Bezmanov is a MI6/CIA shill. He was used for propaganda purposes and promoting liberalism, americanism and the western power elite agenda during the Cold War. "Sovietism is bad because people there are oppresed, but western liberal socialism is good because you're free to be a degenerate". He cried about homosexuality being suppressed in USSR as if that's a bad thing. Classic fake and gay Cold era dialectics. I cringe every time I see a fellow conspiratard share this shill's lectures.

All cults are ran by the intel agencies. Case closed.

I know about branch theory. It contradicts the Nicaean creed (one holy catholic and apostolic Church). The Church is Christ's body here on Earth - there can be no divisions or parts within the body. This is a heresy condemned at Chalcedon which is the reason why the Orthodox Church rejects the Catholic's Sacred Heart devotion.

The problem is that in theory any individual or group can set new norms and they have done this, even in the first millennium among those who are still professing Christian churches today

You're confusing the synodal structure of the apostolic Church (as established in Acts and the Epistles) and oikonomia (canon law under the jurisdiction of the local bishop) with different sects falling away from communion with the Church due to difference in dogma and doctrine. The first major split in the Church was due to Nestorianism and that led to the falling away of the Oriental Church after Chalcedon. The setting of new norms is economic only. The decisions made at the ecumenical councils are infallible and definitive of what the orthodox faith is - deviation from this means you're no longer in the Church (your branch has been cut off).

Here's Jay on branch theory: https://youtu.be/qXx6DHU0HmI?t=377

So you did imply that we need a Pope to reinterpret scripture for us. You just call your Pope "the Church" when really it's your church father or fathers reinterpreting for you (btw 'Pope" means Papa so same issue).

Have you red Acts and the epistles? Paul addressed the churches in different cities. Do you realize the Church was established by Christ Himself and apostolic succession and ecclesiology is described in Scripture? The Church is Christ's body and He is the head. It is guided by the Spirit - it's not a man-made institution. It's useless to argue. If you're interested you can always look up what the Church was like in the first centuries after Christ. No one believed the things you do back then - your whole sola-based system came 15c. later. People didn't read the Bible back then because the Bible was a liturgical text to begin with and was compiled much later. They used lexicons and the worship was liturgical. They had sacraments. They had deacons, presbyters and bishops. The Church was decentralized and governed locally and synodally through councils. All of this was part of a tradition and not written neatly in one place and that tradition was a continuation of the hebrew OT tradition of the prophets, priests and Temple worship.

So yes that brings up the glaring issue that you put a layer between yourself and God's word. You claim there is a need for an interpreter beyond the Holy Spirit. You claim that your church fathers (Popes) are able to communicate with you in a way that you can understand but God's word cannot.

For the fifth time - Scripture doesn't interpret itself. No text does. In the protestant case, you are the interpreter. This is why I called you your own pope - because you believe you have divine authority (given by the Spirit) to interpret Scripture correctly. How do you know you have the correct interpretation? What makes your interpretation 2000+ years after the events more correct than what the early Church fathers taught? You think you get around the problem of reliable authority and "man made traditions" but you miss the part that you are a man making your own tradition 2000 years after the events and that you are fallible. You don't trust the Pope or the Church holds the correct interpretation. You trust that you do. Again, no one did that back in the day. The presuppositions you hold are 400 year old at most.

Anyway, the information is out there, all you need to do is be good faith about it and look for the truth. I can't help you if you're not willing.

If the Bible tells you that you can be saved as a certainty, and your church "father" tells you he can never know, then run.

No, it means you have wrong presuppositions and wrong interpretation of the text and commit a word-concept fallacy. Calling no man a father refers to the heavenly Father, not biological or father or father in the patriarchal traditional sense. Have you called your dad father? Well I guess you've broken Christ's commandment then. You see how stupid the protestant interpretation is?

The Bible is clear, it talks about "saved" people in the past tense. Not might be saved, or could be saved. Please watch the video.

This is outright lying or willful ignorance of the Scripture. You're quote mining as every protestant in existence, ignoring the passages that don't jive with your presuppositions.

1 Corinthians 1:18 – “To us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

Philippians 2:12 – “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling…”

Romans 5:9 – “We shall be saved from wrath through him.”

Romans 13:11 – “Now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed.”

1 Peter 1:5 – “…ready to be revealed in the last time.”

You made that "strawman" happen because saying saying "be your own pope" presupposes that's a legitimate role.

It doesn't matter if you accept the pope as legitimate authority. I don't either. The point was that everyone ultimately has to appeal to an authority for interpretation of Scripture. It's either you (protestantism), the Pope (RC) or the Church (Orthodoxy).

The early church, i.e early christians, maintained scriptures. Did specifically the people calling themselves "Orthodox" do so? I mean surely that's what you guys say, but either way the scriptures are written by the original authors.

The Early Church of the apostles you talk about has never ceased to exist (as Christ promised) and it continues to this day. The problem you and all protestants have is that you don't believe the institution of the Church and its councils is guided by the Holy Spirit and is infaliable. But that same Church decided what the list of the books that go into the Bible is. You hold the Bible to be infalliable but if the people who compiled it weren't infalliable then it's possible they were mistaken.

It's never "scripture alone", it's God who saves us, by grace, through faith. But one thing it is not, is by ritual, by tradition. That's superfluous.

It's weird you believe this, because the OT and its continuation in the NT is literally a tradition that is upheld by rituals and sacraments. Denying tradition is sawing off the branch you're sitting on. It is this tradition of the Church that has produced the Bible (remember that there was no Bible until 4c.)

It's very bad. I know hippy dudes who lost their mind to demonic obsession because of such practices. They didn't even take any drugs...

It's very dangerous, even simple physical exercises like mainstream yoga wine moms love to do.

Hinduism and raja yoga in particular is demonic degeneracy. Stimulating kundalini awakens the "snake" within you that reaches to your head and possesses you - utterly satanic shit (also think about the material aspect of sodomy as a pathway for parasites reaching your brain and controlling your behavior - aka "the parasite pill").

Pray for the people who have been deceived by new age bs. There's a reason why the elites promote this Far Eastern religions and spiritual practices in society and it's not because they love you and want the best for you.

Check out his video on Sola Scriptura too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_AjgIrk9-o&t=78s

No you didn't and you don't understand what I'm arguing at all. Scripture didn't magically materialize in your hands - it was compiled and kept by the historic Church that you deny. You can't appeal to Scripture while ignoring how the Bible you use came to be in the first place. Watch the last video about Sola scriptura if you care about what the actual argument is. It has nothing to do with the Pope. Such a ridiculous strawman...

I'm glad. Jay is obviously biased but he has been an evangelical, a calvinist and a trad cath before arriving at eastern orthodoxy so he has first-hand knowledge of what the different doctrines are.

All your arguments/questions are answered here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2O58rX0K5o (on salvation)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXQQSA9U3xs (on faith alone justification being based on nominalism)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_XS9xp7kiI (sola fide critique)

https://youtu.be/w_AjgIrk9-o?t=73 (sola scriptura)

They do claim to have assurance given directly by God, and I'm not aware of a Church teaching that assurance is impossible, only that it's so rare that Protestant broad proclamation of assurance is irresponsible. But when the Lord says "Thy faith hath saved thee" (Luke 7:50, 18:42) I don't think he was limiting that to the past, but speaking of the big picture.

In the scriptural examples it is God in person who informs people that they are saved. Of course God has foreknowledge and He can make that pronunciation. It is completely unjustified for Protestants to believe they have assurance given directly by God. Did they talk to Him personally? What they have is Scripture which they quote-mine and misinterpret disregarding the living tradition (the Church) which produced and kept it.

[I try to be careful with quotes, and, since Athanasius didn't contend with Shirley MacLaine but we do, I note that he said, "Autos gar enenthropesen, hina hemeis theopoiethomen" (Incarnation 54.3). Nowadays I might translate that "be defied" rather than "become god", in the sense the Bible calls "partake of divine nature". Otherwise Americans get bad ideas about theosis.]

Yes, many people fall for word-concept fallacies and could think the word "god" always refers to God the Father/Trinity. Theosis is deification by participation in the divine energies. We can't participate in the divine essence which is unknowable. We don't become God or one with God's essence (like hindus believe), we become godlike (by becoming saints and restoring our likeness that was lost after the fall).

You make good points and I can't address them all rn. Jay Dyer explains the Orthodox position really well. Look up his videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2O58rX0K5o (on salvation)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXQQSA9U3xs (on faith alone justification being based on nominalism)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_XS9xp7kiI (sola fide critique)

I'm Eastern Orthodox.

Those who believe sola fide lately add "but not by a faith that is alone": that is, works always accompany faith.

This is contradictory and renders Sola fide meaningless. Protestants should either double down on Sola fide and that their faith alone is salvific, regardless of anything else, or that it's not just faith alone, because true faith is always proven in deed (which has always been the teaching of the Church). It's an either-or.

Meanwhile, Catholics agree with those Protestants that works are a "requirement" but, in the fine print, admit our works do not contribute to the grace by which we were infused with righteousness as shown in baptism (a real OSAS if there ever was one);

The Orthodox teaching is that grace is uncreated and given through participation in the divine energies (Church life and sacraments) with the ultimate purpose of theosis (deification), which is being united with God. God became man so that man can become god (St. Athanasius).

Protestants inherit the mistakes of the Catholics because they share the same basic presuppositions about grace while disagreeing on how it is given/achieved. This is because Western Christianity lacks the essence-energies distinction as taught by Gregory Palamas which makes participation in God impossible. Protestants reject synergism (cooperation of man with God required for salvation) and believe salvation is only in the hands of God.

Catholics recognize the three tenses of salvation (2 Cor. 1:10) and that they are still "saved" from sin nature (baptized) even when they need again to be "saved" from a recurrent sin (confessed).

In this case the world "saved" points to different concepts. Being in the Church is the path to salvation. But if you're not dressed appropriately (living a virtuous life) you will be kicked out of the wedding. So it's not single things leading to salvation but the whole package. Protestants who claim to be saved lack humility and make judgments that only God can make.

But I don't think it's a result of the system, and if you want to say hyper-Calvinism is more endemic than I think it is then there's pretty good evidence that mortifying legalism is more endemic in Catholicism than appreciated as well.

Justification by faith is legalistic. By definition, it's a legal declaration of righteousness through faith alone, with transformation and good works following as proof. The problem of Sola fide is it treats faith as a formal abstraction and not as a personal relationship with the living God (which is ironic, considering protestant worship looks much more personal and informal on the outside).

It's easy to see how the Reformation has demystificated the faith and tried to make it of this world - abstracted, transactional and legalistic. Faith is not lived but professed. Salvation is not participation in divine energies but legally declared by God. Christ didn't become incarnate to lift up and restore our pre-fall nature, His resurrection being cosmological in scope, opening our path to eternal life, but He was a necessary victim to pay our debt incurred by Adam in order to satisfy God as the plaintiff. It's only logical that this theology leads to secularism, materialism and cold-heartedness in society and this is exactly what has transpired in all Protestant states. It's funny because this is not unlike how the Talmud views God...

Inerrancy is not infallibility

I am aware of the distinction but both the Bible canon and magisterium teaching is declared infallible.

Ex cathedra papal statements are not the only type of infallible teachings. Those are indeed very rare. Councils represent another type of infallible extraordinary definitions. The third type is ordinary and universal magisterium or bishops worldwide definitive doctrinal teachings.

but that didn't add anything to the Protestant doctrine either, because both relied on work done by the catholic orthodox church a thousand years prior.

Exactly. This was why I went after OP. This is where Sola Scriptura fumbles and crashes if one is consistent with the position. RC and Orthodoxy are in the clear because both affirm apostolic succession, the infallibility of ecumenical councils and Church historicity (the Church being a both divine and human institution, the Body of Christ, here on Earth guided by the Spirit).

Separately I stated that the Protestant position of OSAS is not hyper-Calvinism (something which no Reformer ever taught). Check.

No reformer taught OSAS to begin with. It is a later development and I understand not all Protestants believe it. Reformers taught that one can loose their salvation if they apostatize and fall away (or that they never had true faith if that happens). OP believes it though and I was arguing against his flavor of protestantism.

"Muh judeo-christian morals"

Judaism is demented and psychotic.

That's a tu quoque. How does the Catholicism position being wrong help the Protestant position with that problem?

Also, your claim is false. The Catholic Vatican I teaching is that the magisterium (ordinary and extraordinary) can't teach error in any shape or form. The canon itself was declared infallible by the council of Trent.

It's not analogous because my criticism is not directed at people failing to act as they are expected but at the system level. I'm not Catholic, but their system doesn't suffer from the problem I described because they have very different soteriology. They don't have Sola Fide but also have works as a requirement for salvation so the scenario I described - professing Christ as your Lord and savior, then going to the gay bar and still believing you are saved (because of "once saved - always saved") is not applicable. If anything Catholics go the opposite end and get overly legalistic to absurdity.

Imagine blowing through what I said not answering anything and strawmanning me instead. If you were good faith and cared for the truth you wouldn't act like that. I'm sorry I got you cornered with your bs position.

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

You arbitrarily decided that knowledge of who's saved or not is the prerequisite. This is knowledge only God has because He's the one who judges. You're not only acting as your own popes by doing personal interpretation of Scripture, you're also acting as your own gods by making judgments of who's saved or not. Anyone could claim they are saved, therefore they are saved in reality? That's a non sequitur. What does anyone being sure if he's saved or not have to do with what the true Church is? Where do you get this from?

Praise God we have the Holy Scriptures and don't need to rely on these uncertain men to be saved.

Refer to my other comment deboonking Sola Scriptura. You're in a contradiction, bro.

You don't get what I'm asking you and it's a question that's prior to anything said in that video. You ultimately appeal to the Bible but the Bible didn't materialize out of the blue - it was compiled and preserved by the Church. But protestants don't believe in apostolic succession and the incorruptibility of the historic Church. This is a well-known contradiction in the protestant system, namely Sola Scriptura. Here's the defeater for it:

How did fallible men come up with an infallible Bible cannon and why do you believe the Bible was accurately preserved by those same people?

Salvation is a process that spans our entire lives until our very last breath (and even after that through prayers and intercession of the living). No one is pronounced saved until the Last Judgment. Anyone who claims to be saved is in delusion. Do you really believe that people who profess faith in Christ will be saved if they don't repent and don't follow His command but persist in their sin, choosing death over life? I'm sure He says otherwise.

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Matthew 7:21-23

20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and [a]manifest Myself to him.”

John 14:20-22

15“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

John 14:15

Professing your love without manifesting it through your actions is fake and gay. If you truly love Christ you will follow His commandments and His Church. Imagine saying to your wife "I love you" and then treating her like a piece of trash and beating her up. It's meaningless and contradictory.

But protestants truly believe that and have some weird notion of splitting their mind from their body, where their mind professes the faith and is saved, and their body does all kinds of degeneracy as if they're not accountable for it by having free will. "Christ is my Lord and I'm saved, but my stupid gay body can't help going to gay bars on friday nights and doing cocaine until sunrise." This is truly schizophrenic. Such a dangerous spiritual delusion to believe salvation is as easy as signing a legal contract. If only it were that easy...

Lol.

Riddle me this - where did you get the Bible from?

Who compiled the infallible Bible cannon and kept it until the brave Reformation came some 15c later and you got your own copy to read and interpret in your closet? Was it perhaps the pagan worshippers and fallible tradition of men that did it? Oh, shiii...

The Great harlot/Whore of Babylon described in Revelation is Jerusalem because that's where Christ was crucified (Revelation 11:8).

In the OT Jerusalem is referred to as harlot/whore in Isaiah 1:21 and Ezekiel 16:2, 16:15–17 (the whole chapter 16 and 23 are about that).

You can't interpret correctly John's Revelation without those because the image of the whore is taken from the prophets. And no, the whore is not Rome as many zio prots will have you believe. The correct interpretation is the one above. It's Jerusalem and it makes complete sense because that's where the Temple will be rebuild and where the antichrist (who will be of the seed of David) will be anointed. That is what the Abomination of Desolation is - the anointing of the antichrist in the Holy place done by the false prophet.