affirm or you could affirm arminianism. People do it all the time. Under sola scriptura, you could claim one of the councils erred or you could affirm all the councils. Heresy is not a head issue, it's a heart issue. The saints preserve the faith. We need the church to make the saints.
Yes, correct. Because of the super arbitrary nature of it, Sola Scriptura produces a wildly inconsistent result on a massive scale and that outcome itself is evidence of a false doctrine. One of the callers Chase pressed him on this and RZ couldn't give him a straight answer. Without that arbitrary element, Sola Scriptura doesn't have oxygen.
This is a nonsense argument. People can be wrong under either system. Authoritarian church structures are wrong about issues of Scripture with regularity. The point being made about Sola Scriptura is not that those who follow it are always correct, but that those who follow it are at least in a position to fight the heresy when it arises.
@@JD-xz1mx you missed my argument completely. You are just as likely, if not more, to use the scriptures to promote heresy as you are to defend against it. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God. The saints are the ones that preserve the faith. The church is needed to make the saints.
Redeemed zoomer was able to focus on the actual debate topic better and defend it better. Eventually, the conversation veered towards red herrings, but regardless, it went very well and props to both gentlemen for putting on a good theological show for our enjoyment.
We will leave this in God’s hands, but I agree that he seems to have his heart in the right place… maybe I’m deceived by the bow tie lol. I don’t like what he said about Jay after his debate, but he since deleted it and apologized, which I think is 100% forgivable
@@JoshYng Truth. I literally laughed out loud when white said he didn't want to rehash the same old, then almost in the same breath brought up his debate with Matatix in the 90s.
I thought that in a cross examination I should hear the questioned more than the questioner. Luigi asks questions and doesn’t let his opponent to answer 💀 This guy can’t debate
@@J.T.Stillwell3 Oh yeah, there is a definite bias, but Zen did a good job moderating most of that for the guest. RZ straight up conceded on many of his fundamental points though. All the hyperbole aside, he seems like a good kid and I think if he keeps going on this path he will eventually adapt his views. Gotta cheer on my team from the stands though 🎉 ✌️
There’s a lot to say, but I’ll say this, the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles could never have taught Sola Scriptura idea while alive on earth because the bulk of their teaching or all their teaching was oral. The Church was built upon a predominantly oral Tradition that was preserved. There also existed both oral and written Tradition side by side, and nobody ever made a stink about one being infallible vs not infallible prior to the papal Protestants.
It literally does contradict, Sola means only, meaning the only Word of God is the writings which is absurd. Paul when he preach he’d said he was speaking the Word of God. He also said to hold fast to tradition taught, whether by letter or word of mouth
@@jessicab1272I was a Protestant for 24 years. I know a few things. I’m now Orthodox. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for elevating the tradition of men above the word of God. The key there is tradition of men, not all tradition, for some tradition can come from God, like oral or written Tradition of God. The source of a tradition is the important thing to consider. Scripture is written Tradition, source = God. In the same breath, when Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for elevating their tradition of men above the word of God, He also affirms another Tradition from God that of those religious leaders position of authority, for they sat in the seat of Moses, which was preserved orally for generations. This may be new to you, but the source of a tradition is the important thing. If some tradition comes from men, while other Tradition comes from God, then not all tradition is bad. Jesus taught completely orally. Therefore, as the apostles passed it on through oral teaching primarily, they passed on the Tradition of Christ, not merely the word of men. Therefore, they couldn’t have taught written Scripture was greater or infallible compared to oral teaching in their time on earth. Think how many churches formed after Pentecost. They had the Old Testament, not the Protestant OT. They had the oral teaching of the apostles for about the next 20 years before any NT gospel or epistle was written. And there wasn’t a canon of Scripture for centuries. The church grew despite NO canon. They had the truth. They preserved it. Sola Scriptura is a modern idea that started in the 1500s with Luther and his dealing with a corrupted so called church.
@@ProtestantismLeftBehind Tradition can be a good thing, yes, and I do have problems with how divided Protestantism is. Personally, I prefer how Catholic and Orthodox churches are structured to the Protestant ones. However, I take issue with some of the practices of Orthodoxy and Catholicism: specifically, communication with those who have left this world. I know the argument that praying to the saints is merely asking for them to pray to God on our behalf, but the Bible says that we already have Christ as the one and only intercessor. We ask our brothers and sisters for prayer who still remain on this earth as a way to be unified with them spiritually. This cannot be the case for those who are in heaven. They are not aware of what happens on earth while they are in heaven. Their attention is on God, and God alone. If they are troubled by worldly issues while in Heaven, wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of heaven being a perfect place of rest and reprieve from worldly troubles?
@@jessicab1272 Your sole objection is a "it gives me the heebie jeebies" type of objection, aka not a real objection, compared to the Solas. Just because you don't feel good about something, and most importantly that you don't understand it as you haven't given it any real time to look into, doesn't mean it's wrong. Also, you're confusing what a mediator is and what an intercessor is. The Bible tells us Christ is the sole mediator, as in someone who has healed the relationship that was broken between humanity and God the Father. That's what is meant by calling Christ out mediator. Thinking you have "direct access" to Jesus whilst completely ignoring his chosen family and thereby disrespecting it and Him ... does that make any sense to you? The fact that Saints interceed is based entirely on the fact that God, for reasons known only to Himself, delegates his work to his ministers by choice, be it angelic beings or sanctified humans as well as regular humans who are still alive and in the process of growing in Him. Just like the angels, sanctified humans (be it alive or dead, which simply means that their mode of operation changes from spiritual and physical to strictly spiritual) receive duties in the spiritual realm, Heaven is not what holywood has sold you to be (a place of "peaceful ecstasy" or "nonechalant ignorance" view that you're clearly subscribed to or whatever else you'd call that nonsense). "They are not aware of what happens on earth while they are in heaven" - And your basis for believing that is what, exactly? Because it definitely isn't scripture or tradition or anything remotely worth considering. "If they are troubled by worldly issues while in Heaven, wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of heaven being a perfect place of rest and reprieve from worldly troubles?" - Who told you to skip the book of revelation and make up your own version of what Heaven is and who's aware of what? Try looking into that book and maybe what the divine council is. If anything, that version of Heaven you're thinking of (but not exactly) is what will happen on Earth after the second coming.
I'm Protestant myself and if we're to declare a winner I'd probably give Luigi the edge here. The guy knows his stuff and he's very passionate. RZ, for someone who became a Christian later in life has definitely done his homework on church history and I thought he did very well holding it together knowing he was going to be in the minority against EO's who know their stuff. Fact is RZ knew what he was getting himself into by agreeing to this debate. Trust me, if this were flipped around there's no question Luigi would've faced a similar style debate being in the minority. Ultimately I like these debates because I think we learn and benefit from them. Not to mention I'm not a Protestant who think he knows everything and I've come to greatly appreciate my Orthodox and Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.
38:12 the Catholic Church has a similar concept, where we don’t necessarily have a closed canon either. The Council of Trent defined a minimum of the 73 texts are definitively part of the canon, but didn’t say that absolutely no other texts are scriptural.
@MarkStein-b5b if you read the canons of the Council of Trent, it does not actually say the canon is closed. It just says that there are a minimum of 73 particular canonical books
I think the only thing that holds RZ back from even considering becoming orthodox is the way that so called "orthobros" act on the Internet. And especially Twitter. When we try to persuade someone to become orthodox, we should do that because we love the other person (since he's made in the image of God) and want him to join the body of Christ (which is the chruch established by the apostles). Only then we will be able to make the other person at least understand our position and listen to what we have to say.
I'm not gonna lie when you see how many times Redeemed Zoomer baits Orthodoxy on twitter it becomes harder and harder to not call him out on it. Out of every single Christian denomination Redeemed zoomer continuously targets Orthodoxy the most. That's the same as tossing gasoline on an already raging fire. He probably wouldn't be called out by Orthobros if he just stopped talking about Orthodoxy and focused more on his reconquista mission or collaborating with other protestants. It almost seems as if Orthodoxy just lives rent free in his head with how many times he baits and mocks Orthodoxy on twitter. I understand we must turn the other cheek, but the people on twitter by virtue of being on twitter aren't the paragons of Orthodoxy and would not respond kindly to being baited for the fifth that week by RZ.
I disagree. He mentioned during the debate that he had friends who were Oriental Orthodox Christians, and that every OO he's interacted with has been super nice, and yet I see no indication of him considering converting to OO. I believe that he just has many presuppositions that he's not willing to give up.
I wouldn't necessarily say the debate ended in the favor of either person, however it did seem like Luigi was more assertive and slow to listen during his side of the cross examination. Regardless, good job to both people and God bless!
@@voxpopuli8132is that why more Roman Catholics are converting to EO and not the other way around? Dyer smashed Ybara on the papacy, and that’s the biggest argument between us. The Church of the first millennia didn’t have the vatican 1 papacy, Christ and orthodox christianity wins ☦️
Reading the comments first, I thought Zoomer would get steamrolled, but he held his own quite well. He should have appealed to the Bible more than just is closing statement, but he's right, both sides agreed The Bible is all you need for Salvation.
Yeah he just cut him off and didn’t listen to his context. Man… it’s become clear to me Orthodox is another far right debate bro movement that is obsessed with “winning”, just compare the grace ppl like Knowles and Kirk give on Whatever compared to the douchbaggery Andrew Wilson pulls, there’s no compassion or grace in this guy just resentment. Ephesians 4-5, Galatians 5.. this guy exercises only contempt towards his opposition. He hates them.
Luigi, I’ve never seen you before, but think you did a very good job. My suggestion is develop more the pattern of Church as the pillar of ground of truth, and ask if there are multiple Jesus’s, Churches, gospels, etc and give examples we see today with blatant blasphemous beliefs which should be pinned on Protestants. Then ask him if he approves of these beliefs which he will answer in the negative. Then go on and point out we reject those beliefs as well but due to the normative authority of the Church and on that same basis we reject your beliefs. Again very well done, will look forward to seeing more of your debates.
I grew up far away from any Orthodox teachings. We went to a "Bible" church. I didn't really understand what a Protestant was until I got into the military and my religion options were limited to Catholic or Protestant and I started to look into this. I love these debates and am interested in learning more about Orthodoxy. I am not quite convinced that it is superior but I find there are many things that I don't fully understand when listening to these debates. Can anyone suggest a primer on Orthodoxy that would speak to a lifelong so called Protestant?
I also have to say that I find the Orthodox debaters and even the following Orthodox super chatters to have a far more logical position that is hard for Protestant debaters to come up with appropriate answers for. I found my way here after hearing Andrew Wilson speaking in Whatever panels and found his line of reasoning hard to deny. So really interested in learning more.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 A great video by Perry Robinson, though it may be too technical for someone without prior knowledge. I suggest Fr. Stephen De Young’s “Religion of the Apostles: Orthodox Christianity in the First Century.”
I'm a Traditional Roman Catholic so I obviously sided with Luigi, but man, that reedemed zoomer kid is such a nice dude. I would love for him to join an apostolic church, preferably the one true, holy, and apostolic Catholic Church!! Deus Vult!
How can a person, who believes in Sola Scriptura, reference a tradition that would consider them heretical? So funny, Redeemed Zoomer keeps wanting to reference a scripture, put together by Church Fathers he’d consider heretics😂
The fathers aren't a monolith. Go read Matthison on Sola Scriptura, and then find Sean Luke on Sola Apostolica/Prima Scriptura on YT. Or, keep believing a priori we're heretics because you binged Dyer and didn't read Calvin. We do not, however, insinuate that God was ever hostile to him or angry with him. How could he be angry with the beloved Son, with whom his soul was well pleased? or how could he have appeased the Father by his intercession for others if He were hostile to himself? But this we say, that he bore the weight of the divine anger, that, smitten and afflicted, he experienced all the signs of an angry and avenging God - Calvin 2.16.11 That is, with you, Calvin thinks that Jesus enduring God's wrath was done so only as an icon (sign) of God's wrath at us in Adam, not wrath at the Person of the Son. If you come away from the fathers believing they're united on eschatology, the role of faith, the role of baptism, the clarity of 2 or 3 roles for ordination (Ignatius and Polycarp), or the role of Scripture in norming other apostolic deposits, hermeneutical emphases on grammar or typology (Antiochean vs Alexandrian), or Trinitarian metaphysics (Cappadocian v. Augustinian) or soteriology (substitution precursors, recapitulation, exemplar), without presupposing your own Church's right to norm the fathers by their own inclusion/exclusion criteria, you're simply doing what you claim Prots can't do- you're applying an arbitrary norming special pleading grounded in an appeal to a dialectic that preserves your tradition's consolidation of itself as the safeguard of apostolic doctrine, in an unfalsifiable way that doesn't wrestle with material reality. The fathers aren't a perspicuous single voiced authority- they're a chorus. Some sing out of tune, or come in at odd times, and most sing a consistent glorious stream of notes we call the "rule of faith", represented in many of their points of agreement. You admit that same necessary discernment of who's in/out of orthodoxy, by who you count as a saint, and who you exclude and by what standards. Prots agree that you should exclude/include by a doctrinal standard ecclesially authorized- we think that that norm is the apostolic deposit in Scripture first, and then in other authorities as designated by Scripture and coordinate necessities to linguistic interpretation- linguistic rules, natural revelation on signs/signifiers, tradition on canonical boundaries to the deposits recognized as Scripture. Kruger gets at this, but all three of the main branches have to recognize a dialectic mystery in how we get our Canon- all of us lean on the existential promise that the Sheep recognize the Shepherd's voice, that the apostles' left us written deposits to remind us of their teachings, and that the written deposits point to living traditions we should use in dialectic with the written ones.
Redeemed zoomer wouldn't consider church fathers, or Catholics in general, heretics, any understanding of trad protestant theology knows this. Please take the time to understand the opposing side before straw manning their arguments
The fathers aren't a monolith. Go read Matthison on Sola Scriptura, and then find Sean Luke on Sola Apostolica/Prima Scriptura on YT. Or, keep believing a priori we're heretics because you binged Dyer and didn't read Calvin. We do not, however, insinuate that God was ever hostile to him or angry with him. How could he be angry with the beloved Son, with whom his soul was well pleased? or how could he have appeased the Father by his intercession for others if He were hostile to himself? But this we say, that he bore the weight of the divine anger, that, smitten and afflicted, he experienced all the signs of an angry and avenging God - Calvin 2.16.11 That is, with you, Calvin thinks that Jesus enduring God's wrath was done so only as an icon (sign) of God's wrath at us in Adam, not wrath at the Person of the Son. If you come away from the fathers believing they're united on eschatology, the role of faith, the role of baptism, the clarity of 2 or 3 roles for ordination (Ignatius and Polycarp), or the role of Scripture in norming other apostolic deposits, hermeneutical emphases on grammar or typology (Antiochean vs Alexandrian), or Trinitarian metaphysics (Cappadocian v. Augustinian) or soteriology (substitution precursors, recapitulation, exemplar), without presupposing your own Church's right to norm the fathers by their own inclusion/exclusion criteria, you're simply doing what you claim Prots can't do- you're applying an arbitrary norming special pleading grounded in an appeal to a dialectic that preserves your tradition's consolidation of itself as the safeguard of apostolic doctrine, in an unfalsifiable way that doesn't wrestle with material reality. The fathers aren't a perspicuous single voiced authority- they're a chorus. Some sing out of tune, or come in at odd times, and most sing a consistent glorious stream of notes we call the "rule of faith", represented in many of their points of agreement. You admit that same necessary discernment of who's in/out of orthodoxy, by who you count as a saint, and who you exclude and by what standards. Prots agree that you should exclude/include by a doctrinal standard ecclesially authorized- we think that that norm is the apostolic deposit in Scripture first, and then in other authorities as designated by Scripture and coordinate necessities to linguistic interpretation- linguistic rules, natural revelation on signs/signifiers, tradition on canonical boundaries to the deposits recognized as Scripture. Kruger gets at this, but all three of the main branches have to recognize a dialectic mystery in how we get our Canon- all of us lean on the existential promise that the Sheep recognize the Shepherd's voice, that the apostles' left us written deposits to remind us of their teachings, and that the written deposits point to living traditions we should use in dialectic with the written ones.
RZ: "Sola Scriptura is a modern word for an ancient principle that the Scriptures are the highest authority for God's people." St. Paul: "but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."- 1Tim. 3:15. Sounds to me like St. Paul considered the Church, not the Scriptures, to be the highest authority for God's people, even calling it "the pillar and ground of the truth", which of course the "truth" is Jesus Christ Himself (John 14:6). For the Church, the highest authority is Christ and His Gospel. The Scriptures attest to this fact. The Scriptures are a witness to the truth of Christ, but it is the Church that correctly understands those Scriptures. The Prot position is false.
If the Church has authority above the Scriptures, it can contradict the Scriptures. If the Church can contradict the Scriptures, it doesn't matter what Paul said in 1 Tim 3:15 because you simply don't care what his intention was if your Church says otherwise. This is the central absurdity of trying to use Scripture as the highest authority to establish how Scripture isn't the highest authority. Merely citing the verse as your basis itself showcases that you don't genuinely believe your own position.
@@JD-xz1mx The Church produced the New Testament itself, told everyone what the canon of Scripture is, and has the proper interpretation of said Scriptures in her liturgy, prayers, hymns, and writings. This is why the Church, and not the Scriptures, is the pillar and ground of the truth, because in it are preserved the truth of the faith.
At one point, I would have agreed with RZ, that anyone sincerely interested in the truth, will find it. At this point, I'm not sure. I think you need a degree of humility as well, which would likely preclude his kind of sophistry.
I don't think Luigi was spiritually equipped to answer some of those questions which were based on false pretences straight away. But of course, well done 🎉
@@Cynical_B No, you just spit oddball caricatures and wild extremes. "I believe sola scriptura"............"oh so you believe all God did was make a book and you don't need church and no church has authority and only you decide what's true and and and and....." Uh no.
A microcosm of protestantism at 42:21 "Do you agree with [quote]?" "What is the context of that quote?" *Proceeds to explain what his personal take on the quote is Very indicative of how protestants approach history and scripture compared to the Orthodox.
Perspicuity, which is the cornerstone of sola scriptura, is a nonsense doctrine, and is what I attempted to show in my example of the Eucharist in my call in. It is perspicuous to *me* that Christ was teaching the doctrine of the Eucharist as the Orthodox Church describes it, whilst it is perspicuous to RZ that it teaches a generic “real presence”. The problem is the fact that we are both asserting our positions and disagreeing over who has the correct interpretation, suggesting that it isn’t obvious who is correct. It is clear to me, for instance, that his reading of the passage as the sacramental union is not correct there, saying an “is-ness” which is not actually an “is-ness”. So how, then, can we say it is clear? The fact that we need to arbitrate these two readings ipso facto proves that there are no basic, clear propositions which are self-evident, because we need to each justify our positions to figure who is correct. Ergo, sola scriptura is nonsense.
Failed logic. You might as well say if two orthobros disagree on something, then EO is nonsense. Second, if two people disagree on something, you don't get to just magically declare it's only the other person's viewpoint/method that is automatically the nonsense one. Maybe it's yours? Maybe your tradition got it wrong? Maybe your view is false? Maybe your view is nonsense? The problem with EO/RC types is they inject themselves as the defacto automatic winner and default position into absolutely every question. It's actually incredibly annoying to "debate" by first assuming yourself as winner and then talking from that position. If people can't agree on a point of doctrine, they must keep studying scripture and finding which is more consistence and fitting with the rest of scripture. It isn't solved by simply declaring your church's opinion is ipso facto automatically correct by no actual means of exegesis or argument. Another problem with these debates is the EO/RC types always throw the power of their entire organization and all history behind their claims, but the "other" guy is just some dude inventing things all on his own as if nobody else ever had the same thoughts. If sola scripture means we believe what was taught by the apostles, then our "tradition" is every minute as old as anybody elses, coming straight from their mouths and minus any future accretions and additions and added traditions on top.
@@vigilantezack you just skipped the whole debate or at least the EO side. It doesn’t matter if two orthobros don’t agree, church doctrine is not formed by one man’s interpretation. Guess what, random orthobros can’t become bishops. while Protestants accept the communions of those who have done self ordination. They are not equivalent. The barrier for orthodoxy is high, while Protestantism is low, not by circumstance but by the epistemological essence.
@@vigilantezack nope, your fundamental premise fails. If people disagree over apparently clear and self-evident meaning, then there is no such thing as clear and self-evident meaning. EO doesn’t believe that scripture is perspicuous.
For clarification on Canon 11 of Trullo that states Christians cannot see Jewish doctors. As I stated it was binding in the dispensation due to cultural factors. Simply ask a Protestant who makes this argument if they believe we must put oil on our face when we fast as Jesus says. They will likely say this is simply specific to that time period (dispensation). The same is true for many of our councils.
If it was infallible to only the culture at the time, was the culture at that time correct? Was it good for the culture that Christians not see Jewish doctors?
The canon is correct and should normatively be obeyed honestly. We should not have Jewish doctors or even eat with jews or share celebrations with them.
Congratulations to both debaters for being proficient with the information found in this particular arena. Redeemed Zoomer, your efforts were particularly admirable. Most notably your composure throughout the entirety of the debate, as well as afterwards, where you were required to deal directly with a few belligerent, Orthodox callers.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 I'm simply pointing out that what's good for the goose is good for the gander; that adding another infallible authority to an existent infallible authority solves the problem about as well as the atheistic assertion that there is a universe-generating mechanism spitting out the multiverse. In the former case, one need still believe the normative authority; in the latter case, one need still establish what is at the back of everything. Confessional Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc., believe in Normative Authority. We just don't make the mistake of saying that this subordinates Sacred Scripture to a lower place.
@@marcuswilliams7448you simply cannot reconcile your view with Arianism, Semiarianism, Nestorianism etc being heresies, and you know that. Protestants DO NOT have normative authority, precisely because they haven't received authority all the way down from the Apostles to teach authoritatively and bind anyone on anything. Your confessions are as good as nothing, anyone can left their confessions and embrace another one and still functionally be a valid Protestant/Christian. Protestantism is ahistorical, simple as that.
Good debate - enjoyed it Both guys did a nice job Believe RZ edged it out - EO gentleman spread himself too thin in his arguments And appreciated RZ taking his closing time to preach the Gospel Great to see
Luigi let RZ get by with a lot. RZ spent his whole cross time reducing church decisions to majority rule. Then in Luigi's cross, RZ admitted he basically trusts majority rule. RZ made a fuss about a random person in Alexandria who had to trust a church, then admitted those people went centuries without a real canon. RZ gave no explanation on why a fallible church should be trusted to produce a Bible. Luigi held his own, but he didn't dismantle RZ.
The same line of reasoning RZ uses to „disprove“ the traditions of the Church and the authority of the Church, is the same reasoning he uses to want to prove the scriptures which he says are infallible.
2:35:30 Redeemed Zoomer admits he's been reading Church Fathers for only a few months - yet he's appealing to them in this debate a lot like he's familiar with them xD The pride!
@@Trandofir Did you ask Luigi how many months (hours?) he's been reading the church fathers? You seem to just be assuming he's more well-versed in the church fathers than Zoomer, even though he's only been EO for several hours
I think the difference has always been, with RZ, trying to shoehorn and reverse engineer the CF to fit his paradigm (RT), where Luigi is applying them as they are in their (the correct) paradigm. Looking before 1517 with a 1517 lens is wrong, and has proven its infectious insanity since to be just that, infectious insanity that poisons the soul and mind. Until RZ takes those glasses off and sets aside his pride and sunk-cost fallacy mindset, he’s gonna continue to insist he’s right and never understand why he’s wrong.
@@TopLobster9975 shoehorning and reverse engineering? How about we ask St Chrysostom. "There comes a heathen and says, 'I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?' How shall we answer him? 'Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule." (Homily 33 in Acts of the Apostles [NPNF1,11:210-11; PG 60.243-44]). Notice how he doesn't say "to to the one with apostolic succession or the one with [insert EO buzzword here]. We look to scripture. Simple as. You say "yeah but you all disagree on this or the other thing!" Chrysostom acknowledges this, and nonetheless still guides us to scripture, which is "simple and true". So we say look to scripture, exactly as Chrysostom says. We don't need to act as though scripture is some indecipherable enigma that no one could possibly understand by faith, reason, and study.
Knowing the Truth doesnt mean you will become the elect. God chooses the elect and lets them know the Truth. The non elect do not know the Truth because God has not made them the elect. Nothing you do or know makes you elect. Idk if this is actually Calvin predestination but it is Luthers predestination.
I feel that Luigi came out on top, but much respect to RZ, keep up the faith brother ❤️ even though we disagree I’m thankful for your zeal for the lord.
2:54:30 I believe was a nail in the coffin for RZ. Based on his whole argument there is no reason why this would not be the case, his view of the “church” is so subjective. If the ecclesiastic church were not so large and historic RZ would quickly deny them. He made an argument against Protestantism because he seems to believe a mutual communion(or acceptance of) is a requirement for true church status.
Also when he mentions different definition of Church and points out it’s a shame that there were splits. Ask him when that changed and point out these heresies mentioned in the early church that relate to his belief system today and are alive and well today in Protestantism.
just by seeing the commentators and the way that Luigi refers to Zoomer’s claims in a disrespectful way like saying “that’s ridiculous”, just drives me away from the Orthodox view. Other debaters against Zoomer from distinct denominations have been more respectful and less egocentric
The *Seat of Moses* = the place from which the *Written Torah Scroll* is Read (as opposed to the Oral Torah, aka the Traditions of the Fathers or "whole Law").
After luigis didache argument in his cross-exam. RZs appealing to or referencing "the scriptures" bypassed exactly what "scriptures" even meant, and became all but useless. Bravo Luigi for hammering him down to his foundations.
Very impressed with both Luigi and Redeemed Zoomer. It’s refreshing to see Gen Z guys who are passionate about Theology and the Lord.
I think there are probably more Zoomers who do than Boomers and Millennials combined.
@MarkStein-b5b Women don't typically delve into such matters, their nature is better suited to as you said, more emotional modes.
Complete (my side) victory. (Their side) got washed
My side wasn't present here but I feel like it was a clear W for them.
Pretty much. lol
@@basilmakedon I love that my side always wins
Redeemed Zoomer quoting a lot of Bishops that all were unified in the belief that Church tradition was in-line with Holy Scripture. He seems to really love quoting them. What else did they believe about the scriptures? What they said? How they interpreted it?
How does Redeemed Zoomer know which scriptures came from an Apostle and which didn’t?
Right?? Quoting people that believed in baptismal regeneration, the real presence in the Eucharist, and the priesthood 😆😆😆
@@scarletstevensreformed believes in all of those.
@@icxcnika2037 zoomer is not the authority for Reformed Theology. Be brake and read the 39 Articles or the WCF. Anglicans affirm the apostolic succession and Presbyterians don’t.
@@icxcnika2037 Ok
@@icxcnika2037 Anglicans and RCC have communion with each other.
The gates of hell shall not prevail! ☦️
Chirst is risen brothers and sisters!
He is risen Indeed!
Glory to God ☦️
Luigi Win.
Hey Jay, can you ask Luigi if he'll debate the greatest RC apologist Waluigi?
Well you were never gonna say the Protestant won would you?
Dyer, are u ever gonna debate bro. Peter dimond ?
Please make a Waluigi character to debate Luigi would be great
@@ismaelsilveira2316🤣🤣🤣🤣
Redeemed Zoomer looks like he works in a 1950s icecream parlor, Luigi looks like a highschooler who thinks he's Andrew Tate because he put $300 into bitcoin, and Zen just has a big ass forehead.
😂😂😂
Nah 😂
43 likes for childish bullshit. Unfortunately no one talkes religion seriously. This isnt fantasy football. Its the most important decision or life choice you will ever have to make.
1950's 1960's lol Classic Cars and Rock'n'Roll era.' hehe 😅 funny but yeah he's kinda dressed that way!'
@@orthobro7773I agree 💯%
Luigi W, Luigi taking these debates has been awesome. May God keep you humble and bless your work☦️☦️
Thank you for talking about the St Theodosius fire. We need all the help that we can get.
Great Job Luigi
My big respect to Redeemed Zoomer and Luigi. Im orthodox(russian)
Russian Orthodox? Embarrassing corrupt.
Finaly a debate where we can actualy learn something instead of listening to the lost souls of this world.
EO and RC believe protestants are apostates
Literally all of the things that where being said flew over my head. It's amazing sometimes to learn that you don't know
In response to Redeemed Zoomers question about the canon which says you can't go to a Jewish Doctor, its important to take into account the time period for this canon. At the time there was not widespread secular healthcare. A "Jewish" doctor in this case would have been a Rabbinical Jewish ritualistic sort of medicine, which a Christian absolutely should not participate in. It isnt the equivalent to going to a licensed healthcare provider today, who is Jewish. Its like going to a Pagan Shaman, or a Kabalistic Jewish ritual, in the hope that they will heal you. The canon is essentially saying not to take part in medicinal practices that include practices from false religions.
So yes, all Canons of every Orthodox Ecumenical Council are infallible and binding. Please read them in proper context.
Theres similar canons saying that a Clergymen should not attend any Theatre Performances. But its important to note that Theatre Performances at this time wouldve been Roman Performances which would have exclusively included Nudity and Pagan themes.
"ts important to take into account the time period for this canon."
Sounds like you're interpreting for yourself without a church authority.
@@JD-xz1mxnice try, but no
@@carsonianthegreat4672 That's not a rebuttle.
The Protoevangelium of James contains Traditions we find in our services. This does not mean that these Traditions come from that book. It is a written witness to these Traditions.
true
Very common to think that the earliest extant instance of something must be the first instance
Luigi is impressive young man with his knowledge. Awesome to see the young guys having a desire to delve deep into these issues. God bless him for his defense of Orthodoxy.
An arrogant young man with a bunch of head knowledge is what he is
Orthobros are some of the best at defending their faith. Confessional Lutherans are pretty fierce too. I would like to see a debate on Eucharist and the “presence” between EO and a confessional Lutheran.
Orthocultbros
RZ gave up after Chases's limes of questioning and then the bit with Luigi right after.
Both of them made RZ go, "nope, im done."
Luigi- beautiful opening statement 🕯️. I look forward to learning more of each of your examples to share with others seeking truth with a humble heart. Prayers for all attendees 🙏💕
Props to RZ for doing this. I think he’s very genuine
Really enjoyed the debate. Great showmanship from both sides.
Great 100% with Luigi 🎉
Redeemed Zoomer claims that under sola scriptura he could claim his bishop was wrong and fell into heresy, the problem is, using sola scriptura, you could also claim your bishop was right, even though he was wrong. Under sola scriptura, you could claim that Aryianism is correct, under sola scriptura you could affirm calvinism or you could affirm or you could affirm arminianism. People do it all the time. Under sola scriptura, you could claim one of the councils erred or you could affirm all the councils. Heresy is not a head issue, it's a heart issue.
The saints preserve the faith. We need the church to make the saints.
Astutely worded. Thank you. :)
Well said!
Yes, correct. Because of the super arbitrary nature of it, Sola Scriptura produces a wildly inconsistent result on a massive scale and that outcome itself is evidence of a false doctrine. One of the callers Chase pressed him on this and RZ couldn't give him a straight answer. Without that arbitrary element, Sola Scriptura doesn't have oxygen.
This is a nonsense argument. People can be wrong under either system. Authoritarian church structures are wrong about issues of Scripture with regularity. The point being made about Sola Scriptura is not that those who follow it are always correct, but that those who follow it are at least in a position to fight the heresy when it arises.
@@JD-xz1mx you missed my argument completely. You are just as likely, if not more, to use the scriptures to promote heresy as you are to defend against it. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God. The saints are the ones that preserve the faith. The church is needed to make the saints.
RZs closing was great. It highlights the ridiculousness of the EO church and its appeal to men over God
Redeemed zoomer was able to focus on the actual debate topic better and defend it better.
Eventually, the conversation veered towards red herrings, but regardless, it went very well and props to both gentlemen for putting on a good theological show for our enjoyment.
I really like RZ.
I look forward to the day he becomes Orthodox.
Either way I do believe we will see him in Heaven as he is sincere
Yea but
Pray for him it does seem like his heart is in the right place… though you wouldn’t know that by his twitter coal haha
@@seminoleboy96 his heart is in the right place we are lucky that he is even Christian you should read his story he was a place that has a atheist ⚛️
We will leave this in God’s hands, but I agree that he seems to have his heart in the right place… maybe I’m deceived by the bow tie lol.
I don’t like what he said about Jay after his debate, but he since deleted it and apologized, which I think is 100% forgivable
@@adamrosner4396 LOL
This debate is 1000x more interesting than the Horn White debate.
Cuz those 2 just recycle the same points everytime they debate now. Also White’s scary Rome argument is getting old
@@JoshYng Truth. I literally laughed out loud when white said he didn't want to rehash the same old, then almost in the same breath brought up his debate with Matatix in the 90s.
@@notavailable4891 it’s always Gerry that gets brought up lmao
Agreed! And I am a massive JW fan
Ortho Chad Luigi W
Catholicism. Vindicated.
Luigi cross examination and questions are beyond the scope of the argument of sola scriptural.
I really enjoyed this debate between Luigi and Other Paul with w a guest appearence of Redeemed Zoomer
I thought that in a cross examination I should hear the questioned more than the questioner. Luigi asks questions and doesn’t let his opponent to answer 💀 This guy can’t debate
he get's worked up far too easily
This wasn’t even close. Ben destroyed RZ’s positions and collected a fresh skull for the Throne. NO QUARTER 🏴☠️ 🏴☠️ 🏴☠️
Each side always thinks their side won.
@@J.T.Stillwell3 Oh yeah, there is a definite bias, but Zen did a good job moderating most of that for the guest. RZ straight up conceded on many of his fundamental points though. All the hyperbole aside, he seems like a good kid and I think if he keeps going on this path he will eventually adapt his views. Gotta cheer on my team from the stands though 🎉 ✌️
Complete my side victory, there side got crushed.
Haha nope. RZ took him out for a easy W
There’s a lot to say, but I’ll say this, the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles could never have taught Sola Scriptura idea while alive on earth because the bulk of their teaching or all their teaching was oral. The Church was built upon a predominantly oral Tradition that was preserved. There also existed both oral and written Tradition side by side, and nobody ever made a stink about one being infallible vs not infallible prior to the papal Protestants.
That doesn’t contradict Sola Scriptura. The Pharisees also upheld early tradition, but Christ rebuked them.
It literally does contradict, Sola means only, meaning the only Word of God is the writings which is absurd. Paul when he preach he’d said he was speaking the Word of God. He also said to hold fast to tradition taught, whether by letter or word of mouth
@@jessicab1272I was a Protestant for 24 years. I know a few things. I’m now Orthodox. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for elevating the tradition of men above the word of God. The key there is tradition of men, not all tradition, for some tradition can come from God, like oral or written Tradition of God. The source of a tradition is the important thing to consider. Scripture is written Tradition, source = God. In the same breath, when Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for elevating their tradition of men above the word of God, He also affirms another Tradition from God that of those religious leaders position of authority, for they sat in the seat of Moses, which was preserved orally for generations.
This may be new to you, but the source of a tradition is the important thing. If some tradition comes from men, while other Tradition comes from God, then not all tradition is bad. Jesus taught completely orally. Therefore, as the apostles passed it on through oral teaching primarily, they passed on the Tradition of Christ, not merely the word of men. Therefore, they couldn’t have taught written Scripture was greater or infallible compared to oral teaching in their time on earth. Think how many churches formed after Pentecost. They had the Old Testament, not the Protestant OT. They had the oral teaching of the apostles for about the next 20 years before any NT gospel or epistle was written. And there wasn’t a canon of Scripture for centuries. The church grew despite NO canon. They had the truth. They preserved it.
Sola Scriptura is a modern idea that started in the 1500s with Luther and his dealing with a corrupted so called church.
@@ProtestantismLeftBehind Tradition can be a good thing, yes, and I do have problems with how divided Protestantism is. Personally, I prefer how Catholic and Orthodox churches are structured to the Protestant ones. However, I take issue with some of the practices of Orthodoxy and Catholicism: specifically, communication with those who have left this world.
I know the argument that praying to the saints is merely asking for them to pray to God on our behalf, but the Bible says that we already have Christ as the one and only intercessor. We ask our brothers and sisters for prayer who still remain on this earth as a way to be unified with them spiritually. This cannot be the case for those who are in heaven. They are not aware of what happens on earth while they are in heaven. Their attention is on God, and God alone. If they are troubled by worldly issues while in Heaven, wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of heaven being a perfect place of rest and reprieve from worldly troubles?
@@jessicab1272 Your sole objection is a "it gives me the heebie jeebies" type of objection, aka not a real objection, compared to the Solas. Just because you don't feel good about something, and most importantly that you don't understand it as you haven't given it any real time to look into, doesn't mean it's wrong.
Also, you're confusing what a mediator is and what an intercessor is. The Bible tells us Christ is the sole mediator, as in someone who has healed the relationship that was broken between humanity and God the Father. That's what is meant by calling Christ out mediator. Thinking you have "direct access" to Jesus whilst completely ignoring his chosen family and thereby disrespecting it and Him ... does that make any sense to you? The fact that Saints interceed is based entirely on the fact that God, for reasons known only to Himself, delegates his work to his ministers by choice, be it angelic beings or sanctified humans as well as regular humans who are still alive and in the process of growing in Him. Just like the angels, sanctified humans (be it alive or dead, which simply means that their mode of operation changes from spiritual and physical to strictly spiritual) receive duties in the spiritual realm, Heaven is not what holywood has sold you to be (a place of "peaceful ecstasy" or "nonechalant ignorance" view that you're clearly subscribed to or whatever else you'd call that nonsense).
"They are not aware of what happens on earth while they are in heaven" - And your basis for believing that is what, exactly? Because it definitely isn't scripture or tradition or anything remotely worth considering.
"If they are troubled by worldly issues while in Heaven, wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of heaven being a perfect place of rest and reprieve from worldly troubles?" - Who told you to skip the book of revelation and make up your own version of what Heaven is and who's aware of what? Try looking into that book and maybe what the divine council is. If anything, that version of Heaven you're thinking of (but not exactly) is what will happen on Earth after the second coming.
Great debate 🎉 Luigi with the W ☦️
I'm Protestant myself and if we're to declare a winner I'd probably give Luigi the edge here. The guy knows his stuff and he's very passionate. RZ, for someone who became a Christian later in life has definitely done his homework on church history and I thought he did very well holding it together knowing he was going to be in the minority against EO's who know their stuff. Fact is RZ knew what he was getting himself into by agreeing to this debate. Trust me, if this were flipped around there's no question Luigi would've faced a similar style debate being in the minority. Ultimately I like these debates because I think we learn and benefit from them. Not to mention I'm not a Protestant who think he knows everything and I've come to greatly appreciate my Orthodox and Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.
What do you mean by minority and majority. Are you saying that there are more Orthodox Christians than Protestants?
@@YugaKhan no I was talking about how RZ was the only Protestant on the debate. Everyone else was Orthodox except for maybe a caller or 2
38:12 the Catholic Church has a similar concept, where we don’t necessarily have a closed canon either. The Council of Trent defined a minimum of the 73 texts are definitively part of the canon, but didn’t say that absolutely no other texts are scriptural.
@MarkStein-b5b if you read the canons of the Council of Trent, it does not actually say the canon is closed. It just says that there are a minimum of 73 particular canonical books
I think the only thing that holds RZ back from even considering becoming orthodox is the way that so called "orthobros" act on the Internet. And especially Twitter.
When we try to persuade someone to become orthodox, we should do that because we love the other person (since he's made in the image of God) and want him to join the body of Christ (which is the chruch established by the apostles).
Only then we will be able to make the other person at least understand our position and listen to what we have to say.
No. It’s his pride.
I'm not gonna lie when you see how many times Redeemed Zoomer baits Orthodoxy on twitter it becomes harder and harder to not call him out on it. Out of every single Christian denomination Redeemed zoomer continuously targets Orthodoxy the most. That's the same as tossing gasoline on an already raging fire. He probably wouldn't be called out by Orthobros if he just stopped talking about Orthodoxy and focused more on his reconquista mission or collaborating with other protestants. It almost seems as if Orthodoxy just lives rent free in his head with how many times he baits and mocks Orthodoxy on twitter. I understand we must turn the other cheek, but the people on twitter by virtue of being on twitter aren't the paragons of Orthodoxy and would not respond kindly to being baited for the fifth that week by RZ.
Oh yeah sure lol
He already said that if he wasn't prot he would be catholic.
I disagree. He mentioned during the debate that he had friends who were Oriental Orthodox Christians, and that every OO he's interacted with has been super nice, and yet I see no indication of him considering converting to OO. I believe that he just has many presuppositions that he's not willing to give up.
I wouldn't necessarily say the debate ended in the favor of either person, however it did seem like Luigi was more assertive and slow to listen during his side of the cross examination. Regardless, good job to both people and God bless!
Orthodox chad wins, easy.
The community of arrogant Orthodox followers who think they’re the chosen church… THINK their guy won, shocked.
Btw why are Orthodox ppl like Andrew, Dyer and this guy always in some angry debate bro mode? Dude has no chill
The orthos are smart to choose whom they debate, against a Catholic they would soo utterly loose.
@@voxpopuli8132How could that happen when Orthodoxy is the one true church?
@@voxpopuli8132is that why more Roman Catholics are converting to EO and not the other way around? Dyer smashed Ybara on the papacy, and that’s the biggest argument between us.
The Church of the first millennia didn’t have the vatican 1 papacy, Christ and orthodox christianity wins ☦️
Reading the comments first, I thought Zoomer would get steamrolled, but he held his own quite well. He should have appealed to the Bible more than just is closing statement, but he's right, both sides agreed The Bible is all you need for Salvation.
Protestants aren't interested in these topics as EO/RC so they flood and outnumber in the comments.
Catholic here - good job Luigi. Credit to Richard though on pushing on the epistemic questions
Luigi dominated RZ in the cross examination. Maybe RZ should focus on taking deep breaths instead of talking at 300 wpm as a question dodging strategy
Ben shapiro moment
Typical onlinebro comment
Yeah he just cut him off and didn’t listen to his context. Man… it’s become clear to me Orthodox is another far right debate bro movement that is obsessed with “winning”, just compare the grace ppl like Knowles and Kirk give on Whatever compared to the douchbaggery Andrew Wilson pulls, there’s no compassion or grace in this guy just resentment. Ephesians 4-5, Galatians 5.. this guy exercises only contempt towards his opposition. He hates them.
Rz cornered him and undressed him on how one could epistemologically defend which oral tradition was truly apostolic.
RZ easily won bud
Luigi, I’ve never seen you before, but think you did a very good job. My suggestion is develop more the pattern of Church as the pillar of ground of truth, and ask if there are multiple Jesus’s, Churches, gospels, etc and give examples we see today with blatant blasphemous beliefs which should be pinned on Protestants. Then ask him if he approves of these beliefs which he will answer in the negative. Then go on and point out we reject those beliefs as well but due to the normative authority of the Church and on that same basis we reject your beliefs. Again very well done, will look forward to seeing more of your debates.
I grew up far away from any Orthodox teachings. We went to a "Bible" church. I didn't really understand what a Protestant was until I got into the military and my religion options were limited to Catholic or Protestant and I started to look into this. I love these debates and am interested in learning more about Orthodoxy. I am not quite convinced that it is superior but I find there are many things that I don't fully understand when listening to these debates. Can anyone suggest a primer on Orthodoxy that would speak to a lifelong so called Protestant?
I also have to say that I find the Orthodox debaters and even the following Orthodox super chatters to have a far more logical position that is hard for Protestant debaters to come up with appropriate answers for. I found my way here after hearing Andrew Wilson speaking in Whatever panels and found his line of reasoning hard to deny. So really interested in learning more.
Know The Faith by Michael Shanbour is excellent
Rock and Sand by Fr Josiah a former Protestant.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 A great video by Perry Robinson, though it may be too technical for someone without prior knowledge.
I suggest Fr. Stephen De Young’s “Religion of the Apostles: Orthodox Christianity in the First Century.”
@@TheOrthodoxAlbanianwhat videos are you talking about
I'm a Traditional Roman Catholic so I obviously sided with Luigi, but man, that reedemed zoomer kid is such a nice dude. I would love for him to join an apostolic church, preferably the one true, holy, and apostolic Catholic Church!! Deus Vult!
amen
How can a person, who believes in Sola Scriptura, reference a tradition that would consider them heretical? So funny, Redeemed Zoomer keeps wanting to reference a scripture, put together by Church Fathers he’d consider heretics😂
Cherry picking the church fathers as they do with the bible.
The fathers aren't a monolith. Go read Matthison on Sola Scriptura, and then find Sean Luke on Sola Apostolica/Prima Scriptura on YT. Or, keep believing a priori we're heretics because you binged Dyer and didn't read Calvin.
We do not, however, insinuate that God was ever hostile to him or angry with him. How could he be angry with the beloved Son, with whom his soul was well pleased? or how could he have appeased the Father by his intercession for others if He were hostile to himself? But this we say, that he bore the weight of the divine anger, that, smitten and afflicted, he experienced all the signs of an angry and avenging God - Calvin 2.16.11
That is, with you, Calvin thinks that Jesus enduring God's wrath was done so only as an icon (sign) of God's wrath at us in Adam, not wrath at the Person of the Son.
If you come away from the fathers believing they're united on eschatology, the role of faith, the role of baptism, the clarity of 2 or 3 roles for ordination (Ignatius and Polycarp), or the role of Scripture in norming other apostolic deposits, hermeneutical emphases on grammar or typology (Antiochean vs Alexandrian), or Trinitarian metaphysics (Cappadocian v. Augustinian) or soteriology (substitution precursors, recapitulation, exemplar), without presupposing your own Church's right to norm the fathers by their own inclusion/exclusion criteria, you're simply doing what you claim Prots can't do- you're applying an arbitrary norming special pleading grounded in an appeal to a dialectic that preserves your tradition's consolidation of itself as the safeguard of apostolic doctrine, in an unfalsifiable way that doesn't wrestle with material reality.
The fathers aren't a perspicuous single voiced authority- they're a chorus. Some sing out of tune, or come in at odd times, and most sing a consistent glorious stream of notes we call the "rule of faith", represented in many of their points of agreement. You admit that same necessary discernment of who's in/out of orthodoxy, by who you count as a saint, and who you exclude and by what standards.
Prots agree that you should exclude/include by a doctrinal standard ecclesially authorized- we think that that norm is the apostolic deposit in Scripture first, and then in other authorities as designated by Scripture and coordinate necessities to linguistic interpretation- linguistic rules, natural revelation on signs/signifiers, tradition on canonical boundaries to the deposits recognized as Scripture. Kruger gets at this, but all three of the main branches have to recognize a dialectic mystery in how we get our Canon- all of us lean on the existential promise that the Sheep recognize the Shepherd's voice, that the apostles' left us written deposits to remind us of their teachings, and that the written deposits point to living traditions we should use in dialectic with the written ones.
Redeemed zoomer wouldn't consider church fathers, or Catholics in general, heretics, any understanding of trad protestant theology knows this. Please take the time to understand the opposing side before straw manning their arguments
The fathers aren't a monolith. Go read Matthison on Sola Scriptura, and then find Sean Luke on Sola Apostolica/Prima Scriptura on YT. Or, keep believing a priori we're heretics because you binged Dyer and didn't read Calvin.
We do not, however, insinuate that God was ever hostile to him or angry with him. How could he be angry with the beloved Son, with whom his soul was well pleased? or how could he have appeased the Father by his intercession for others if He were hostile to himself? But this we say, that he bore the weight of the divine anger, that, smitten and afflicted, he experienced all the signs of an angry and avenging God - Calvin 2.16.11
That is, with you, Calvin thinks that Jesus enduring God's wrath was done so only as an icon (sign) of God's wrath at us in Adam, not wrath at the Person of the Son.
If you come away from the fathers believing they're united on eschatology, the role of faith, the role of baptism, the clarity of 2 or 3 roles for ordination (Ignatius and Polycarp), or the role of Scripture in norming other apostolic deposits, hermeneutical emphases on grammar or typology (Antiochean vs Alexandrian), or Trinitarian metaphysics (Cappadocian v. Augustinian) or soteriology (substitution precursors, recapitulation, exemplar), without presupposing your own Church's right to norm the fathers by their own inclusion/exclusion criteria, you're simply doing what you claim Prots can't do- you're applying an arbitrary norming special pleading grounded in an appeal to a dialectic that preserves your tradition's consolidation of itself as the safeguard of apostolic doctrine, in an unfalsifiable way that doesn't wrestle with material reality.
The fathers aren't a perspicuous single voiced authority- they're a chorus. Some sing out of tune, or come in at odd times, and most sing a consistent glorious stream of notes we call the "rule of faith", represented in many of their points of agreement. You admit that same necessary discernment of who's in/out of orthodoxy, by who you count as a saint, and who you exclude and by what standards.
Prots agree that you should exclude/include by a doctrinal standard ecclesially authorized- we think that that norm is the apostolic deposit in Scripture first, and then in other authorities as designated by Scripture and coordinate necessities to linguistic interpretation- linguistic rules, natural revelation on signs/signifiers, tradition on canonical boundaries to the deposits recognized as Scripture. Kruger gets at this, but all three of the main branches have to recognize a dialectic mystery in how we get our Canon- all of us lean on the existential promise that the Sheep recognize the Shepherd's voice, that the apostles' left us written deposits to remind us of their teachings, and that the written deposits point to living traditions we should use in dialectic with the written ones.
@@dylanfritz3048 we know. The fathers would consider Protestantism heretical. Work on your reading comprehension.
I don't think so words... damn good point lets go into that.
So glad that the side I agree with won this debate wholeheartedly. Really great to see.
RZ: "Sola Scriptura is a modern word for an ancient principle that the Scriptures are the highest authority for God's people."
St. Paul: "but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."- 1Tim. 3:15.
Sounds to me like St. Paul considered the Church, not the Scriptures, to be the highest authority for God's people, even calling it "the pillar and ground of the truth", which of course the "truth" is Jesus Christ Himself (John 14:6). For the Church, the highest authority is Christ and His Gospel. The Scriptures attest to this fact. The Scriptures are a witness to the truth of Christ, but it is the Church that correctly understands those Scriptures. The Prot position is false.
If the Church has authority above the Scriptures, it can contradict the Scriptures. If the Church can contradict the Scriptures, it doesn't matter what Paul said in 1 Tim 3:15 because you simply don't care what his intention was if your Church says otherwise.
This is the central absurdity of trying to use Scripture as the highest authority to establish how Scripture isn't the highest authority. Merely citing the verse as your basis itself showcases that you don't genuinely believe your own position.
@@JD-xz1mx The Church produced the New Testament itself, told everyone what the canon of Scripture is, and has the proper interpretation of said Scriptures in her liturgy, prayers, hymns, and writings. This is why the Church, and not the Scriptures, is the pillar and ground of the truth, because in it are preserved the truth of the faith.
At one point, I would have agreed with RZ, that anyone sincerely interested in the truth, will find it. At this point, I'm not sure. I think you need a degree of humility as well, which would likely preclude his kind of sophistry.
I don't think Luigi was spiritually equipped to answer some of those questions which were based on false pretences straight away. But of course, well done 🎉
Stop it, Luigi! Stop it. He's already dead!!!! :) Seriously though, master class job. Well done!
You did good RZ But Luigi wins this one. I can't wait for your next debate, Luigi
You should put their links in the description
Lol Luigi is sounding way more like Dyer in this debate than in his voice of reason debate. Bro has been learning presup
Is there not any other Protestant intellectuals willing to debate that are better than Redeemed Zoomer?
They’re all scared of the mean, orthobros, lol
I’ll do it no problem.
All you guys do is talk trash and misrepresent what we believe.
@@iconiclust no we accurately represent what you believe. You guys just cope.
@@Cynical_B No, you just spit oddball caricatures and wild extremes. "I believe sola scriptura"............"oh so you believe all God did was make a book and you don't need church and no church has authority and only you decide what's true and and and and....." Uh no.
@@vigilantezack "Uh no" isn't an argument little bro.
Wow Luigi crushed this debate. Glory to god and the fullness of the truth ☦️
A microcosm of protestantism at 42:21
"Do you agree with [quote]?"
"What is the context of that quote?"
*Proceeds to explain what his personal take on the quote is
Very indicative of how protestants approach history and scripture compared to the Orthodox.
Ok, it was over the moment he accepted the council of Nicaea as the Word of the Lord
You mean, with a brain?
2:03:45 I listened to that debate. Jay Dyer said the EXACT OPPOSITE.
Nice to see zen shapiro back
What was wrong with him? Why did he disappear for a while?
@@highlander548 Probably just focusing on his family
@@highlander548He was recovering from forehead surgery
Is this Luigi's channel i like this young man id like to subscribe, the other brother showed up and held his composure. May God bless
Perspicuity, which is the cornerstone of sola scriptura, is a nonsense doctrine, and is what I attempted to show in my example of the Eucharist in my call in.
It is perspicuous to *me* that Christ was teaching the doctrine of the Eucharist as the Orthodox Church describes it, whilst it is perspicuous to RZ that it teaches a generic “real presence”.
The problem is the fact that we are both asserting our positions and disagreeing over who has the correct interpretation, suggesting that it isn’t obvious who is correct. It is clear to me, for instance, that his reading of the passage as the sacramental union is not correct there, saying an “is-ness” which is not actually an “is-ness”. So how, then, can we say it is clear?
The fact that we need to arbitrate these two readings ipso facto proves that there are no basic, clear propositions which are self-evident, because we need to each justify our positions to figure who is correct.
Ergo, sola scriptura is nonsense.
Very true.
Failed logic.
You might as well say if two orthobros disagree on something, then EO is nonsense. Second, if two people disagree on something, you don't get to just magically declare it's only the other person's viewpoint/method that is automatically the nonsense one. Maybe it's yours? Maybe your tradition got it wrong? Maybe your view is false? Maybe your view is nonsense?
The problem with EO/RC types is they inject themselves as the defacto automatic winner and default position into absolutely every question. It's actually incredibly annoying to "debate" by first assuming yourself as winner and then talking from that position.
If people can't agree on a point of doctrine, they must keep studying scripture and finding which is more consistence and fitting with the rest of scripture. It isn't solved by simply declaring your church's opinion is ipso facto automatically correct by no actual means of exegesis or argument.
Another problem with these debates is the EO/RC types always throw the power of their entire organization and all history behind their claims, but the "other" guy is just some dude inventing things all on his own as if nobody else ever had the same thoughts. If sola scripture means we believe what was taught by the apostles, then our "tradition" is every minute as old as anybody elses, coming straight from their mouths and minus any future accretions and additions and added traditions on top.
@@vigilantezack you just skipped the whole debate or at least the EO side. It doesn’t matter if two orthobros don’t agree, church doctrine is not formed by one man’s interpretation. Guess what, random orthobros can’t become bishops. while Protestants accept the communions of those who have done self ordination. They are not equivalent. The barrier for orthodoxy is high, while Protestantism is low, not by circumstance but by the epistemological essence.
@@vigilantezack nope, your fundamental premise fails. If people disagree over apparently clear and self-evident meaning, then there is no such thing as clear and self-evident meaning.
EO doesn’t believe that scripture is perspicuous.
Is it self-evident that Eastern Orthodox Church and not the OO or RC Church is the true Church?
Does anybody else feel stupid, watching this? Both of these guys are phenoms, regardless of where one comes down on this issue.
For clarification on Canon 11 of Trullo that states Christians cannot see Jewish doctors.
As I stated it was binding in the dispensation due to cultural factors.
Simply ask a Protestant who makes this argument if they believe we must put oil on our face when we fast as Jesus says.
They will likely say this is simply specific to that time period (dispensation).
The same is true for many of our councils.
If it was infallible to only the culture at the time, was the culture at that time correct? Was it good for the culture that Christians not see Jewish doctors?
@@wormius7350yes they were performing witchcraft at the time.
The canon is correct and should normatively be obeyed honestly. We should not have Jewish doctors or even eat with jews or share celebrations with them.
@@langluigi
*and still are
@@shiningdiamond5046Jesus ate with sinners. The idea that you can't eat with Jews is completely against Scripture.
Congratulations to both debaters for being proficient with the information found in this particular arena.
Redeemed Zoomer, your efforts were particularly admirable. Most notably your composure throughout the entirety of the debate, as well as afterwards, where you were required to deal directly with a few belligerent, Orthodox callers.
Honestly thought RZ won because he actually addressed and answered objections while Luigi would just laugh a question off without explanation.
Protestant here. Luigi was pretty solid. The callers dogpilling RZ were definitely a bad example of Christian Brotherhood.
If I say I'm right about being wrong well yeah i'm still wrong and book.. good point.
Oh no. In before a fresh set of bans on RZ's discord. F
Luigi out of his element when pressed on sufficiency of scripture. He has no idea where to take it
Redeemed Zoomer's period of cross examination revealed how arbitrary the definition of the "clear" standard of apostolic tradition really is.
Never thought I'd see a Lutheran pastor I always watch in here. Love your work, keep it coming!
@@crossvilleengineering1238 I'm simply pointing out that what's good for the goose is good for the gander; that adding another infallible authority to an existent infallible authority solves the problem about as well as the atheistic assertion that there is a universe-generating mechanism spitting out the multiverse. In the former case, one need still believe the normative authority; in the latter case, one need still establish what is at the back of everything. Confessional Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc., believe in Normative Authority. We just don't make the mistake of saying that this subordinates Sacred Scripture to a lower place.
@@marcuswilliams7448you simply cannot reconcile your view with Arianism, Semiarianism, Nestorianism etc being heresies, and you know that.
Protestants DO NOT have normative authority, precisely because they haven't received authority all the way down from the Apostles to teach authoritatively and bind anyone on anything. Your confessions are as good as nothing, anyone can left their confessions and embrace another one and still functionally be a valid Protestant/Christian.
Protestantism is ahistorical, simple as that.
@@crossvilleengineering1238 Just for curiosity, what is your position?
@@crossvilleengineering1238 crazy answer. i guess your position then is the scriptures are determined to be authoritative by womens headcoverings?
Regarding this topic, the introduction of The Meaning of Icons explain the relationship between Bible interpretation and Tradition beautifully.
Good debate - enjoyed it
Both guys did a nice job
Believe RZ edged it out - EO gentleman spread himself too thin in his arguments
And appreciated RZ taking his closing time to preach the Gospel
Great to see
We people words, god might be wrong words things rock... pray for this guy.
Can I get a quick physiognomy check?
chair 1 is holding onto "EVERYONE" can be saved no matter what!.
I would say Luigi won but RZ is wearing a bow tie so I’m leaning that it was a tie
The Bishop of Rome is also the heir to the throne of Moses through St. Paul.
Unbiased opinion. RZ was winning during his cross examination, but fell off during Luigi's cross examination.
Sounding confident and having immediate answers is not a sign of winning. Redeemed Zoomer didn't win anything anywhere 😊
Luigi let RZ get by with a lot. RZ spent his whole cross time reducing church decisions to majority rule. Then in Luigi's cross, RZ admitted he basically trusts majority rule. RZ made a fuss about a random person in Alexandria who had to trust a church, then admitted those people went centuries without a real canon. RZ gave no explanation on why a fallible church should be trusted to produce a Bible. Luigi held his own, but he didn't dismantle RZ.
59:20 closing statements
Luigi was forceful, like an interrogator. But many of the callers were rude.
The same line of reasoning RZ uses to „disprove“ the traditions of the Church and the authority of the Church, is the same reasoning he uses to want to prove the scriptures which he says are infallible.
the notion instead of fact is a great point.
2:35:30 Redeemed Zoomer admits he's been reading Church Fathers for only a few months - yet he's appealing to them in this debate a lot like he's familiar with them xD The pride!
Luigi has been Orthodox for like 12 seconds and appealed to them constantly too. Good cope
@@lanetrain So you can only read Church Fathers once you become Orthodox - good argument 🤣
@@Trandofir Did you ask Luigi how many months (hours?) he's been reading the church fathers? You seem to just be assuming he's more well-versed in the church fathers than Zoomer, even though he's only been EO for several hours
I think the difference has always been, with RZ, trying to shoehorn and reverse engineer the CF to fit his paradigm (RT), where Luigi is applying them as they are in their (the correct) paradigm.
Looking before 1517 with a 1517 lens is wrong, and has proven its infectious insanity since to be just that, infectious insanity that poisons the soul and mind.
Until RZ takes those glasses off and sets aside his pride and sunk-cost fallacy mindset, he’s gonna continue to insist he’s right and never understand why he’s wrong.
@@TopLobster9975 shoehorning and reverse engineering? How about we ask St Chrysostom.
"There comes a heathen and says, 'I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?'
How shall we answer him? 'Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule." (Homily 33 in Acts of the Apostles [NPNF1,11:210-11; PG 60.243-44]).
Notice how he doesn't say "to to the one with apostolic succession or the one with [insert EO buzzword here]. We look to scripture. Simple as. You say "yeah but you all disagree on this or the other thing!" Chrysostom acknowledges this, and nonetheless still guides us to scripture, which is "simple and true". So we say look to scripture, exactly as Chrysostom says. We don't need to act as though scripture is some indecipherable enigma that no one could possibly understand by faith, reason, and study.
"The Didache doesn't really say much."
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Protestantism.
When one studies History, one ceases to be Protestant.
How?
@@Thebasedheritichistory destroys protestant presuppositions.
@@inrmds tell me about it then some of the Church founders agreed with protestantism
@@inrmdsI'm very sympathetic towards orthodox christianity but a lot of mainstream history isn't trustworthy lol
Church history made me protestant
RZ: "the elect will know the truth"
"Knowing Christ is truth make us the elect"
That's a CIRCLE. Jay, get the whiteboard, we got another one!
Knowing the Truth doesnt mean you will become the elect. God chooses the elect and lets them know the Truth. The non elect do not know the Truth because God has not made them the elect. Nothing you do or know makes you elect. Idk if this is actually Calvin predestination but it is Luthers predestination.
@@DANtheMANofSIPA he was speaking about the criteria by which you can identify the elect not the process of becoming the elect
Zens forehead won this debate without being seen
any soul chair 1 had is leaving... so spurg spurg i'm wrong these words can a human save me wrong wrong wrong.
Calm and collected always does it. RZ keeps impressing me day by day
That doesn't constitute an argument lol
Or make someone right
So you make up your opinion upon formal things?
I feel that Luigi came out on top, but much respect to RZ, keep up the faith brother ❤️ even though we disagree I’m thankful for your zeal for the lord.
Lugi is getting mad.. for what? It’s so obnoxious
chair 1, "yeah i know I'm a walking dumpster fire..." so words things i'm feels (pray) things rock words spurg.
Clearly zoomer has never read Cyril. He clearly didn’t believe in the regulative principle. He has an entire chapter on baptism and chrism
Luigi arguing everything except sola scriptura
2:54:30 I believe was a nail in the coffin for RZ. Based on his whole argument there is no reason why this would not be the case, his view of the “church” is so subjective. If the ecclesiastic church were not so large and historic RZ would quickly deny them. He made an argument against Protestantism because he seems to believe a mutual communion(or acceptance of) is a requirement for true church status.
No as if you start up a new church you abandon the succession of Presbyters.
@@JoshuaJacque117 the issue is RZ doesn’t deny any of the Protestant churches without apostolic succession.
Also when he mentions different definition of Church and points out it’s a shame that there were splits. Ask him when that changed and point out these heresies mentioned in the early church that relate to his belief system today and are alive and well today in Protestantism.
just by seeing the commentators and the way that Luigi refers to Zoomer’s claims in a disrespectful way like saying “that’s ridiculous”, just drives me away from the Orthodox view. Other debaters against Zoomer from distinct denominations have been more respectful and less egocentric
Orthobros are full of themselves.
The *Seat of Moses* = the place from which the *Written Torah Scroll* is Read (as opposed to the Oral Torah, aka the Traditions of the Fathers or "whole Law").
RZ line of questioning is just ridiculus
After luigis didache argument in his cross-exam. RZs appealing to or referencing "the scriptures" bypassed exactly what "scriptures" even meant, and became all but useless. Bravo Luigi for hammering him down to his foundations.