Roosh Hour #65 – Milo Yiannopoulos

MichaelWitcoff

Hummingbird
Orthodox
No they are not. Reformed Presbyterianism (not mainline Presbyterianism) is by far the most consistent theology in Christendom. I've read many of the original sources, studied a fair amount of church history, and am strongly settled in the theology of the Reformation and it is rare that I can find RC or EO who address the issues fairly. I probably will not read a book solely for this purpose but would be willing to hear some of the core arguments.
While I believe most Protestants are well-meaning and doing their best to seek God, the approach as a whole is logically unjustifiable. For example, Protestants will often derive their theology from the Bible and/or use their personal interpretation of specific Bible verses in order to attack various aspects of the Church. I agree that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God and that no Church Tradition should ever contradict it. The problem for a Protestant is that every time you refer to the Bible, or use the name of a specific Gospel account such as "John" or "Mark," you are appealing to the Tradition and authority of the Church, without which you wouldn't have a Bible (or know who wrote most of the New Testament in the first place). This is easy to demonstrate simply by studying the development of the canon of Scripture, specifically over the first 350 years or so of Christianity. The Bible did not drop out of the sky, the way some Muslims act like the Koran did, as one coherent unit with no debate as to what was canon or what was not. There wasn't even the idea of a "Biblical canon" until the mid-second century, in response to the heretic Marcion creating his own version of "Scripture."

The "Scripture alone" approach thus retroactively makes un-saved every single person who lived before there was a canon of Scripture, including all of the Apostles and their immediate disciples and students. The other major problem with the "Scripture alone" approach is that the Bible refutes it internally, describing the Church as "the pillar and ground of truth" in 1 Timothy 3:15 and giving equal authority to both written and oral teachings in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. There were 20 years of Church before the first letter of the New Testament was even written - and nearly 70 years of Church before its final book was written - so clearly appealing to "Scripture alone" is not something the Apostles were doing or teaching. It would be nonsensical to teach that the "only source of Truth" was something that didn't exist yet. Instead they preached Christ from the Old Testament, which did exist, to prove He was the prophesied Messiah. You can find some of their sermons recorded in "Demonstration Of The Apostolic Preaching" by St. Irenaeus. They also taught the precise ways of worshipping, fasting, and how to conduct Holy Baptism which you can find in both the "Didache" and in terms of how services work, in the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr. Lastly, you can find the Apostolic teaching on ecclesiology and the Holy Eucharist in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, whose priests and teachers were the Apostles themselves.

Ultimately, as I indicated in the first paragraph, Protestants cannot justify their belief that the Bible is authoritative without either using circular reasoning (ie, "the Word of God is authoritative because it is the Word of God") or appealing to interior personal experience (ie, "I just know it is" somehow). 99% of Protestants, if not more, have never even asked themselves these sorts of questions - and many of them cannot even understand what it means to "justify their presupposition that the Bible is authoritative." About half the time I ask, I get a response to something else because the person I asked cannot comprehend the chain of thought.

Churches with Apostolic Succession can easily justify our presupposition in the Bible's authority: "I believe the Bible is authoritative because the Church that Christ planted declared it so." No need for logical fallacies or complicated word games. Thus you can see that, from several different angles, Protestantism as a system is incoherent and unjustifiable regardless of the genuine seeking of its adherents - whom I am not judging, as it is not my place to do so - and the fullness of the Truth does not reside in groups that have only parts of it. It resides fully in one place and one place only: the Church that Jesus built and which produced, compiled, and canonized the Bible in the first place.
 
Last edited:

darknavigator

Woodpecker
Catholic
No they are not. Reformed Presbyterianism (not mainline Presbyterianism) is by far the most consistent theology in Christendom. I've read many of the original sources, studied a fair amount of church history, and am strongly settled in the theology of the Reformation and it is rare that I can find RC or EO who address the issues fairly. I probably will not read a book solely for this purpose but would be willing to hear some of the core arguments.

Catholics consider Presbyterians to be Christians. If you converted to the Catholic Church you would have to attend RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) classes, but you wouldn't need to be re-baptised as your original baptism is valid. Presbyterians can go to Heaven. You are a Christian!

Catholics would disagree with Presbyterians on the following issues:

Firstly, Catholics don’t believe that Presbyterians are members of churches (unlike Orthodox Christians) – they are members of ‘Christian Communities’. Secondly, Catholics disagree with the teaching of ‘sola scriptura’ (scripture alone). Catholics believe in scripture, tradition and the teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church. Thirdly, Catholics disagree with the teaching of ‘sola fide’ (faith alone) as this is an un-biblical teaching. Finally, Catholics believe that John Calvin’s teaching on ‘predestination’ is wrong. Human beings can’t be predestined to Heaven or Hell as this teaching negates the belief that all human beings have ‘free will’ and can choose to accept or reject God.

If there is any Catholic theologians out there feel free to correct me if I am wrong on any issues?
 

Max Roscoe

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
I really do not trust Milo.
On the one hand, we are instructed to judge not, lest we be judged, yet there are some obvious problems with this subversive individual that I think cause more harm than not, if we just "give him the benefit of the doubt."

If he has had some true Christian revelation, then he should rejoice and celebrate and grow that faith privately.
At least until he can rid himself of his anger, condecension, and catty behavior where he is driven to angrily criticize others.

I don't find him particularly intelligent, outside of his British accent and rapid Ben Shapiro speech patterns.
I don't find him at all kind or loving or generous or repentant or striking me has having any of the qualities I admire in strong Christians. I am far from perfect myself, but I can acknowledge strengths and weaknesses, and I just fail to identify any Christian qualities in the man.

Furthermore, I never really believed the "I am a gay man who has gay sex with huge black men and I love conservatism and Trump" stuff. I always suspected it was a troll, and it's not like anyone is going to investigate whether he did indeed, do those actions or it was just some bizarre degenerate talk. Likewise, I am equally suspicious of his current claims. I give him credit for being a good anti-feminist, but that's a pretty low bar that plenty of others passed years ago.

He is a subversive Jew and they do behave strangely (Brother Nathanial, a true Christian convert, still strikes me as quite odd, so maybe this is the best he can do). But I still don't observe any positive Christian traits in this man, and he is, as pointed out, an FBI informant (he has never apologized or condemned this or anything other than the supposed "I did gay sex" claim). I just don't see what benefit he can bring us, particularly with a public hearing.

If someone wants to encourage him privately, give him support, advice, guide him, etc. then that's fine, but I just don't see what is gained by putting him on display as a supposedly reformed degenerate Jew who still obviously has some serious problems.

The worst case is that he is faking it all, which there is obviously much suspicion about. This would do nothing but harm the faith of any Christians listening to him. Conversely, the best case is that he is truly on the path to conversion (though clearly is not there yet) in which case I can happily wait until that is the case to hear from him again.

As troublesome as it is to come to a decision blindly, I simply cannot bring myself to listen to this. I have heard other post-Christian interviews with him (Ethan Ralph) and he was incredibly arrogant, spiteful, and vitriolic towards others who were not even present. Let's pray for Milo but not entertain him. If I am totally off base and he has considerably changed since his Killstream appearance a few weeks ago, let me know and I'll reconsider, but it appears from the comments that is not the case.
 

Vigilant

Kingfisher
Woman
Protestant
Furthermore, I never really believed the "I am a gay man who has gay sex with huge black men and I love conservatism and Trump" stuff. I always suspected it was a troll, and it's not like anyone is going to investigate whether he did indeed, do those actions or it was just some bizarre degenerate talk.
You described exactly my view that I've had for a few years.
He is a subversive Jew and they do behave strangely (Brother Nathanial, a true Christian convert, still strikes me as quite odd, so maybe this is the best he can do)
Again been my thoughts too.
 

Knight.of.Logos

Woodpecker
Orthodox
I don't think he is being intentionally subversive -- I think he is genuine, or at least mostly genuine. However, I do think the effort to shake the "lifestyle" he pursued, even if he is highly successful, will take a long time to fully shake off all the ego, pride, and vanity that goes with that way of living. I am not one to judge -- someone can have a big ego from the outside, but inwardly possess a good heart that earns them salvation. I'm not saying Milo is like that or is not like that, I'm just saying it's difficult to judge his inward state by his outward appearance, though we can have intuitions about his positive change and make inferences based on mannerisms, etc. In the end, God only knows.
 

infowarrior1

Peacock
Protestant
While I believe most Protestants are well-meaning and doing their best to seek God, the approach as a whole is logically unjustifiable. For example, Protestants will often derive their theology from the Bible and/or use their personal interpretation of specific Bible verses in order to attack various aspects of the Church. I agree that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God and that no Church Tradition should ever contradict it. The problem for a Protestant is that every time you refer to the Bible, or use the name of a specific Gospel account such as "John" or "Mark," you are appealing to the Tradition and authority of the Church, without which you wouldn't have a Bible (or know who wrote most of the New Testament in the first place). This is easy to demonstrate simply by studying the development of the canon of Scripture, specifically over the first 350 years or so of Christianity. The Bible did not drop out of the sky, the way some Muslims act like the Koran did, as one coherent unit with no debate as to what was canon or what was not. There wasn't even the idea of a "Biblical canon" until the mid-second century, in response to the heretic Marcion creating his own version of "Scripture."

The "Scripture alone" approach thus retroactively makes un-saved every single person who lived before there was a canon of Scripture, including all of the Apostles and their immediate disciples and students. The other major problem with the "Scripture alone" approach is that the Bible refutes it internally, describing the Church as "the pillar and ground of truth" in 1 Timothy 3:15 and giving equal authority to both written and oral teachings in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. There were 20 years of Church before the first letter of the New Testament was even written - and nearly 70 years of Church before its final book was written - so clearly appealing to "Scripture alone" is not something the Apostles were doing or teaching. It would be nonsensical to teach that the "only source of Truth" was something that didn't exist yet. Instead they preached Christ from the Old Testament, which did exist, to prove He was the prophesied Messiah. You can find some of their sermons recorded in "Demonstration Of The Apostolic Preaching" by St. Irenaeus. They also taught the precise ways of worshipping, fasting, and how to conduct Holy Baptism which you can find in both the "Didache" and in terms of how services work, in the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr. Lastly, you can find the Apostolic teaching on ecclesiology and the Holy Eucharist in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, whose priests and teachers were the Apostles themselves.

Ultimately, as I indicated in the first paragraph, Protestants cannot justify their belief that the Bible is authoritative without either using circular reasoning (ie, "the Word of God is authoritative because it is the Word of God") or appealing to interior personal experience (ie, "I just know it is" somehow). 99% of Protestants, if not more, have never even asked themselves these sorts of questions - and many of them cannot even understand what it means to "justify their presupposition that the Bible is authoritative." About half the time I ask, I get a response to something else because the person I asked cannot comprehend the chain of thought.

Churches with Apostolic Succession can easily justify our presupposition in the Bible's authority: "I believe the Bible is authoritative because the Church that Christ planted declared it so." No need for logical fallacies or complicated word games. Thus you can see that, from several different angles, Protestantism as a system is incoherent and unjustifiable regardless of the genuine seeking of its adherents - whom I am not judging, as it is not my place to do so - and the fullness of the Truth does not reside in groups that have only parts of it. It resides fully in one place and one place only: the Church that Jesus built and which produced, compiled, and canonized the Bible in the first place.

I think those have already been answered. But this is not the thread for it.

But I did find the lumping of all Protestants together as a monolithic group as uncharitable.

As much as Michael E Jones does. Although Michael regards us as if we are the Devil himself.
 

Knight.of.Logos

Woodpecker
Orthodox
The belief that we are "special" or "chosen" as Milo expresses about himself may be just as toxic of a viewpoint as sodomy is as a practice, for the ultimate condition of our souls. Whereas sodomy is obviously a demonic passion, the belief that we are special in any way is just as toxic (though subtle) because, as Jesus Christ says (paraphrased, I'm sorry): it is just as bad to look at a woman with lust as it is to have sexual relations with them. This shows how a thought can be just as bad as an action, in this case the thought of specialness is a type of thought-based pride that is toxic in a similar way to the prideful hedonism of sodomy.

While most people on this forum are not sodomites, I know many of us probably feel "special" or "chosen" in one way or another. I know I do from time to time. Seeing Milo express this view has been a great educational experience and I am realizing that I feel this way too, perhaps not for my social media influence, but in my prayer life, or in my lifestyle that is relatively ascetic compared to the standard American. I now realize how subtle the evil one is, and in many ways this interview has been incredibly revealing because I simultaneously see myself reflected in ways both in Roosh and in Milo. Thank God for helping shed light on our sins, both apparent and subtle, for when we call on Him, He will show us the error of our ways.
 

Hermetic Seal

Pelican
Orthodox
Gold Member
It's worth pointing out in addition to Michael Witcoff's excellent post above that Father Josiah Trenham grew up Reformed Presbyterian and went to seminary with the brightest minds in the Reformed world, like RC Sproul and John Frame, before he became Orthodox. So when he wrote Rock And Sand, he was intimately familiar with the best of protestant teachers, not some secondhand polemicist caricaturing their positions.

The Reformed paradigm is internally consistent with its own rationalistic scholastic logic derived from medieval Latin theology, but it's not consistent with Church history. It is based upon a legalistic, reductionist reading of the Bible where Scripture is interpreted through the lenses of 16th century European lawyers, citing the least conciliar positions of St. Augustine on topics like predestination (which never held any sway until the Reformers excavated them a thousand-plus years later) for patristic support. It is sad that we often remember St. Augustine more for his theological stretches employed in apologetics against Donatists and such than for his excellent and timeless devotional writings.

There simply is no Church to be found prior to the 1600s that resembles Reformed Presbyterianism, in doctrine or ecclesiology. It is an institution thoroughly western European and Humanist in its underlying assumptions. So it runs into the same problem common to protestant churches, requiring a huge leap of faith that the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church to massive error in core doctrines from the 2-4th century until the 1500s, yet we're somehow still to take seriously Jesus' promise that the gates of hell didn't prevail against it.

I am a Protestant and have been actively seeking God since about 2005. During this time I have listened to over 10,000 sermons and read more than 10,000 pages of theology. I firmly believe that I knew Christ in 2005 (and likely even earlier) but during this time I shifted my views on dozens of different issues starting in the non-denominational megachurch movement to settle into what I am firmly convinced is true: Reformed Presbyterianism.

I am not impressed by flauting the consumption of great amounts of literature. This might make one appear smart, but it won't make you holy, and isolates the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived from intimacy with God. Is some illiterate 14th-century Russian old lady in the sticks supposed to read her way into discovering all the correct theological positions on her own? Of course not. The notion is preposterous, and indicative of nerds who like reading books (myself chief of sinners in this category) thinking that their academic proclivities are the goal of Christian life where we puzzle out the correct positions on everything through academic research. I made the same mistake when I was in college, thinking I could read myself into intimacy with God, but it didn't work, and I spent a decade in a spiritual desert as a consequence.

It was only through experience - prayer and attending services in the Orthodox Church - that I experienced the fullness of Christian faith. Studying has its place, but it is only filling in the gaps. This is a hard lesson to learn for someone like me who much prefers to have it all written out on a page, but a necessary one.

At the same time I do find it distasteful to see so much Protestant bashing between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in between discussions about humility. By your own admissions you are not very well informed on all the details of your own faiths so I don't even understand how you can even know if they are accurate. I have noticed that in the neo-reactionary/redpill/trad movement there has been a reflexive but unreflective rejection of Protestantism as we are scapegoated for all the problems in the world but I find this behavior very lazy.

It might be hard to recognize this from a church you attend inside a conservative sect, but a major reason for this is that these denominations lost. Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, and so on swallowed the lure of worldliness hook, line, and sinker a very long time ago, and have become tools of the globohomo agenda and marshalls in the marxist cultural takeover. It's only obscured now because the geriatric mainline denominations have outlived their usefulness as their cohort and children "graduated" to outright secularism. The conservative remnants cling halfway down a slippery slope they don't want to admit exists and are plagued by their own compromises, schisms, and internal instability - as we see happening right now in the Southern Baptist convention. And of course the evangelical megachurches and their business-scheming overlords are practically beyond parody, so it's not hard to see why they draw criticism.

Of course I am glad that you attend a congregation that believes in the Bible and likely is not following what the mainline Presbyterian churches are doing, and I wish you and your congregation the best. But I have little confidence that these disparate conservative remnants can survive what's coming - which is one reason why when I was leaving evangelicalism I didn't join a conservative Anglican type church far closer to my cultural heritage.

On the other hand, the Russian Church survived the most brutal persecution in history and is now thriving, so I feel confident that they will weather the present and coming storms.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
As soon as he starts talking it's obvious he's a dude. He also has very male body language and mannerisms.
I have not watched too much of him, but from the little I have seen, he is actually one of the most "passable" trannies I have seen (not that it is a very high bar).

Nonetheless, incorrect grammar is very distracting. I have read articles by conservatives, in which they openly challenge the maintsream transgender narrative, but still refer to people like Bruce Jenner as "she."

It drives me crazy to no end, and it makes what they write unreadable.

It is similar to when people use terms like "his husband" (which is actually technically gramatically correct, but does not describe reality).

When people speak like this, they are actually guilty of indulging these spiritually lost people in their delusions.

It would be like speaking to a drug addict and referring to his drugs as "medicine."
 

Aloha50

Sparrow
Protestant
I really do not trust Milo.
On the one hand, we are instructed to judge not, lest we be judged, yet there are some obvious problems with this subversive individual that I think cause more harm than not, if we just "give him the benefit of the doubt."

If he has had some true Christian revelation, then he should rejoice and celebrate and grow that faith privately.
At least until he can rid himself of his anger, condecension, and catty behavior where he is driven to angrily criticize others.

I don't find him particularly intelligent, outside of his British accent and rapid Ben Shapiro speech patterns.
I don't find him at all kind or loving or generous or repentant or striking me has having any of the qualities I admire in strong Christians. I am far from perfect myself, but I can acknowledge strengths and weaknesses, and I just fail to identify any Christian qualities in the man.

Furthermore, I never really believed the "I am a gay man who has gay sex with huge black men and I love conservatism and Trump" stuff. I always suspected it was a troll, and it's not like anyone is going to investigate whether he did indeed, do those actions or it was just some bizarre degenerate talk. Likewise, I am equally suspicious of his current claims. I give him credit for being a good anti-feminist, but that's a pretty low bar that plenty of others passed years ago.

He is a subversive Jew and they do behave strangely (Brother Nathanial, a true Christian convert, still strikes me as quite odd, so maybe this is the best he can do). But I still don't observe any positive Christian traits in this man, and he is, as pointed out, an FBI informant (he has never apologized or condemned this or anything other than the supposed "I did gay sex" claim). I just don't see what benefit he can bring us, particularly with a public hearing.

If someone wants to encourage him privately, give him support, advice, guide him, etc. then that's fine, but I just don't see what is gained by putting him on display as a supposedly reformed degenerate Jew who still obviously has some serious problems.

The worst case is that he is faking it all, which there is obviously much suspicion about. This would do nothing but harm the faith of any Christians listening to him. Conversely, the best case is that he is truly on the path to conversion (though clearly is not there yet) in which case I can happily wait until that is the case to hear from him again.

As troublesome as it is to come to a decision blindly, I simply cannot bring myself to listen to this. I have heard other post-Christian interviews with him (Ethan Ralph) and he was incredibly arrogant, spiteful, and vitriolic towards others who were not even present. Let's pray for Milo but not entertain him. If I am totally off base and he has considerably changed since his Killstream appearance a few weeks ago, let me know and I'll reconsider, but it appears from the comments that is not the case.
He said in the interview that he's actually not Jewish (his mom lied) then didn't elaborate. On his Telegram a month or so ago he said he's taken 3 dna tests, like 23 and Me, and none of them showed he had Jewish blood. I have no idea, that's what he said.

As others have mentioned, he needs to repent of the narcissism. Every time I hear him, he speaks 90% of the time. Roosh pointed out some glaring inconsistencies between his conduct and his profession (of faith) which he was not very receptive of. He definitely believes the ends justifies the means and looks to past saints like Augustine for justification. He doesn't see the difference between engaging the culture with Godly wisdom and wit and engaging it with a vulgarity that probably causes the pagans to blush.
 
Did Roosh ask him about his FBI emails? This is common knowledge.

Is Roosh a FBI informant too?

..............

"Documents from the Charlottesville lawsuit have outed Milo Yiannopolous as a Federal informant with "contacts in the FBI." He is also offering assistance to antifa in their lawsuit against nationalists."
Keith Woods
Milos emails to the FBI:
 

NoMoreTO

Hummingbird
Catholic
This sounds like the kinds of arguments Jesuits make: ‘sin is always bad, BUT...’

Sin is always bad, but we have mortal and venial sins. All are insults to an infinitely good God. But as you know none of us can be worthy next to God who is infinitely Good and Just.

Still, if we have nothing to show for ourselves at the end of our lives in terms of the good we do, what will our Master say?

The third servant, however, had merely hidden his talent, burying it in the ground, and was punished by his master:

Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
— Matthew 25:24–30

So, bringing it back to Milo and Rooshs' conversation, this is the part of the conversation which stood out and I think @ben1 did hit the nail on the head here, with the caveat that you can not Commit Sin TO save souls, but sin may occur in the process, vs. staying in one place and not engaging in Good vs. Evil battle directly.

Regarding the major argument over the question of sinning in order to save souls,
Roosh: God does not need you so do not do it
Milo: It is important to not stand back and do nothing when the enemies are at the gate so small compromises are ok.

Compromise can be seen in 2 ways, one would be not managing your own sin to the fullest extent such as drinking and smoking, some foul language etc. This is different than sinning TO save souls, it is more akin to accepting your flawed state to some extent so you are able to still operate. The other would be not being out there in the world fighting/praying to God for the Salvation of Souls to the greatest extent which you can.

In a sense aren't we obliged to do our utmost in this regard, as much as with respect to ourselves?

Jesus gave two commandments to cover all of them (1) Love the Lord thy God (2) Love thy neighbour as yourself.

So if one person is pushing harder on #1 than #2, and another is pushing harder on #2 than #1, they are both serving God. The key being that both should strive to keep and serve in BOTH respects.

I found this old homily on the Talents from 586, very good. As it should be coming from a Pope.

the message of this Homily remains none the less fully current. Does not the sin of omission denounced by the pope remain one of the most prejudicial to the spread of Catholicism and the development of good?

Thus, one has received the faculty of understanding: this talent obliges him to the ministry of preaching. Another received the goods of the earth: from this fortune he must give alms of his talent. Another, who has received neither the faculty of understanding inner realities nor a large fortune, has, however, learned a trade which secures his subsistence: his very profession is recognized as a talent received. Another man had none of it, but he may have had a familiar place with a rich man; this familiarity is certainly the talent he has received. Therefore, if he does not speak in favor of the poor to his protector, he will be condemned for having reserved the use of his talent.

You who have the faculty of understanding, take great care not to be silent. You who have abundant fortune, make sure you do not allow the compassion that drives you to give to become numb. You who know a job that gives you what to live, apply yourself to share the use and profit with your neighbor. You who have entered the house of a rich man, fear to be condemned for having reserved this talent to you by not interceding with him for the poor when you can. For the Judge who is coming will come back to us each in proportion to what He has given us.
Gregory the Great Homily 9 on the Gospels - Parable of the Talents

I wish Milo the best in his efforts to counter sodomy. I was never a follower of his, don't follow him now so can't really comment on what he says on twitter.
 
Last edited:

tractor

Woodpecker
Orthodox
I was somewhat disgusted with the introduction where Milo basically described his sodomite deathstyle of the not-so-distant past.

The rest of the conversation was pretty good. It's clear that Milo is still a total noob who's not even made a first step on the "stairway of divine ascent" (St John Climacus). He's yet to realize - as Roosh correctly pointed out - that his "minor" sins (using vulgar language, attacking other people in anger, striving to "own" his opponents) don't do anything good - neither to his soul nor to defending Christian heritage. You can't preserve Christian heritage by granting the demons co-ownership of your soul.

Rejecting sodomy (or in the case of straight men - rejecting fornication and porn) is a tiny tip of the iceberg. The real transformation should occur in one's heart ("heart circumcision").
 

tailoredcarnivore

 
Banned
Agnostic
I sense that Milo has been convicted by the spirit of Truth as he showed there symptoms thereof. However, he's just experiencing a thing called Grace. It's the beginning of a broader spiritual awakening of the academic variety by which sanctification occurs as we repent. Milo has simply not repented yet. The relatively newly awoken child of God must subsequently align with His Image. The keys of which are contained in Matthew 5 & 6. Sanctification occurs as we go about the "works" of this new faith. The "works" are going thru an inventory in order to identify patterns of a defective spiritual Image which stands in the way of our ability to serve God and others. That's the only reason we would even be offered sanctification. It's for an active purpose not just for our own eternal security. It's to turn us into a light on a hill.
If Milo is truly authentic, you will see an eventual end to the symptoms of demonic displacement he currently exhibits when he describes the basic transfer of how he handles his internal disturbance. Where he used to engage in overt licentiousness, now he can't stop smoking.
When one demon is kicked out, 7 more evil ones take its place. You cannot put new wine in old wine skins. These are the spiritual principles which indicate what we must do in order to be sanctified. Admission of powerlessness. Repentance. Confession. Restitution. Conscious contact thru prayer and fasting. Others-centered vs self centered. That inability to find that inner peace he is describing due to old hang ups & guilt is the literal place is hell. Just Matthew 6 suggests that the kingdom of heaven is inside of us, so is hell. It's an internal state where our guilt over defects enslaves us. It is not a reference to an external place. Please read the text thru the spiritual lens it was written in. Human interpretation is insufficient.
Milo is a seed which has just begun to sprout. You will know a tree by its fruit.
This man is still sick & suffering. If we would like to see this man experience sanctification and begin to enjoy the freedom found therein, he must be advocated for by prayer & fasting. Otherwise, this fresh young sapling is vulnerable to never laying down roots.
Our faith is paradoxical in that we have no direct proof of concept yet we must be doubtless of it. However, as James rightly said, "faith without works is dead".
Most ppl interpret that to mean the works you do in the world post-accepting Christ but those works are not possible until the work of sanctification is first done w/ you.
Go and be reconciled to your brother is where it starts for us after being reconciled with God. Milo is trying to find reconciliation by works thru his own efforts, the antithesis of spiritual submission & surrender. Milo is projecting what his own willful plans are to do with his own spiritual existence. He is not projecting the humility of a dead man who is so aware of his defected spiritual state that he is willing to be led thru rather urgent spiritual triage. Instead he projects a rather pompous & perverted gospel of Self Improvement & self glorification.
We are in the middle of the great falling away. The deceptions will get harder and harder to identify. This one is obvious to eyes and ears which have been tuned to See and Hear. It doesn't mean anyone should reject pleas for help from men like Milo but we don't get to bend this truth to make it more palatable for him. This is there only thing that matters here. No doxological debate between 2 legalistic forms of religion matters here except when it comes to understanding that the redeeming work is yet incomplete. Faith alone is insufficient. Faith didn't erase the law. Faith confirms the law.
 

Cavalier

Kingfisher
Orthodox
The term is for your benefit not ours. We call ourselves orthodox catholic biblical Christians. Roman Catholics have their own terms (Jesuit, Franciscan, Dominican, Augustinian)
The Domincans, Jesuits, Augustinians, Franciscans are not denominations. They are monastic orders. But Protestantism has many sects. The name is right on their churches. It has to be realized that the modern depraved world we find ourselves in has it‘s roots in the Satanically inspired teachings of the various Protestant heretics such as Luther and Calvin. Oh especially Calvin.
 
Top