The Bible Vs Eastern Orthodoxy: Jay Dyer on the Authority of the Church
Jay Dyer is a genius for sure. But you should have enough wisdom to understand the truth that:
THE BIGGER THE BELFRY, THE MORE ROOM FOR THE BATS.
People like Jay Dyer are a perfect example of this truth. The guy has been given an opportunity to speak up for the Orthodox Church on many platforms and his main goal is never clearly stated. So I’ll do it for him.
His main goal is to turn all debates about religion into Philosophical and Historical arguments. He will try his best to keep you from asking the question: What Saith The Scriptures?
When the Orthodox apologists publish videos, the question is never: Is this or that Orthodox doctrine correct according to the Bible? They don’t want that to be the question, so they always make the question: Did the early church or the church babies (called by many the “church fathers”) teach this or that doctrine? Were they to ask the question, “Is it biblical?” about many of the Orthodox doctrines, they would have to answer in the negative. So they deflect.
Dyer’s whole ministry is one great attempt to get you away from asking, “What saith the Scriptures?” Even his conspiracy videos are pushing his viewers to “question everything except what he says isn’t questionable.” So when he speaks up about doctrine and theology and history, he wants you to just take his word for it. We won’t. There’s a sucker born every minute and whatever problems we may have, taking dry as dust, orthodox apologist, Jay Dyer’s word uncritically won’t be one of them. Let the “suckers” take his word for it…
In this video he tries to make the focus on the “church” and not on the Scriptures. By “church” he means the Eastern Orthodox Church, although that church has contradicted the Bible even on essential doctrines that affect every facet of theology. He wants to justify the fact that the Orthodox Church has doctrine that is contrary to the Bible.
That is the subject of the video which is linked above. Which was uploaded by “Insitum Verbum”.
We’ll look at what seem to be his main points and examine them.
Dyer says that, “The church fathers don’t see dialectical opposition between “Bible only” and that tradition should be authoritative.”
Of course, Dyer wants us to believe that he is giving an accurate report about the beliefs of the church babies. But doing so would be chasing the goose that Dyer wants us to. Who cares about the church babies? We refuse to play his game. The ultimate question is “What saith the Scriptures?” This is our question.
The problem is that this is a candid admission that the church babies didn’t know the difference between their tail end and a hole in the ground. Whether or not you LIKE “dialectical opposition” or not is irrelevant. There is “dialectical opposition” between the teaching of the Bible and the traditions of the church babies. The fact that they “don’t see” it, is irrelevant.
Our world is built on “either/or” and if you don’t like it, you’re either an immature baby or you’re trying to pull the wool over someone’s eyes philosophically. Dyer, and every other Orthodox apologist, is clearly the latter.
If you can’t see the “dialectical opposition” between the Bible and Eastern Orthodox tradition, then you have another spirit controlling your mind and eyes.
“In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” 2 Cor 4:4.
I suppose we should assume that this spirit was and is the spirit blinding the minds of the church babies and today’s orthodox apologists.
Try building a computer that doesn’t “see dialectical opposition” between two opposites…. Or don’t because that would be a horrible idea. And while you’re at it, be glad that your electrician can “see dialectical opposition” when you’re plugging in your coffee grinder. If the church babies can’t “see dialectical opposition” in two opposites, then they’re not fit to install a toilet, much less comment on theology.
The ability to not be able to see “dialectical opposition” is handy for a smart deceiver like Dyer because he proceeds to claim that there are “no new revelations” after the Scriptures were written but that the Nicene Creed was infallible. He says, “The Nicene Creed is infallible because it is an exact summation of Scripture.”
To say such a thing requires you to ignore the “dialectical opposition” between the “one baptism for the remission of sins” and the clear evidence that there are 7 baptisms in the Bible. See here. Two baptisms are in effect today, that is the spiritual baptism of I Cor 12 and water baptism. The first has to do with salvation and the second has to do with your public testimony, but that isn’t the subject of this article. If Nicea was “infallible” then we have a new revelation because they contradict on the point of Baptism.
How does the Orthodox apologist deal with this? Easy. He claims to not be able to “see dialectical opposition”. Dear reader, open your eyes and turn on your brain. There is opposition. They both can’t be right.
Again, Dyer uses the “head in the sand” method of dealing with the contradiction between Orthodox tradition and the Bible. He states that, “Everything Paul taught orally was the Word of God.” Of course, he doesn’t believe that. He just wants YOU to believe that he does. Dyer doesn’t believe what Paul WROTE on the subject of Baptism, salvation by faith, the future of Israel, the Rapture, or the four dozen other doctrines. That being said, it is IRRELEVANT what Dyer says about what Paul taught orally. But Dyer doesn’t want you to focus on that, he wants you to think about the philosophical position and ignore the fact that he doesn’t believe the foundation of his own philosophical position. But, as always, that’s his whole point.
Honestly, my plans for this article were bigger, but the issue raised in the video has been dealt with already. Dyer drones on and on about the church babies and it all amounts to a big, fat nothingburger. If you are undecided about Dyer, I hope that I’ve made my point that the man is a lost deceiver who isn’t worth listening to. If you have any more questions feel free to ask. Lord bless you.