Brother Augustine

NickK

Kingfisher
Orthodox
It's true that Bob never went off topic. He brought up the Eucharist and the altar which are directly related to the priesthood.
What Michael should have done at that point is sieze the opportunity offered by his opponent and do what he did 40 minutes later, towards the end of the debate: bring up Corinthians 11.

That quote would have won the debate 40 minutes earlier that it did.

The other argument that ruined Bob's position was Michael's question where the apologists against sacramental priesthood were in the first 1500 years of the Church. That also went unanswered. A superchat repeated the question towards the end and it was again deflected.
 

Dissimilarty

Sparrow
Orthodox Inquirer
Yes, the comment that Michael pinned on the video is the best argument on the sacerdotal aspect. My first thought, though, is "they would've been labeled heretics and their writings suppressed." Though that is completely speculative and without any evidence AFAIK. But in that vein, I do have a couple of questions.

1) There was a time when like 90%+ of the priests were heretics (IIRC, arians). Did a bunch of their (these heretical priests, not Arian himself) writings survive and can be read today, or were they destroyed when they were declared heretical?

2) On Corinthians 11: why is "falling asleep" assumed to mean "died?"

ETA: I think it may have Nestorianism, not Arianism
 
Last edited:

NickK

Kingfisher
Orthodox
Yes, the comment that Michael pinned on the video is the best argument on the sacerdotal aspect. My first thought, though, is "they would've been labeled heretics and their writings suppressed." Though that is completely speculative and without any evidence AFAIK. But in that vein, I do have a couple of questions.

1) There was a time when like 90%+ of the priests were heretics (IIRC, arians). Did a bunch of their (these heretical priests, not Arian himself) writings survive and can be read today, or were they destroyed when they were declared heretical?

2) On Corinthians 11: why is "falling asleep" assumed to mean "died?"
1) That would mean that "the gates of hell" prevailed against the Church, which is blasphemy. You have to demonstrate continuity and universality of dogma at all times.

2) Because that's what it means, do we have to debate the obvious? What does Damnation mean to you?
 

Dissimilarty

Sparrow
Orthodox Inquirer
What? I don't understand your replies. What would mean "the gates of hell" prevailed against the Church? If you mean that 90%+ of the priests being heretics would mean that, I don't know what to tell you. I may be off a bit on the estimated percentage; but IIRC that's what Dyer has said.


ETA: I think it may have Nestorianism, not Arianism

On (2), it's supposed to be obvious that when someone says "many were weak and sick and fell asleep," that means that they died physically? Or that they were damned and died spiritually? I don't understand what you mean but Michael said they died physically in the debate.
 
Last edited:

NickK

Kingfisher
Orthodox
What? I don't understand your replies. What would mean "the gates of hell" prevailed against the Church? If you mean that 90%+ of the priests being heretics would mean that, I don't know what to tell you. I may be off a bit on the estimated percentage; but IIRC that's what Dyer has said.


ETA: I think it may have Nestorianism, not Arianism

On (2), it's supposed to be obvious that when someone says "many were weak and sick and fell asleep," that means that they died physically? Or that they were damned and died spiritually? I don't understand what you mean but Michael said they died physically in the debate.
1) What I meant was that if, as you said, the sacramental priesthood "heretics" suppressed the "truth" for more than a thousand years, then the gates of hell really did prevail against the Church, which is a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

2) They died physically. Just like Ananias and Sapphira died physically in Acts 5. Just like the Body and Blood of the Lord is real bread and real wine that we really eat and really drink.
 

Dissimilarty

Sparrow
Orthodox Inquirer
1) What I meant was that if, as you said, the sacramental priesthood "heretics" suppressed the "truth" for more than a thousand years, then the gates of hell really did prevail against the Church, which is a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

2) They died physically. Just like Ananias and Sapphira died physically in Acts 5. Just like the Body and Blood of the Lord is real bread and real wine that we really eat and really drink.

1) Thanks for clarifying
2) Ok. What I'm asking is, who told you that? Like; is that a topic in a bunch of Church Fathers and they all say that, or what?
 

Caramasão

Sparrow
Orthodox Inquirer
Likewise, when he was asking about if EO priests die, the monarchical priesthood, etc. it was to establish in what sense they actually participate in the Melchizedekian priesthood as contrasted with the "general priesthood" of all believers. (...)
This assumes that Melchizedek was some kind of immortal being.
 

Dissimilarty

Sparrow
Orthodox Inquirer
This assumes that Melchizedek was some kind of immortal being.

I didn't take it as such. Seemed he actually viewed Melchizedek as a type of the eternal priesthood of Jesus. But this all goes back to the differences on the sacerdotal/propitiation aspect. And that is the very thing Michael kept saying was off-topic.
 

alanbeam

Chicken
This is a thread to discuss our very own @MichaelWitcoff, the based Brother Augustine from YouTube:


I have found Michael's book reviews in particular to be edifying, as well as his "Against the Heresies of JLP," a series I hope he continues.

This is one of my favourite videos from BA:



As the ancient chronicles state,
Yes I agree. The guy is creepin'

Do Not Be Deceived, Jordan Peterson Is Satanic And Is Pushing Darwinism And Genocide​

by Shoebat on December 3, 2018 in Featured, General, Highlight
http://shoebat.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/jordan-peterson.jpg

 

alanbeam

Chicken
This assumes that Melchizedek was some kind of immortal being.
Ah, yes of course! Our Father in Heaven Reigns Supreme over all Men! Love him with all your heart, and love others as you Love Him! It is so simple and beautiful. Leave it to Man to confuse, obfuscate and muck it up! LoL!
 

Don Quixote

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
I am moderating a live debate on Saturday at 5pm EST between Brother Augustine and a Reformed Protestant physician...

Dr. Bob seemed like he had a personal agenda to fulfill and just used Brother Augustine's platform to do so. The "debate" did not appear to be in good faith; rather, it seemed like a way for him to deliver his sermon attacking the authority of Orthodox priests.
 

get2choppaaa

Ostrich
Lots of word salad in the debate.


Michael did a good job on the points but let his anger take hold... Understandable.


Dr Bob hadn't the slightest clue about what Orthodoxy teaches and kept using sophistry to make his points.

We can all point out the errors in others for constructive criticism... But at the end of the day Michaels assertions were correct, however flawed his messing was. Compared to Dr Bob whose word twisting was nonsensicle.

At the end of the day Michael is out there leading a public life, willing to debate people in earnest ... And that's a lot more than most of us will do do i commend him for it.
 

MichaelWitcoff

Hummingbird
Orthodox
Dr. Bob seemed like he had a personal agenda to fulfill and just used Brother Augustine's platform to do so. The "debate" did not appear to be in good faith; rather, it seemed like a way for him to deliver his sermon attacking the authority of Orthodox priests.
Exactly. That’s what I got upset about, it’s not how he presented himself to me beforehand.
 

scorpion

Hummingbird
Gold Member
I don't think that theological/doctrinal debates of this type are very fruitful and wouldn't recommend hosting them in the future. This type of intricate theological discussion is best done through the written word. That being said, Brother Augustine came across very poorly. His zeal is clearly evident but he demonstrated none of the fruits of the Spirit ("But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." - Galations 5:22-23).

Christianity is not a religion of legalism or tradition. It doesn't matter how much theology you've memorized, how many fasts you've undertaken or how many books by the Church fathers you've read. At the end of the day, if the fruits of the Holy Spirit are not reflected in your words, temperament and actions then you have much spiritual work left to do. We were not called to be prideful theological debaters, we were called to love God and our neighbors as ourselves. We should let an attitude of humility and love define our interactions with all, especially fellow believers who interpret the Scripture differently from us. We should not view discourse with them as adversarial in nature, but rather be patient and simply speak the truth as we best understand it, remembering always that "A soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger" - Prov. 15:1.
 

Mountaineer

Ostrich
Gold Member
Man, I really cannot listen to these protestant blasphemies any longer. If someone thinks that for 1500 years Christianity has been wrong about itself then I advise to change religion entirely and don't waste others time because Christianity it is not. I know that you want to get your point across Michael but you need to be less combative. Jared Taylor really showed us how a debater should behave.
 

Godward

Robin
Yeah, “priest” and “presbúteros” are completely unrelated…


“From Middle English prest, preest, from Old English prēost (“priest”), from Late Latinpresbyter, from Ancient Greek πρεσβύτερος(presbúteros), from πρέσβυς (présbus, “elder, older”). Reinforced in Middle English by Old French prestre, also from Latin presbyter.”

The high tide of Protestantism really is over. The heterodox “half” (~80%) wil continue to drift into liberalism and atheism, and the orthodox “half” (~20%) will eventually convert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism. And some leftovers will remain in minor Calvinist or Charismatic sects. That is what is already happening and what will continue to happen this century.

Interestingly, what initially aided the rise of Protestantism, will now be its downfall: the availability of information. The discovery of the printing press made Protestant pamflets and translations of the Bible available to a larger public. Yet, they did not have most of the Church fathers (except some works of St Augustine) or other ancient Christian sources at their disposal. As a result, Protestantism became a Christianity-lite. The lack of ecclesiastical authority then ensured that this lite-version completely went rogue.

That has now all changed. In the past decades, many if not all apostolic and Church fathers and other sources of the Early Church have been translated from Latin and Greek into English and other languages. And now the internet has made these (translated) sources available to the entire world. As a consequence, literally everyone with an genuine open mind can now read these sources and learn about the traditions and context of all that the Church and/or Scripture teaches. And discover that this teaching has been pretty much consistent for nearly 2.000 years now.

So, I would really recommend Dr. Bob to delve into the following sources:

 
Top