False religions thrive on Biblical ignorance. Eastern Orthodoxy is no exception.
We all would love to know what the main argument Orthodox theologians make against the truth of Protestantism. We are glad that they have a short video about it. Of course, Baptists do not claim to be Protestants per se, but we will assume Dyer would say that Baptists have the same issue as Protestants in general.
I know what the REAL main difference between the Bible Believer and Eastern Orthodoxy is. It is the fact that the Final Authority for a Bible Believer is the King James Bible. For the Orthodox Church, there is no Final Authority. They profess to believe multiple authorities and their theologians will pick and choose which authority suits them best depending on what they are trying to prove. Their main authorities will be various biblical translations, Greek texts (including the corrupt Septuagint), and the church fathers (who I call the “church babies”). This is the main difference.
But in a classic case of deflection, the long winded, and boring, Orthodox polemicist Jay Dyer claims otherwise.
Were the main difference stated clearly and succinctly, most Western, English speakers (the target demographic) would be turned away from Orthodoxy. So Dyer deflects.
Because the Bible is not the Final Authority for Orthodox Theologians, they have to focus on other things. Dyer here brings up an very important issue. The Atonement of Christ. And as important as that issue is, there is no way of settling the issue if you have multiple authorities as does the Orthodox Church.
If you want to debate what color a tree is, you need to go look at the tree in question. Unless you decide which tree were are debating about, any words on the subject will be nothing more than hot air.
In the same way, you cannot solve which theory of the Atonement is correct unless you know what we are arguing about. It is not a philosophical quandary no matter how much a philosopher (Col 2:8) like Dyer wants it to be. It is a Biblical question. So we must figure out which Bible we are talking about. Dyer doesn’t want to discuss this issue. To frame the argument this way would be to nullify the value of the church babies. Dyer can’t have that. He literally is not able to ask the question “What Saith the Scriptures?”
We will ask this question, of course.
You will notice that Dyer likes to sound smart. He will try and throw out lists of names and book titles and we are believe that he understands all of their writings and wouldn’t possibly misrepresent them. We are supposed to believe that a guy with this much information couldn’t possibly be wrong. But the issue is much more simple: WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURES?
So after about 10 minutes of listening to the snore machine known as Jay Dyer, we find out that the “Root of the Protestant Error” is the “Trinitarian implications of the theology of the penal death of Christ”. We will address this issue from the standpoint of a King James Bible Believing Dispensationalist. The Sword of the Spirit (Heb 4:12) will be allowed to chop to pieces the corrupt philosophy and theology of Dyer and his church.
Dyer’s video is full of accusations. It is full of false accusations. I will address some of Dyer’s biggest errors and I will go in his order. Therefore, we will end up at the “root” error of Protestantism halfway through. If you don’t like the order, blame Dyer.
- Dyer says, “Luther was influenced by dialectics.”
Of course, Dyer takes that to be a bad things but just exposes how unbiblical he is. We have documented the biblical nature of dialectical thinking in our previous article on Orthodoxy here. (Note: “Dialectical thinking” is one of those typical philosophical terms that means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. When he is proven to be applying it incorrectly, the speaker will then revert to another definition of the word to save face. Watch out for that. Another common term used this way by Theologians like Dyer is the word “Logos”.)
But the great humor here is that Dyer makes dialectical statements all the time. He just doesn’t like it when Western European thinkers do it. Hypocrisy at its finest. At the end of the video, he speaks about how you either believe such and such doctrines or you’re outside the church. Isn’t this dialectical??? I’ll leave the reader to decide.
Regardless of your theology don’t be a stinkin’ hypocrite!
- Dyer says, “Luther is the father of Higher Criticism.”
His proof is that 19th Century German higher critics of the Bible came from Germany. Of course this is true. He names Wellhausen (1844-1918) and Schleiermacher (1768-1834) as proof because they were Germans from a Protestant background.
But if you think that these two clowns weren’t proceeded by multiple centuries of non-German and non-Liberal Protestant higher criticism, your ideas are deeply flawed (to put it mildly).
Of course, we could go back to the horrible theology of the church babies and their work to take away the authority of the Scriptures and put it in the hands of themselves and their councils (look up how that word is used in the New Testament for a real treat). Jerome and Origen would be the chief culprits in this endeavor. But we will stick to the actual start of post-Reformation, post-Renaissance Higher Criticism as literally defined which was undoubtedly begun by the French Catholic priest Richard Simon (1638-1712) and the Jesuit trained, apostate Jew Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677).
LOOK AT THOSE DATES. Simon and Spinoza preceded Wellhausen and Schleiermacher by generations. This information isn’t hard to find. Dyer just wants you to take his word for it. We will not. We will be skeptical of the skeptics.
The facts of history clearly teach that Roman Catholic Higher Criticism is why there are so many problems with mainline Protestant churches (including most Baptists, too). But a full survey of this fact is beyond the scope of this article. (See Doctor Ruckman’s historical material for the documented evidence.) So, not only is Dyer incorrect in his historical assessment, his argument runs completely contrary to the facts. Typical.
Higher Criticism didn’t come from Protestantism. But Roman Catholic Higher Criticism did cause mainline Protestantism to go apostate. This was the goal of the Jesuit’s Counter Reformation. It has succeeded in the main.
Dyer also brings up the Dispensational struggles that Luther never got resolved. Luther never figured out what was going on in the Old Testament and the General Epistles, especially in regards to salvation. But at least he figured out that salvation in the Church Age is by grace through faith (see my article on dispensational salvation). Catholics and Orthodox people still haven’t figured that out and they’ve had 500 years to analyze it since Luther.
Dyer even claims that Luther “set Moses against Christ”. Perhaps Dyer thinks that Luther is the author of John 1:17 – “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” Or maybe he is spending too much time reading the church babies and not the Holy Scriptures.
- Dyer says that the root of the error of Protestantism is “the Trinitarian implications of the theology of the penal death of Christ.”
Dyer disagrees with Luther that “Jesus was damned by the Father.” I am not going to go through all of Luther’s writings to see if he said this. The closest quote I can find in a quick Google search is the Jesus was “forsaken by God AS one eternally damned.” That little word “as” makes a whole lot of difference. Dyer deceptively leaves the word out in his loose quotation.
So the first part of the “root error of Protestantism” lies on a misquotation by Dyer… That ought to tell you something.
Dyer says, “To say Jesus was damned by the Father requires 2 people” He calls this error “Nestorianism”. He says “Nestorians say Jesus Christ was cut off from the Father.” And that to say, “one person of Trinity is cut off is to divide the Trinity.” And also, “There is only one will in the Godhead.”
These quotes will requires some philosophical and Greek word wrangling in Dyer’s supposed proofs, but it can all be straightened out by the Scriptures as always. Praise God.
We will make our stand on the Biblical wording that Jesus was “FORSAKEN” on the cross. See Matt 27:46 and Mark 15:34. If you think that is the same as “damned” then have at it. The word is “forsaken“. Does it require 2 people to have one be “forsaken“? Whether using “People” or “persons,” you’ve got to adjust your Christology or the words you use to describe Christ and the Trinity to the words that are “given by inspiration“. Whether “damned” or “people” are the right words in this situation is between you and God. The Bible says Christ was “forsaken” by his Father on the Cross. There is no controversy here, Dyer’s Christology doesn’t match the Bible.
Isa 8:20 – “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”
Also note that Dyer hates the phrase cut off. This is a good example of how Orthodox theologians hate the Bible because the phrase is used multiple times in the Scriptures in reference to the Crucifixion. The context is always a little different, but Dyer should find another word… if he were Biblical. But he is not.
Dan 9:26 – “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be CUT OFF, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”
Isa 53:8 – “He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was CUT OFF out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.”
Now, back to the issue of “forsaken”. It should be obvious that Vake Biblia cannot forsake Vake Biblia. There have to be two somethings involved for a “forsaking” to take place. Bible Believers hold the doctrine of the Trinity as taught in the Bible (see our articles about the “Chrazy Christadelphians” for proof). But what we are seeing here is a doctrinal understanding of the Trinity that is NOT found within the pages of the Bible coming from Dyer.
If your doctrine of the Trinity cannot handle the fact that Jesus was “forsaken” by his Father on the cross, then dump your human made doctrine and go with the Bible. This doesn’t mean forsaking the doctrine of the Trinity. It means forsaking the particular brand of Trinitarianism taught by the Orthodox church since it doesn’t match the Bible. Either go by the Bible or go by Orthodox theology. The choice is yours. You cannot have both.
None of this “divides the Trinity” as Dyer claims. It just proves that the Orthodox understanding goes against the Bible. So Dyer is forced to make false claims. Let him go ahead and do that. “But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.”
Dyer would answer that believing like this would make me a “Nestorian”. I suppose I am to believe his portrayal of what a Nestorian is, is a truthful one. But I won’t. All the theological name calling aside, I would rather be called a “Nestorian” than be a Bible rejector like Dyer. Sticks and stones, brother. Sticks and stones.
So then because Dyer has a faulty understand of the role of the Trinity on the cross, he is forced to come up with other theories about what actually happened on the cross. Much happened on the cruel tree and one of the results was that the sin debt was paid by Christ on the cross. Notice that there are more than one “result”. The Penal Death is only part of the equation.
Dyer, like any lost, religious man, calls the scriptural idea that Christ died to pay for our sins “Blasphemous” and “Retarded”. He refers to it as, “Bean Counter Payment Theology”. He claims that none of the “Church Fathers” taught it.
But what saith the Scripture? Of course the main parts of the Substitutionary Penal Atonement Theory of the Death of Christ are true.
1 Cor 6:20 – “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.”
Isa 53:5 – “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”
Heb 9:28 – “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”
Many more could be added to this basic doctrine. But we’ll leave these here.
I’m not one to say that if you don’t believe like me, then you are lost. Many teachers frequently say this. Not me. But if you don’t at least believe the basics of the Substitutionary Penal Atonement, then YOU ARE LOST.
Dyer also says that there is “only one will in the Godhead”. Again we must reject his Orthodox pronouncements in favor of Biblical Doctrine. Gethsemane clearly demonstrates that there is more than one will in the Godhead. Only a “church father onlyist” could miss this.
Matt 26:39 – “And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”
Mark 14:36 – “And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.”
Luke 22:42 – “Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.”
Vake Biblia cannot say to Vake Biblia, “Not MY will but THINE be done”. You have to have 2 somethings there. If there is only one will than the Bible is wrong. For Dyer, the choice is clear: throw out the Bible and keep his Orthodox theology. The phrase, “There is only one will in the Godhead.” doesn’t come from the pages of the Scripture, it comes from the mouths and pens of Bible rejecting fools.
Mark 7:13 – “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.”
Mat 22:29 – “Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”
- Dyer says that the best way to dispute Calvinism is to read the Church babies (or “Fathers” as he calls him).
This is a great example of the problems of Dyer’s and Orthodoxy’s way of thinking. Why not ask, “What Saith The Scriptures?” If one were to read the King James Bible, you wouldn’t be a Calvinists or an Orthodox. There’s almost something Freudian to Dyer’s statement. It’s almost a candid admission that you will find the opposite of Orthodox in the Scriptures. Amazing how this stuff works.
- Dyer and Orthodoxy teach that man didn’t lose the Image of God at the Fall.
This is huge. Top place has already been awarded in the “Greatest Error of the Orthodox Church”. But this error was close in the running. It demonstrates the method with which the Orthodox church blows the Atonement so bad.
We know that Adam WAS created in the image of God. Gen 1:27 – “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
But to say that he didn’t lose that image is to ignore: Gen 5:3 – “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:” You can’t just wish this verse away. Seth was begotten in Adam’s image according to the Bible and he was not begotten in God’s image.
From this we can see why Christ said, “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” John 3:7 Your first birth was no good because you were born in the image of the fallen Adam and not the image of God. You have to be born a second time. Adam had a fallen sinful image. Christ had the image of God. (II Cor 4:3,4, Col 1:15, Heb 1:1-3) You are either in Adam or in Christ. 1 Cor 15:22 – “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” The only people that can’t figure this out are people that are stuck in Adam’s sinful image.
Who would have thought that the Orthodox church would have trouble with “Images”???
If everyone is made in the image of God, why do we need to be born again? Who would think like this except an unsaved, self-righteous, sinful philosopher?
So this is all another example of why Dyer has to point a person to the church babies instead of to the Scriptures. You won’t find Orthodox theology as concerning the image of God in the Bible.
- Dyer says that you can’t get your Soteriology right if you can’t get your Christology right.
To this we respond by saying that no one can get either their Soteriology (doctrine of Salvation) or their Christology (doctrine of Christ) straight if they can’t get their BIBLIOLOGY correct first. If you get the doctrine of the Bible right, then we can talk about and possibly settle Soteriology and Christology. Since Dyer will spend a bunch of his time with the church babies and not focus on “What Saith the Scriptures?” he is bound to endlessly debate all doctrines including Soteriology and Christology.
Who defines who is a church father? Where is the official list? Is everything that they say correct? Who decides which church father is correct when they say two different things? Who decides who is correct when the supposed father goes against the Scriptures? If you say that the church decides the list of church fathers, then who decides which church is correct? If you use the church fathers to prove that the Orthodox church is correct, and then they tell you that which church fathers are good church fathers; is this not an example of circular reasoning????? “Sir, thou knowest.”
Frankly, no one should expect anyone without a Bible to have their Soteriology or their Christology correct. If they so happen to have either correct (correct as defined by the Bible) they are very fortunate. Unfortunately, Dyer has neither correct as we have so thoroughly explained by now.
Example: Baptismal Regeneration.
Church babies who teach Baptismal Regeneration are a dime a dozen. But water baptism doesn’t save anyone according to the New Testament (see these articles: here and here). What are we to do? If you are a Bible Believer, you throw out the babies. If you are Dyer, you throw out the Bible and the dozen or so babies that didn’t think water baptism was necessary for salvation. Which one is the Christian thing to do? As they say, “WWJD?” Or “What would Paul do?” Or “What would Peter do?”
If someone were to ask, “What would “Father Alfredicus of Gweru” say?” we would yawn and go do more important things like watch videos of cats getting scared on YouTube and not even bother to look into it.
You’ve got to get your Bibliology correct first. Dyer can’t and won’t.
This article has now passed 3000 words and is long enough. Dyer brings up one more major point and that is that “hatred of the body is demonic”. The icing on this rotten cake of anti-Biblical theology is the implicit claim that Paul must have been possessed by the Devil himself. Paul wrote this about our fleshly bodies:
Phil 3:20-21 – “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our VILE BODY, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.”
As demonstrated at least 10 times in this article. You are forced with a choice. Go by Dyer and his Orthodox theology or go by the Bible. They are mutually exclusive. How’s that for “Dialectics”? And don’t be a HYPOCRITE.
If Dyer is this big of a ding-a-ling about the Bible, why would you trust him on his conspiracy theories?