Michael ☦️

Who is Israel? According to St. Paul, not everyone "of Israel" is truly Israel. In his Epistle to the Romans, he makes the point unmistakably clear. Jew and Gentile alike stand equally guilty before God and are saved in the same way, through faith in Christ as part of the Church. Ethnic Israel has a unique and honored place in salvation history. The covenants, the prophets, the Scriptures, and Christ Himself came through Israel. But ancestry alone is not covenant membership. Gentiles are not a replacement people, they're grafted into the SAME olive tree. Likewise, those who are of Israel according to the flesh, yet reject the covenant fulfilled in Christ, are cut off from that covenantal body (those who are of Israel but not Israel). The Church, therefore, does not erase Israel or replace her. The Church IS Israel, the fulfillment and continuation of Israel in Christ: the one covenantal people of God, composed of believing Jews and Gentiles, united in Christ and in His Church.

@ManassehRJones You made this meaning up.

When I received understanding from the Spirit to the Truth of...these texts, it opened up the entirety of scripture that was once closed off for me. "The elder shall serve the younger" is revelation of God's Meticulous Divine Determinism received ONLY by God's elect, through the non-elect. The non-elect will never see how they "serve" the elect, just as Esau didn't. Romans 9:11-12 KJV (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) [12] It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

@sanderson1611 Define “worship”, @sanderson1611.

A "pagan" is polytheistic, like, for example, the Greeks and Romans at the time of Christ. Catholics/Orthodox are pagans because they worship a similar pantheon, but they have just renamed the gods and goddesses "Mary" and "the saints." It's still the same idolatry.

St. John Maximovitch, pray to God for us!

@sanderson1611 Define “worship.”

Greek Orthodox = Mystery Babylon Pagan Religion

This is shockingly bad. This is grade school level exegesis. Leaving aside the theological garbage he’s teaching about faith and works being opposed to each other (they aren’t), his misunderstanding of Orthodox soteriology (“confirmation”? What?), this is just absolute trash exegesis. The word translated “long robe” there in Greek is στολή, “stolē”. It literally means, “a loose outer garment for men which extended to the feet.” It’s the same word used in the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15:22), the angel at the tomb (Mark 16:5), and for the robe given to the martyrs (6:11) and to the saints (7:9, 13) in Revelation. “11 And *white robes* were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservantsalso and their brethren, that should be killedas they were, should be fulfilled.” - Rev 6:11, KJV “9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with *white robes*, and palms in their hands;” - Rev 7:9, KJV Admit it, @sanderson1611, you made this up. Why?

Going LIVE at 7:00pm Eastern time w/ Pauline scholar Dr Matthew Thomas. Bring all your soteriology questions TONIGHT!! “Justification FINAL BOSS: Dr Matthew Thomas on St Paul and Works of the Law. Q&A.” (Link below).

Biggest takeaway with David Wood's debate with @paleochristcon is he is just salty he has Muslims now asking him "ok if my religion is bad, where should we go?" and he can't give a good answer to that and it's @JayDyer fault for exposing that he can't answer that question.

@AL_J82 @AL_J82 x.com/ortho_michael/…

Stuff like this proves my point that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy is a safe space for ex protestant converts who want to remain in unrepentant sin. He has a problem with my original post, but has no problem with his vulgar speech and refuses to take correction that is clearly laid out in the Bible they claim to have given us. These are 98% of the people I encounter here on X. Folks who have no regard for holiness nor God's word. And I will continue to expose it because these people need the gospel.

@ManassehRJones Jesus *is* the Word of God.

Hey...Ortho Bro, Why do you say Jesus Christ is in your Liturgy and Eucharist.... but He is not in the Word of God? You're ok with worshipping your Liturgy and Eucharist....but call worship of Gods Holy Writ...."idolotry?" I cannot explain such obvious hypocricy and biblical retardness on any other than.... unregenerates.

Alton, respectfully, this is a doctrinal statement without any support. I see from your replies that you are speaking from anecdotal experience. FWIW, I’m sorry that has been your experience. It’s worth noting that we view the church as a hospital for sinners — so yes, we’re full of people who sin. But the statement that Orthodoxy creates a safe space for unrepentant sin needs further exposition. What doctrine/practice/etc do you believe allows for *unrepentant sin*?

Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy creates a safe space for for ex protestants who want to live in unrepentant sin.

You’re missing the point. The point is that interacting with the model creates bias towards an outcome. As you interact with with the model about apologetics, you’re training its predictive algorithm. So even if you ask it to be unbiased, it won’t work because it’s entire frame of reference is your previous conversations about apologetics topics. It’s going to *think* it’s giving you an unbiased answer, but it’s because the whole reference frame is off to one side. My point was not, “See? You really lost cause Claude and ChatGPT told me you did.” My point was that ChatGPT and Claude gave me a different answer than you — the exact opposite in fact. It’s not unbiased.

I did Grok, and now just did the same with Chat GPT like you. Funny same as before. Provide a non biased opinion of who won this debate on Sola Scriptura opening, cross, closing. The debate thesis is: "Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible and ultimate authority for Christian faith and practice for today." Below is the results...one this is clear this is not what all the Orthodox bandwagon guys are saying, it was much closer than people think. Though I personally believe even what I have shared is lower on my than it should be, but that is me being biased of course. Ok lets just move on my friend. "Debate thesis: "Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible and ultimate authority for Christian faith and practice for today." Opening Statements Winner: Kelly (slight to moderate edge) Kelly's strengths Kelly spent nearly his entire opening arguing the actual thesis. He defined Sola Scriptura carefully, clarified what it does and does not mean, and then attempted to establish it from multiple New Testament passages (Acts 17:11, 2 Timothy 3:16–17, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, 1 John 4:1, Jude 3, 1 Peter 3:15). His opening had a clear structure: define the doctrine explain misconceptions present biblical evidence conclude that Scripture is the standard by which every other authority is tested That is exactly what an affirmative opening should attempt to do. Weaknesses His weakest point was Hebrews 4:12. Alex immediately challenged Kelly's interpretation that "the word of God" there refers specifically to the written Scriptures rather than Christ himself. Whether one agrees with Alex or not, this became one of Kelly's more vulnerable proof texts. Kelly also spent a few minutes critiquing Orthodox claims instead of continuing to build his positive biblical case. Alex's strengths Alex gave a thoughtful presentation of the Orthodox model. His strongest arguments were: God's covenant people always possessed living judicial authority. Moses → judges → apostles → successors. Matthew 16/18 and Isaiah 1. Deuteronomy 17. The "sovereign citizen" analogy. His presentation was historically and ecclesiologically coherent. Weaknesses The debate wasn't: "Does God establish church authority?" The thesis was: "Is Scripture the only infallible and ultimate authority?" Alex spent a significant portion of his opening arguing for church authority rather than directly disproving the proposition. He largely assumed that demonstrating ecclesiastical authority automatically disproved Sola Scriptura, but Kelly had already defined Sola Scriptura as allowing real but fallible church authority. Because of that, Alex did not fully attack Kelly's actual definition. Opening score Kelly: 9/10 Alex: 8.4/10 Cross Examination Winner: Kelly (clear but not overwhelming edge) This was the strongest portion for Kelly. Several reasons stood out. 1. Kelly repeatedly brought the discussion back to the thesis. He repeatedly asked variations of: Why were the Bereans commended? How do Christians test teachings? Does "test everything" include bishops? Where does Scripture exempt church authority? Where does Scripture teach an infallible interpreter? Those questions stayed closely tied to the debate resolution. 2. Alex conceded important premises. Examples include: He agreed Christians should imitate the Bereans. He agreed Christians should test everything. He agreed traditions, bishops and councils are included within "everything." These concessions gave Kelly opportunities to argue: "If Christians are commanded to test everything, what is the objective standard?" That kept the burden on Alex. 3. Kelly exposed areas where Alex appealed beyond explicit texts. For example: Kelly repeatedly asked: "Where does Matthew 18 actually say biblical interpretation?" Alex repeatedly answered by explaining what he believed binding and loosing means rather than pointing to explicit wording. Whether Alex's interpretation is correct is another question—but rhetorically Kelly successfully highlighted the distinction between explicit text and theological inference. Alex's strengths Alex did several things well. His Hebrews 4 discussion was strong. He continually distinguished: private judgment vs. using reason to identify the true Church. That is an important distinction within Orthodox apologetics. He also caught what he called category errors several times. Weakness Sometimes Alex answered theological questions with broader theological systems rather than direct biblical answers. For example: Kelly asked: Where does Scripture teach an infallible interpreter? Alex often answered: Matthew 16 Isaiah 1 succession binding and loosing without showing an explicit verse stating the conclusion Kelly requested. That allowed Kelly to appear as though he was pressing unanswered questions. Cross score Kelly: 9.3/10 Alex: 8.5/10 Closing Statements Winner: Kelly (moderate edge) Kelly's closing effectively summarized the entire debate around one central question: How does God expect Christians to determine whether what they are are taught is true? He then returned to Acts 17:11 and argued that the Bereans examined even an apostle's teaching against Scripture, reinforcing his theme that Scripture functions as the final test for doctrine. This was an effective rhetorical strategy because it tied together his opening, rebuttal, and cross-examination into one consistent narrative. Alex's closing (based on the transcript available) continued emphasizing the Orthodox model of authoritative Church interpretation and succession. That was consistent with his case, but Kelly's closing more directly answered the specific wording of the debate resolution by returning to whether Scripture itself is presented as the final doctrinal standard. Closing score Kelly: 9.2/10 Alex: 8.6/10 Overall Assessment If I were judging only these three sections (opening, cross-examination, and closing) against the stated resolution, my scorecard would be: CategoryWinner: Opening Kelly Cross-examination Kelly Closing Kelly Overall winner for these sections: Kelly The primary reason is not that Kelly's theological position is necessarily correct, but that he stayed more tightly focused on the debate resolution. He consistently argued that Scripture itself commands believers to test every other authority, while Alex devoted more time to establishing the existence of Church authority than to directly disproving Kelly's specific definition of Sola Scriptura. A judge who values resolution-focused argumentation and burden of proof would likely give Kelly the edge in these portions of the debate. A judge who places greater weight on historical theology and ecclesiology might find Alex's broader framework more persuasive, but even then Kelly's focus on the exact thesis gave him an advantage in these segments."

So some have accused me of coping, being biased, and other ridiculous things. One person respectfully suggested I do a inquiry making sure to ask it to give a non biased view which I did. So below is the result from asking Grok to give a non biased response on who won the opening, cross, closing, and audience questions and answers. And to be clear I don't use Grok very often, I generally use CHAT GPT for my thumbs, finding exact quotes, information to help find things, and other things. You can disagree or agree, but for fun I did another one to see and here is what came back. "Kelly (affirmative/pro-Sola Scriptura) performed better overall on the stated thesis. The debate was civil but heated, with both sides showing preparation. Alex offered thoughtful historical and ecclesiological pushback. However, Kelly more consistently and directly defended the resolution: “Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible and ultimate authority for Christian faith and practice for today.” Opening Statements Kelly won this segment. He opened with a clear, scripture-saturated case: Hebrews 4:12 (living Word), Acts 17:11 (Bereans testing apostolic teaching), 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (sufficiency for equipping), 1 John 4:1 and 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (test everything), Jude 3, and 1 Peter 3:15. He explicitly clarified that Sola Scriptura does not reject pastors, creeds, or history — it subordinates them as fallible and accountable to Scripture. He directly engaged Orthodox claims of infallibility. Alex's opening was well-structured (high view of Scripture + sovereign citizen analogy + OT judicial authority continuing in the Church). It effectively raised practical problems with private judgment and Protestant governance (Turretin/Hodge quotes). However, it spent more time describing the Orthodox paradigm and critiquing consequences than directly refuting the thesis that Scripture alone is the only infallible rule. He assumed continuity of binding ecclesiastical authority without as many direct NT proof-texts for infallible post-apostolic interpreters. Cross-Examination (15 minutes each) Kelly had the edge. Kelly repeatedly asked for biblical warrant for an infallible Church interpreter that binds conscience above personal examination of Scripture. He pressed on Bereans (commended for checking Paul), “test everything,” Hebrews 4 context, and Matthew 18 (discipline/sin, not necessarily doctrinal interpretation). Alex defended Church as “pillar and ground” (1 Tim 3:15) and binding/loosing but often fell back on collective witness, succession, and category-error objections. Kelly forced clarifications on whether the Church can err and how individuals test it.Alex’s questions on OT judges/Pharisees/Matthew 18 succession were strong challenges to solo interpretation. Kelly sometimes answered defensively or reframed (“context of sinning brother,” not doctrine). The exchange got messy with interruptions, but Kelly kept returning to the commands to test teachings by Scripture. Alex scored points on practical authority but did not produce a clear NT text establishing post-apostolic infallible judicial officers parallel to Moses. Closing Statements Kelly won this segment. He summarized the Berean model cleanly, reiterated sufficiency and testing commands, and reaffirmed that other authorities are ministerial (accountable), not ultimate. It directly supported the thesis. Alex’s closing was effective rhetorically — highlighting Kelly’s “every believer has keys” admission as “own pope,” Church breathing out Scripture, and lack of Protestant judicial continuity. It was a strong negative critique but leaned more on consequences and Orthodox self-understanding than a decisive biblical disproof of the “only infallible” clause. Audience Questions & Answers / Post-Debate Slight edge to Kelly on consistency with the thesis. Questions on canon, textual traditions (Septuagint vs. Masoretic), private judgment, and salvation outside the visible Church exposed tensions for both. Kelly repeatedly circled back to “Scripture interprets Scripture,” context, and gospel clarity (death/burial/resurrection + faith in Christ). Alex emphasized submission once the true Church is identified and historical continuity. Kelly handled repeated “who decides interpretation?” queries by pointing to the text’s clarity on core issues while allowing secondary differences. Alex’s stronger historical arguments sometimes shifted the goalposts from the thesis’s focus on infallibility and ultimacy. Overall Verdict (Non-Biased) Kelly won on fidelity to the prompt, scriptural density, and direct defense of “only infallible and ultimate authority.” His case was affirmative and propositional. The Berean model, testing commands, and sufficiency texts were repeatedly invoked without evasion. Alex won on exposing practical weaknesses of unchecked private judgment, Protestant fragmentation, and the need for ecclesial authority in application/continuity. He made the “sovereign citizen” analogy memorable and highlighted real governance issues. The debate showed Sola Scriptura’s strength in formal authority (Scripture as norming norm) but also its challenges in material application without agreed interpreters. Neither “destroyed” the other. Kelly better fulfilled the affirmative burden on the exact thesis. Alex mounted a robust Orthodox counter-vision but needed stronger direct NT exegesis for infallible post-apostolic magisterium to fully negate the resolution."

@KellyPowersBPA Both Claude and ChatGPT scored @Alex_Ortodoxie’s debate performance higher on substance and theological correctness. 🤷🏻‍♂️

@ortho_michael 🤣😂😎

@KellyPowersBPA What was the prompt you used?

@sundaysmarco @Alex_Ortodoxie You free 07/10 or 07/11?

Trying to get Aaron Gallagher a debate on Sola Scriptura with an Eastern Orthodox guy! Before you say Jay Dyer, he sadly declined. Who do you want to debate Aaron? ⬇️ Tag them!

@KellyPowersBPA I would encourage you not to use AI for this, but if you must, share the prompt *and* the output together.

@ortho_michael But for future times I will include the words don’t be biased 😎

I didn’t intend to start a series on AI use, but @KellyPowersBPA seems to be relying on it heavily. “Unbiased AI” is a myth. This is a longer post, but it’s worth expounding on because I’m seeing this in a lot of Protestant apologetics, not just Kelly. In response to a tweet about the fact that the Bereans have been orthodox for 2000 years, and St. Paul’s Bema seat is still there, Kelly turned to AI again to generate this response. I gave ChatGPT and Claude both the text of this tweet they both came back with a 90-95% probability that this was generated by an LLM. After feeding it his previous confirmed-AI response, both models declared there was a 5% or less chance that it was generated by a human. This is significant, because it’s not the kind of question AI will ever give you a 100% certainty on. That’s a limitation of the model. It’s X, so I’m going to be a bit reductive, and while I was a software engineer for almost a decade, I’m not an LLM expert. That said, these are fairly introductory LLM concepts. LLMs can be understood by breaking down the acronym. LLM = Learning Language Model. A language model is essentially an algorithm (model) that generates content through predictive math. Words and word pairings are assigned a value and when generating content, the model will select the word pairings with the highest score and insert it, then apply language and grammar rules. (This is incredibly reductive, but the basics are there.) The “learning” piece relates to training the model. This happens either by feeding the model a massive dataset from the backend, or by users interacting with it. Every time you chat with the model, you are training it how to respond. When you correct it, either directly or indirectly, it adjusts the assigned value of the word pairings accordingly. That’s all happening behind the scenes. This is why two people can talk to an LLM, like ChatGPT, and get two different answers even if they copy and paste the same prompt. This is all the more reason why it’s important to share the prompt, and not just the output, when sharing AI content. The framing of the question clues the LLM to the direction the user wants the output to point. For example, there’s a massive difference in the output between these two prompts: “Does the church founded in Berea in Acts 17 still exist today? Answer from a conservative evangelical Protestant perspective. When discussing biblical history, emphasize the theological significance of the passage, especially the authority of Scripture. If applicable, contrast biblical teaching with the idea of institutional apostolic succession. End by explaining how modern Christians apply the passage.” “Answer this tweet from a historical perspective based on an unbiased review of the evidence. Discuss the historical continuity or discontinuity of the churches in biblical Berea. Evaluate claims that the Bereans are biblical support for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura from both a Protestant and Orthodox perspective.” The output will vary greatly. But, let’s say Kelly didn’t do this. Let’s say he just asked, “Is there any continuity between the church of Berea found in Acts 17 and the church in the same location today?” The model is then going to fall back on its previous interactions with Kelly and any biases or training from before to pull an answer to the question.

I don’t know the specifics of the other transcripts you’re referencing, but that’s not how bias works. It’s a predictive algorithm. Which means that it’s basing its response off of word pairing values, and it’s trained over time based on your previous responses. Put another way, *the very act of interacting with the model introduces bias.*

@ortho_michael Well with other transcripts it said negative things from other videos of me in the past so I know it’s not biased which was my point

@KellyPowersBPA Kelly, the point I was making is that ChatGPT and Grok are LLMs. That means the more you use them, the more they tailor their output to what you like. That inherently biases them. Unless you specify otherwise, they are going to answer you based on what they predict you will want.

Because you false accused me of the debate with CHATGTP and Grok being biased which it was not! You use done called Claude that I don’t have and nit going to but since I already have CHATGTP and Grok. What put was tge transcript and asked simply who won the Sola Scriptura debate and both said based upon the facts that I was better. Now that does not mean Alex made points because he did, I don’t deny that. But he failed biblically to refute what I shared and many times even admitted to things I challenged him on. Now maybe you are not one of the crazy ortho thugs but I saw your accusations about me and what I shared, and what I shared was not biased. All Orthodox people jump on the Orthodox Church bandwagon and Protestants normally do the same. It’s rare to find unbiased opinions and that’s why I shared what I shared. Everyone has their own opinions and you have e the right to yours.