The Bible Vs Eastern Orthodoxy: Jay Dyer on the Authority of the Church

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.  

6 thoughts on “The Bible Vs Eastern Orthodoxy: Jay Dyer on the Authority of the Church

    1. Good example of how a heretic will take a preconceived belief and then look in the Bible to find justification for it. Sadly, this is typical. Kind of like the bank robber who thought it was ok because, Job 12:6 KJV — “The tabernacles of robbers prosper…”

      Like

      1. Hardly. Those Bible quotes are presented within their original contexts. But hey, I’ve seen far more examples of what you accuse me of from KJV only people. Like how many denounce the drinking of alcohol by selectively quoting scripture. They reference the first part of Habakkuk 2:15 which reads: “Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors”, while neglecting the second part of that passage which contextualizes the first. The second part reads: ” pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk, so that he can gaze on their naked bodies”. The point remains, all my quotes are taken from complete passages, unlike the little snippets you use. All the beliefs of the Church are derived from scripture, as you would claim yours are, so all you can really argue is that your interpretation is more correct. Which, I’m not sold on as your interpretations are completely novel and not grounded in Christian history. Your interpretations are product of modern developments a modern theologians, ie the teachings and traditions of man.

        Like

      2. No interpretation involved sonny. Although you wish it was.

        Genesis 40:8 KJV — …Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

        2 Peter 1:20 KJV — Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

        Honestly, I do appreciate the info on your site. It will be thoroughly dissected in future articles and found to be wanting. Thanks.

        Like

  1. lol again you are taking passages and not posting them in full. Here is what Genesis 40:8 actually says: “And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me the, I pray you”. You take an incomplete quote you think agrees with you, and then apply your meaning and interpretation to all of Scripture. Good job. As for your 2nd Peter quote, yes I agree, interpretation must not be private, which is why the Church interprets Scripture publicly and as a body. The Church which you reject. Thank you, I will appreciate any views you bring my way!

    Like

    1. lol again…

      I post verses without comment, you think I am “apply”ing my “meaning and interpretation”. HAHAHA. Sadly typical.

      This is why none of my articles with be “brought your way”. Any future articles on the subject will not be FOR you. The target audience isn’t orthodox bloggers and youtubists. It is an honest person for whom words matter and the meaning of words is plain and literal unless proven otherwise with other scripture. To blazes with interpretation. Interpretations belong to God whether you think that’s just my interpretation or not…

      We are having a discussion, but if the words of the discussion are all subject to “interpretation” then why have a discussion??? Why are you able to write plainly but God isn’t (according to you)? Are you sure you are correct about the church babies’ doctrine or it is just YOUR INTERPRETATION??? If the church babies are able to write plainly, then why isn’t God himself able to do this???

      You have a self defeating way of dealing with words.

      All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all PLAIN to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge. Pro 8:8-9

      Here is me: “The sign says ‘stop’.”
      You: “That’s just your interpretation. What saith the church babies?”

      Please note: most likely any of your comments will be marked as spam from now on. I don’t waste time with your attitude towards words.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s