The Trinity and the Filioque Refutes Eastern "Orthodoxy"

Oh look another one of those videos where a series of claims is put forward for which no sufficient substantiation is ever provided, but is expected to be taken at face value by you oh so meekly humble viewers because the combination of their youthful sounding fluidity and condensed explanation are sufficient to rake in that youtube income anyway.

I'd rather take the time to listen to some lectures on the various views and then form my own opinion than just listen to a bunch of refutations coming from the same token view.

tl;dr: Why the formula along with others like it fails.

Attached: fThnvai.jpg (674x650, 42.04K)

He provides proofs from the Fathers, Scripture, and the Council of Florence, a council that brought many people into the Catholic Church. This was posted in another thread, and provides proofs for the filioque.
erickybarra.org/2018/02/11/does-the-filioque-subordinate-the-holy-spirit-to-creation/

why do christians have to attack eachother? we don't need divide between denominations

Attached: 1556680105042.jpg (474x380, 26.25K)

Filioque is irrelevant. The canonical form of the Nicaean Symbol is in Greek.

Dimond posters are the Papist version of Jay Dyer fanatics.

Change my mind.

Attached: surely_this_will_end_Orthodoxy.jpg (866x764, 755.02K)

idk, as far meme e-celebs go, I've at least seen some reasonable Jay Dyer and Steve Anderson posters around here. But I've never seen a reasonable Diamond bros poster. These sede memers are on their own level of cringe.

Not really. He's kind of a normie, has a hot girlfriend, only calls himself a layman (doesn't larp as a monk), and talks about a wide variety of subjects. Not just religion. I mean, the only books he's written are about Hollywood. And half of his content is the Boiler Room podcasts, where he's actually funny and can socialize with other human beings.

The Dimond brothers seem very insular and autistic. There isn't even any affect in the way they speak (or at least one of them). It's almost robotic.

uh, he's not cohabitating and waiting until marriage for sex, right?

The Dimonds have a cool underground heavens gate aesthetic

Everything in there has already been debunked by the Diamond brothers' own avid followers. Vid related.

"the eastern quote orthodox"

oh memestary you never grow old

The Dimond bros actually have a very good understanding of theology and doctrine though, unlike Dyer who is a church hopper. Note that nobody can ever refute their actual arguments which are thoroughly backed by scripture and the Saints, they fall back to meaningless ad hominems.

I don't know why I know this, but no..And I think she was Orthodox before he was. The guy seems to be cool in a normie way, and unlike these others, isn't starting a cult or anything.

Hah! that's utterly laughable, and demonstrably false, as pointed out by
They cherry pick and completely ignore the context of all the material they "cite".

I saved posts from a discussion on here about their video against Palamas, if you want to know why they're idiots. Hold on.

...

...

(1/2)

(2/2)
Wherefore in God, Who alone is passionless and unalterable, and immutable, and ever so continues, both begetting and creating are passionless. For being by nature passionless and not liable to flux, since He is simple and uncompound, He is not subject to passion or flux either in begetting or in creating, nor has He need of any co-operation. But generation in Him is without beginning and everlasting, being the work of nature and producing out of His own essence, that the Begetter may not undergo change, and that He may not be God first and God last, nor receive any accession: while creation in the case of God , being the work of will, is not co-eternal with God."
The following is from St. Basil the Great (Letter 125):
"Some, moreover, of the impious following of the Libyan Sabellius, who understand hypostasis and essence to be identical, derive ground for the establishment of their blasphemy from the same source, because of its having been written in the creed "if any one says that the Son is of a different essence or hypostasis, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes him." But they did not there state hypostasis and essence to be identical. Had the words expressed one and the same meaning, what need of both? It is on the contrary clear that while by some it was denied that the Son was of the same essence with the Father, and some asserted that He was not of the essence and was of some other hypostasis, they thus condemned both opinions as outside that held by the Church. But when they set forth their own view, they declared the Son to be of the essence of the Father and they did not add the words "of the hypostasis". The former clause stands for the condemnation of the faulty view; the latter plainly states the dogma of salvation."
And from St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus we have the following argument for the distinction between essence and energy (=act/operation): Since the generation of the Son is from the essence of the Father, if essence=energy, then the generation of the Son would be from the energy of the Father. Therefore, the Son would be an act of the Fathers will, i.e. a creation.

...

...

...

...

(last one)

Jay Dyer, Dimond bros, Pastor Anderson and Varg Vikernes are the meme theologians of our era

don't forget E. Michael Jones and Fr. Ripperger!

Pastor Steven Anderson is a modern-day Paul the Apostle converting entire nations and flying the flag of Christ unapologetically in the face of mass secularization and apostasy by Christians. Don't even try to compare him to some nobodies like Jay Dyer or E. Michael Jones the sum of whose "evangelization" efforts amounts to making epic youtube videos.

We're talking about memes. But you had to ruin it.

Attached: D23YSBF.jpg (576x348, 31.59K)

Cronycons don't convert they "soul-win" using free market capitalist gambling terminology for it.

The term "soul-winning" comes directly from the Bible.

Yeah I see 'win' and 'souls', in the translation specifically, but no such deleterious compound of "soul-winning".

Obligitory "pastor" Anderson is a fraud and here's why exposé

He is also an admitted Bible-idolater, so it is safe to assume his followers are as well.

Fags aren't even catholics.
They are a bunch of sedevacantist whos.

Dimond brothers are sedevecantist?

Very very much so.

See

Maybe you should learn English then.

Repent. Sedavacantists are just protestants who pretend to be Catholic, why don't they just own up and say that they're protestants at this point?

Because that's not what Protestantism means.

It's to protest. Against the Church.
They aren't Catholic, they're LARPing protestants.

But they're not protesting against the Church, they're saying the current person claiming to be the Pope is illegitimate… That's completely different from what Protestants believe. The only way sedevacantists are Protestants is if you are redefining Protestantism to mean "heresy" or "thing I don't like," when in fact Protestantism is a specific heresy with actual theological claims that are distinct from the claims of sedevacantists.

And that's a heresy and they're protestanting against the Church and claiming that the succession has been broken yet trying to act like they're cool with the Church itself too.

If a Satan worshipper manages to become the Bishop of Rome and 90% of the Church follow him and choose to worship Satan instead of God are they really "The Church" anymore? Because that is essentially what has occurred.

we're ment to submit under his authority but not be mindless sheep even is the pope was the antichrist himself.

The Pope won't be the antichrist (presumbly a military and political figure). Maybe the False Prophet at worst.

That said, you should never submit to that. That's a ticket to hell. Run for the hills, as Jesus said. He predicted that some Christians will in fact be deceived. You don't want to be one of them.

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before."

"The Church" was founded by Constantine the Great about 300 A.D. as the state church it still is. The church of the apostles didn't survive that. A millennium later, reformation famously failed and created another state church, where each ruler decided, which denomination their people have to follow.
Just because America doesn't have state churches, it still changes nothing about what happened in Rome.

Jesus isn't against state churches. Creation will be renewed with church and state being one for eternity under the Kingship of Christ.

So Jesus lied when He said that Hell shall not conquer His Church?

State church is first and foremost a secular power system: Your government decides which religion you belong to. If your government decides, that you worship Satan or false prophets like Mohammed, you fall in line or face dire consequences.
Again, this is not comprehensible for Americans, as they don't have a state church or religion and are free to chose whatever they like to follow.
Still the Church was never a church of choice for most time of its existence.

His original church doesn't exist anymore. What we are left with are the works of Roman converts and later converts to different denominations under rulers in power.
Ruler converted - all their people converted as well (or died as heretics).
That's the reason why Europe has at least three state churches now.

This might be one of the most outright retarded things I've ever read. You think Vatican City is secular because it's a Catholic State?

I fail to see your point. A state church that is of the wrong religion is bad. No shit? Giving people a choice isn't necessary you just need to guide them to the right religion.

America is the whore of Babylon and is collapsing because it succumbed to secularism

It does. It's the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church and you can join it any time you choose.

The absolute state of Protestantism

It's European history. In the Middle East it's still in effect.
Thanks for proving my point.
This was the reason why people needed licenses from the state church to read the Bible.
Wrong.
My parents can choose to baptize me as an infant. Then I'm "member" of the state church, without ever "joining it at any time I choose".
And whether this state church is Roman-Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran or simply Islam is not for me to decide, not for my parents to decide, but for the secular ruler in power.
You seemingly understand nothing about Rome and the European history, that unfolded from it, leading to the current happenings in Europe.

First: Protestantism didn't exist 300 A.D.
Second: Lutheranism just ended up with becoming another state religion.

Just go ahead and say what church/denomination/fringe sect/whatever you belong to. This discussion hurts my head to read.

The discussion quickly boiled down to:
I just explained how worshiping Satan can become a state religion, because any religion can become the state religion, if the ruler in power decides so.
The whole "you choose to become here" is simply bullshit for most of the world. The USA is the exception, not the rule.

That's not what the people you're talking with are concerned with. You say that Jesus's original church is gone, and we're stuck with a bunch of state churches that deviated from the original true church.
So tell us what church you belong to, if you even belong to one at all.

Regardless of how you call it:
The "original true church" is one of the state churches with involuntary membership and involuntary church tax since about 300 A.D.
You can play feel good in America, but this is not the reality in most of the world.
The only right some Western countries in Europe grant you is to become apostate and sign a form to "leave church" (and pay for it). Though some of state churches theologically still consider you a member after this, because they think they own you for eternity.
BTW: This civil right goes only back a few decades, before that your only choice was dying as heretic.
For me the following of Jesus Christ is a voluntary choice made in faith. If this is a "fringe sect" view, there is nothing I can do about it as a Christian.

Baptism is pretty easy to do, it’s totally in your control. EOC recognises RC baptisms and I think vice versa. Idk about Protestantism. It’s very easy to convert over to Orthodoxy.

It has nothing to do with baptism or whether people accept certain sacraments of other denomination or not.
This is not about denomination. These didn't exist in 300 A.D.
First in certain doctrines it's not possible to convert once you joined (involuntary).
Second: Orthodoxy isn't universally available. It's rooted in certain cultures.

It's just that Americans don't get around the fact that freely choosing the "one true church" out of 1000s is not happening in most of the world, because that "one true church" is simply the state/country collecting taxes, which entirely replaced the "one true church founded by Jesus".
You don't make a deliberate choice for a state/country, when I already live in it and follow its rules or get thrown out/into jail otherwise.

Like where?

Yes, Orthodoxy did exist in 300 AD, this is the closest we can get to the early church.

Like every Islamic country, where Christians are simply put to death?

Or try your favorite denomination of your choice in China, were practicing Christianity is only legal in sanctioned state churches in bed with the communist government since this century.

They are the main church in the Levant.

Even with our dear evangelical brethren trying to take advantage of Islamic aggression and civil wars to steal their believers,

The main chuch in the Levant is Maronite, user.

I stand corrected.

But none of us live in China / India / Islamic republic X. It just seems a bit of a bizarre point to bring up especially in connection with baptism.

Is that so?

...

Ever heard of "speaking a foreign language"?
Oh wait, I forgot, it's America…

...