Joshua Jones

I wouldn't necessarily say Jay is our best apologist, but probably the most popular. There are other apologists who are "irenic" and "nice" and will still body any protestant who wants to actually debate. Protestantism is dying, which makes sense because it has only been around for several hundred years.

This guy is the face of Orthodoxy and they think it's a win. You really have to be desperate if Jay Dyer is a spokesperson for your church. The Orthodox Church is cooked and they can't even see it...

I think you are reading way too much into these texts that you think support your position. For instance, regardless of your intepretation of 1 Corinthians 15:42, the immediate context of the chapter is talking about physical, bodily resurrection. It's literally all over the chapter, and not a mention (explicitly) of The Body of Christ (The Church). You say Christ has to sprinkle the altar and purify the heavenly tabernacle before we can enter in. Ok, fine, however Hebrews says (prior to 70 AD) that we already have access to "The Holiest" through the veil of His Flesh "His actual Body" because He has sprinkled and cleansed the Heavenly Tabernacle (Hebrews 9 and 10). Hebrews also says (Hebrews 12) that the spirits of "just men made perfect" are in "Mount Sion" which is obviously a reference to Heaven, because the angels are there, God is there, Jesus Christ is there, and "we" are there, even though we aren't there physically. So, you have heaven opened up, spirits in heaven, The Church positionally/actually in Heaven (Ephesians), believers in the presence of Christ (regenerated, indwelt people), etc... all before AD 70. With that being the case, where is the actual difference in the status of The Church in AD 70?

@OrthodoxyAG @Canonandcreed We are in the Holies of Holies (positionally) today. That is the presence (Parousia) of Christ where we see Him as He is (He is invisible) face (pānîm-presence) to face.

“The Reformers reacted against the nominalist soteriology of the via moderna as represented by Ockham and Biel. By contrast, the Reformers did in fact put forward a strong participation theology with their doctrine of union with Christ, a doctrine that made room for the duplex gratia, the double grace of justification and sanctification."—Matthew Barrett (@MattMBarrett); Reformation as Renewal (Zondervan Academic), pg. 206

1st off, even if we go with that interpretation of Hebrews 9, wouldn't the dead righteous just follow on His heels into heaven instead of waiting a few decades? Their barrier would be taken away at the cleansing of the altar and sprinkling of The Blood, not the destruction of Jerusalem. "So the raising of the dead ones in Sheol predicates the change of the alive saints." What do you mean by "predicates"?

@OrthodoxyAG @Canonandcreed That is what Revelation 20:13-15, 1 Cor 15:51-52, & 1 Thess 4:16-17 seems to allude to. The saints couldn’t have been liberated at the Harrowing of Hades because Hebrews 9 is clear Christ was the first to enter the Holies of Holies at His ascension.

@prncecarrington @Canonandcreed What do you mean the dead were resurrected out of sheol in 70 AD? You mean the spirits of the righteous were liberated at that point?

@OrthodoxyAG @Canonandcreed I never said it wasn’t transformative. It absolutely is transformative & a transformation absolutely happened in 70 AD. The dead were resurrected out of Sheol. All I’m saying is nowhere in 1 Cor 15 does it insinuate true final resurrection is a glorified physical body.

@prncecarrington @Canonandcreed Where in the text of 1 Corinthians 15 is it merely declarative, and not transformative?

@OrthodoxyAG @Canonandcreed No it was always incorruptible, but we are talking about that incorruptibility & power being confirmed & demonstrated publicly, historically, demonstrably, & definitively.

I am not at all arguing for a false dichotomy, as I am arguing for exceptions to the rule, because in your mind if someone was saved without baptism, then nobody needs to be baptized to be saved. But again, the believers who are still alive at the second coming don't physically die themselves (spirit separates from their body) as they are renewed entirely in the twinkling of an eye. That would make them exceptions to the rule.

@OrthodoxyAG @TheGourdKing @Lonestarorthox @Alex_Ortodoxie The flesh has to die, they just die a different way. They're experiences different than those who were before them. You're arguing a false dichotomy. And it's easily proven because Elijah and Enoch do not have the same flesh that they were born into.

Suddenly the plain language of Scripture is not enough! Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5 “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal of a good conscience to God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…” 1 Peter 3:21 “He saved us, not by works which we did in righteousness, but according to His mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit…” Titus 3:5 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.” John 6:52-56 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” John 20:22-23 “Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.” James 5:14-16

@prncecarrington @Canonandcreed So, The Church wasn't incorruptible before the destruction of Jerusalem? Because like you said the text is saying "it is being raised" not "it will be shown to have been raised"?

@OrthodoxyAG @Canonandcreed So we have the incorruptible body of 1 Cor 15: it’s the church. The city of God, a heavenly Jerusalem. And that city was revealed as incorruptible when that which can be shaken (the Old Covenant system) was shaken leaving what is unseen, eternal, & unshaken.

@prncecarrington @Canonandcreed So, people don't receive renewed, incorruptible bodies?

@OrthodoxyAG @Canonandcreed No, that’s not what 1 Corinthians 15 is arguing at all.

@prncecarrington @Canonandcreed Do you not believe in the bodily resurrection of all mankind?

@OrthodoxyAG @Canonandcreed I don’t see how fuller you can get. I believe the death of Adam has totally been abolished. Adam was ashamed in God’s presence because of his nakedness, we are unashamed & clothed in the righteousness of Christ.

@prncecarrington @Canonandcreed Ok, is there not a fuller fulfillment of The Parousia then? Will sin, death, and hell be ultimately dealt with so that we can dwell on earth in peace?

@OrthodoxyAG @Canonandcreed That was the outpouring of The Spirit that causes regeneration. The Parousia is the sign of the Son of Man seated in heaven. It’s the vindication of the sons of God. 66-70 AD was total vindication for Christ & His church.

@JamesEwen0407 @TheGourdKing @Lonestarorthox @Alex_Ortodoxie That's an interpretive move, and maybe could be used to justify your position if we didn't have verses that said Enoch and Elijah were taken by God alive directly. Do you think there will be believers who are glorified at the second coming without having to die?

@OrthodoxyAG @TheGourdKing @Lonestarorthox @Alex_Ortodoxie Where it says that sin is in the flesh, and the Bible says "the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord"

@prncecarrington @Canonandcreed So, the Parousia didn't start when The Church was born at Pentecost?

@OrthodoxyAG @Canonandcreed Correct. 66-70 AD begun the Parousia & Christ’s presence (Parousia) has been here ever since

@vaticansillo @Canonandcreed This seems to prove my point? Who is this comment towards?

@Canonandcreed @OrthodoxyAG "He [King David] estimates and judges of his happiness from this that in this way he is righteous not in reality, but by imputation."

@prncecarrington @Canonandcreed So, you believe the second coming has already happened or what?

@OrthodoxyAG @Canonandcreed That’s what my bio says, doesn’t it

@prncecarrington @Canonandcreed You are a full preterist?

@Canonandcreed @OrthodoxyAG It’s very easy to understand this when one isn’t just throwing catchphrases & philosophical terms like “durr nominalism” to obfuscate from answering scriptural questions. Well said.

@Ejmock18 @Canonandcreed How does this answer my question? Do either of these things happen either in spite of what you do, or in response to what you do? Does fasting mortify the flesh? Does giving to the poor quicken your spirit?

@OrthodoxyAG @Canonandcreed Mortification- continual weakening of the old fleshly and sinful nature Quickening- The enlivening of our new nature to practice God-honoring Righteousness

I am not sure your response is really hitting on my critique, so let me try to respond: 1. I don't think anyone actually believes that protestant confessions don't teach regeneration or internal change upon justification, but the critique is that the inner change, regeneration, sanctification is not the basis of that justification. The basis of the justification is something extrinsic to the believer. So, yes, protestants believe in a union with Christ, but is the righteousness of Christ that justifies a works-based merited righteousness that is applied externally "to the believer's account", or is the righteousness that justifies a quality (or qualities) internal to Christ because He is God, that is then infused into the believer? 2. Is the union with Christ that grounds your justification internal (ontological) or external (purely forensic) to you according to the reformers? 3. I didn't say that salvation only consists of a legal declaration, but that the righteousness which justifies, and is the ground of your salvation is entirely distinct from sanctification. 4. This does get to the heart of the issue - whether you are justified based on anything in you or not. I think it does reduce to nominalism (the rejection of actually existent universals) because there is no metaphysical universal "christian" that you have to become in order to be saved eschatologically. Your justification is on an "in-name-only" basis. Protestants generally say God forensically declares the ungodly righteous, and then regenerates them because of that declaration (obviously it isn't so spaced out temporally, but this is the theological sequence.) Calvinists seem to reverse this order, and say God regenerates first, so they can proclaim faith in God and thereby be declared righteous. Orthodox say God declares the ungodly righteous BY regenerating them. Let me know where you disagree.

This is just old Romanist rhetoric from 500 years ago that the EO also parrot. And it’s a confused use of the word nominalism. We don’t teach that God merely calls someone righteous while nothing is actually true of them. We teach that believers are truly united to Christ, and because of that union His righteousness is truly theirs. Is Jesus’s righteousness that we participate in fictional? The forensic verdict isn’t fictional or “nominal” it’s God’s judicial declaration concerning a real covenantal union. That what Barrett is getting at. It’s why the Reformers consistently grounded justification in union with Christ. God isn’t pretending I rendered Christ’s obedience and am righteous. He’s declaring that Christ’s obedience legally belongs to me because Christ is my covenant Head. Furthermore, we explicitly reject the idea that salvation consists only of a legal declaration. Notice you are confusing the basis of justification with the entirety of salvation. Sanctification isn’t “a nice part of the package” when it’s an inseparable benefit of union with Christ like all the others. So, yes, the debate is over whether our inherent righteousness is the ground of God’s judicial acceptance. But saying “no” to that isn’t therefore nominalism.

@Ejmock18 @Canonandcreed That proves my point, you are not saved by your sanctification. You are saved by an external, forensic justification, that sanctification follows upon. I.E. the basis of your salvation is nominal, external, legal, and purely forensic.

@OrthodoxyAG @Canonandcreed It is a distinction by the mechanism of what saves, it is not because of the sanctification that saves that is why we say faith alone is the justifying mechanism and sanctification is the consequence

@JamesEwen0407 @TheGourdKing @Lonestarorthox @Alex_Ortodoxie 19. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. That's Romans 7:19-20. Where in there did it say Elijah or Enoch died?

@OrthodoxyAG @TheGourdKing @Lonestarorthox @Alex_Ortodoxie The flesh of both did indeed die, because of Romans 7:20.

@Ejmock18 @Canonandcreed So, you can be sanctified by sitting on your couch doing nothing?

@OrthodoxyAG @Canonandcreed Sanctification is not something you do on your own, it is not a pursuit but a process done entirely done by the spirit, this is the core of our disagreements, our view is one of monergism. I’m sure you know this