DEBATE: Justification by Faith Alone? Seraphim Hamilton vs Charles Jennings 

Thank you.

This debate just made me more thankful for Orthodoxy. Glory to God.

Yeah I noticed he used "I Believe" and "My Model" a lot. Like, who are you and why should we care about your model and opinion? Who died and made him equal to the apostles? Furthermore, why is his model better than any other protestant model? Without the Holy Orthodox Church as the ground and pillar of truth along with centuries of patristic consensus the prots really struggle to get out of their relativism ditch.

Does it make you feel better to be so reductionistic?

@@ACReji Who said that?

@@TheLaymansSeminary I simply laughed at how accurate my prediction was. Was I wrong? How is that reductionistic?

@@sillysyriac8925 those are soteriological charts. Charts are a tool to organize and visually display complex concepts in a simplified way. I don’t mind you laughing. I don’t want to be dismissed so easily though

Thank you

Comparing Jesus to Lucifer sounds like a Mormon idea. As if Jesus isn't God almighty smh

​@@tynytianYes, I was taught as a mormon that Jesus and Satan are brothers.

@@GuitarTunings33 which would put both of them on the same level, even though they definitely aren't.

@@tynytian Agree. Left mormonism like 25 years ago. It's creepy.

No I am Trinitarian. Some conditionalists argue that salvation can be lost because Lucifer and Adam fell from their pristine state. I was arguing that even Kabane believes in eternal security once one reaches final justification.

who are you quoting?

​@@TheLaymansSeminaryit's a play on the saying of Abba Joseph, one of the Desert Fathers, which is "if you will, you can become all flame."

@@RaptorLlama thanks.

Yeah God didnt give me much bass. lol

Sorry i did that becasue i learned that from discord eastern orthodox people so I didn't know it was an issue for some. I will work on that.

@@TheLaymansSeminary great show of character right here Thank you for your engagement with seraphim, I will keep you in my prayers

@@bobthebuildest6828 Thanks!

How do you read Romans 8:17 then?

We are heirs of God because we are co-heirs with Christ, we, participating in him, became partakers of his inheritance. Its one and the same thing: "and if children, also heirs, heirs, indeed, of God, and heirs together of Christ -- if, indeed, we suffer together, that we may also be glorified together." Because were are also his brothers: "so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers." And: "For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren."

@@Jeronimo_de_Estridao Thank you. Here is one free grace view of the passage. 8:17. And if we are children, we are also heirs-heirs, on the one hand, of God, and on the other hand, co-heirs with Christ if we suffer together with Him so that we may also be glorified together with Him Precisely because of our status before God as His children, we have also the status of heirs. To begin with, we are heirs … of God. This fact indicates that we have an inheritance by virtue of our fundamental relationship to God the Father as children. What this heirship entails is indicated in v 18ff. where Paul discusses the future manifestation of God’s sons and refers to “the glorious liberty of the children [tōn teknōn] of God” (v 21, see discussion there). The children of God are therefore destined for a “glorious liberty,” which certainly includes freedom from sin, suffering, corruption, and death. The NT Scriptures testify to this ultimate freedom in many places (cf. especially, 1 Cor 15:42-58). But in the text before us, Paul has two forms of heirship in mind. This double heirship is clearly signaled by the men … de construction that we have rendered on the one hand … on the other hand. Not only are God’s children heirs of God, but they may also become co-heirs with Christ on the condition that they “co-suffer” with Him.15 According to OT inheritance law, the firstborn son in a family normally received twice as much as the other sons (Deut 21:17). It should not be assumed that Paul is working outside of this OT conception of heirship. In fact, a few verses further on he actually describes the Lord Jesus Christ as “the Firstborn among many brethren” (v 29).16 To be co-heirs with Christ is to be co-heirs with the Firstborn. A special kind of heirship is implicit here against the backdrop of OT familial inheritance. In the Christian family there are both children (heirs of God) and also a Firstborn Son. The former are all heirs of God, but the inheritance of the Firstborn can be shared as well (co-heirs with Christ).17 This second heirship-co-heirship with Christ-is predicated on “co-suffering” that leads to “co-glorification.” Paul’s Greek text emphasizes the “co-” element by a repeated use of words with the sun- prefix.18 Thus Paul speaks of our being co-heirs (sugklēronomoi) who “cosuffer” (sumpaschomen) and who then can expect to be “co-glorified” (sundoxasthōmen).19 The word if (eiper) indicates the conditional nature of this statement. It is false grammar to say that the “if” clause treats this as a definite fact. The construction means no more than the expression “on the assumption that” and leaves fully open the opposite possibility. It is this last aspect of our heirship that leads Paul directly into the theme of suffering which will occupy him until the end of the chapter (8:39). At this point Paul begins to elaborate on the statement made at the conclusion of the unit 3:21-5:11 affirming that even beyond our justified standing before God (5:1-2), we can “also exult in afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance; and endurance, character; and character, a sure hope (elpida)” (5:3-4). Here in this verse, then, co-heirship is the “sure hope” that suffering in fellowship with Christ can bring.20 The mention of the suffering/glory motif in v 17 turns Paul’s discussion toward the intrinsic relationship between these two things in the experience of God’s children/sons. It also leads him to the natural now/ then correlation which those two themes suggest. Suffering is a present experience, while glory is a future one. 15 Commentators who agree that co-heirship with Christ is conditioned on suffering with Christ and/or who punctuate the text the way Hodges does include James Denney, “St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” in Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (1897-1910; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, N.D.), 2:648; Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 229; William R. Newell, Romans: Verse by Verse (Chicago: Moody, 1938), 317-18; Eric Sauer, In the Arena of Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 163; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 204; Wilbur Smith, The Biblical Doctrine of Heaven (Chicago: Moody, 1968), 193; James D. G. Dunn, Romans, 2 vols., WBC (Dallas, TX: Word, 1988), 1:456; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 502; and possibly Henry Barclay Sweet, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament (N.P.: Macmillan, 1910; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1964), 219.-JHN 16 Verse 29 portrays Jesus Christ as the firstborn among many brethren. The firstborn’s inheritance is twice that of the other sons. This is a huge clue that co-heirship with Christ is something special-involving special inheritance rights not shared by all believers. All children of God enjoy the basic inheritance as heirs of God, but those sons who suffer with Christ enjoy a co-heirship with God’s firstborn Son (Jesus Christ). The relevant literature fails to link vv 17 and 29.-JHN 17 See G. H. Lang, Firstborn Sons: Their Rights & Risks (London: Roberts, 1936; reprint, Miami Springs, FL: Conley & Schoettle, 1984), 123; George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, 3 vols. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952), 1:570.-JHN 18 See notes 12 and 13.-RNW 19 Sun is a Greek preposition typically translated with. When it serves as a prefix, the n will often change in relation to the letter that starts the word. For example, sun + martureō becomes summartureō, not sunmartureō; sun + kleronomoi becomes sugklēronomoi; sun- + paschomen becomes sumpaschomen.-RNW 20 Hodges in essence lays out v 17 as a chiasm: A if children, B then heirs of God C on the one hand, C′ and on the other hand B′ co-heirs with Christ, A′ if we suffer with Christ. When set forth in this way, the two heirships leap off the page. Unfortunately, much of the literature seems oblivious to what Paul is saying here.-JHN Zane C. Hodges, Romans: Deliverance from Wrath, ed. Robert N. Wilkin (Corinth, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2013), 224-226.

Hey man! What's your name? I was chrismated in my junior year of high school so if you knew me at college I would have been relatively newly illumined.

@@Seraphim-Hamilton Ah, I'm Simon. Todd's son

Great to hear from you, man.

Thats pretty reductionistic. If you think thats all I am is a chart then you are welcome to formally debate me next. Thats when you will see everyone has a chart but not all charts are the best model.

All of the church had it wrong for millenia, but fear not, for I have a complicated chart that will sort it all out!!!!!! NOW we know what the Bible means!

@@sillysyriac8925 Well you can learn by experience by formally debating me next.

@@TheLaymansSeminary Have you contacted Jay Dyer? He's looking for more protestants to debate.

@@nestoriancalvin4071 Thanks. I will tell “ Standing For Truth” He sets up debates. I debate who he selects.

Thanks

Maybe so. But what would place me in Kabanes league?

Does my repetition cause me to lose the debate?

@TheLaymansSeminary yes. I would say that in a debate, how you communicate is sometimes more important than what you communicate. If you watch professional debaters they do not talk so fast the audience cannot understand them. They communicate clearly and effectively and do not get irritated or upset in the debate, they have self control. You lose if your audience doesn't understand or is offended by your communication. I'm not offended BTW, I just think that you could work on your communication skills. You seemed frazzled. It wasn't until seraphim reiterated your position that I understood what your position even was.

@@micahkirn6756 I agree and will work on those things. thanks.

@@TheLaymansSeminary of course. I'm sorry for being so forward.

@@micahkirn6756 i appreciate it.

Usually when Protestants say this, they point to obvious exceptions to say: see it isn't a necessary condition. In this they don't understand how Eastern Orthodox or Catholics or Oriental Orthodox view obedience.

See my debate with Travis Thomas.

​@TheLaymansSeminary I watched the debate. You do the same thing there that you do here. You start with an assumption of something you call positional salvation at belief, and then you map that idea onto your opponent. There is a lot of diversity of thought in Churches of Christ, but no one thinks that 1. Belief is a single moment in time or 2. Belief in Jesus as Lord alone qualifies a person to be saved. It is pretty difficult to take your arguments seriously when your reasoning for your statements is that "I believe in...." and you keep referring to these charts you made as if they are supposed to be in any way authoritative.

@@lucduchienwell you are welcome to debate me next. Initial justification is unique from water baptism in church of Christ. Is justification a process or an event? I could be wrong about church of Christ but Travis didn’t demonstrate that. So are you saying it’s not possible that Eastern Orthodox can be saved by faith and sanctified by sacraments? Would you rather be called work sanctifucationists or works salvationist?

@@TheLaymansSeminary I think we would make it very simple and say that justification is movement of the heart toward God, and God's willing acceptance of that movement. If we move toward God and God rejects us, there is no justification. If God calls us and we do not move toward Him, there is no justification. We move toward God appropriately by faith. So it is certainly by faith that we ask God to justify us. As without faith it is impossible to please God. Baptism saves because Baptism is not from man. It is not a tradition of man. It didn't come from the mind of man. It is divine/heavenly in origin. Most importantly, unlike Jewish cleansing rituals, Baptism is inseparable from the activity of the Holy Spirit. Is is literally being born of water and Spirit. Not two different births but one birth which is both Spirit and water. We can't just make up ways to wash away our sins. Stepping into the waters of Baptism is like stepping into a heavenly realm. I see absolutely no problem with how the Eastern Orthodox view salvation. So I cannot answer that question. We are saved by God's work. The Bible clearly says that God works IN us to accomplish His will. When I say I belive in Jesus, this should come with it an assumption that I believe he will judge us and reward us at the appropriate time. Until then, I am not going to concern myself with who is saved or not, not even myself. If Paul believed that he could be disqualified, who am I to think I couldn't be? The judge will judge, and that will be it. No arguments.

Did you watch the debate more than once?

Who has time for that lol? If you cant articulate yourself well enough in almost three hours that is on you.@@TheLaymansSeminary

@@ChipmunkGuyGamerGaming Its also on you to watch the several debate prepr videos i made that Kabane studied as well.

@@TheLaymansSeminary you are operating on different presuppositions than the Orthodox position. Even besides the substantive arguments, you are operating on false premises. It wouldn’t change anything really.

@@TheLaymansSeminary not to be mean, but my commitment to this discussion is not as great as yours. God bless you, I pray you find truth and peace!

Gotta get the word out. I really appreciate all of Seraphim's debates with Protestants. I also really like Seraphim's approach on leaning more heavily into Holy Scriptures when debating protestant theology. It's our historical playing grounds for debate too and us Orthodox have a much greater claim to it. To focus only on history and ecclesiology in a debate like this wouldn't be so effective cause a lot of prots arent even aware of history, and we just completely own debates there anyways. It also personally helps me as an ex-protestant in clarifying our own beliefs and helping me give a good account to other protestants which I am surrounded by

Debates are almost always for the audience not necessarily to convert the person being debated. We would hope and pray it would lead to their conversion but it takes great humility to admit where one has been wrong.

Is my position really based on reformed theology?

@@TheLaymansSeminary I meant theology stemming from the Protestant Reformation of any stripe, e.g. justificatio sola fide, etc. Reformation, even pre-reformation, (Wycliffe), rather than Reformed. Is there not a distinction? My apologies if these are synonymous.

@@TheLaymansSeminaryI commend your honesty on admitting that imputation is hard to locate biblically

Are you taking about kingdom in context? I am not sure what you mean

@@TheLaymansSeminary Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Sean Griffin is Kingdom in contacts.

@@truegravee what was the comparison then? What did I say exactly?

@@TheLaymansSeminary It's been eight hours since I watching this debate. If I remember right you said he was over legalistic like Kingdom in contacts. Which is pretty laughable.

@@truegravee I will check. But that does not make sense. I was talking about legalists like sean not saying Kabane was a legalist like sean. I’ll check though

Does that mean you wont stoop to formally debate me next?

​@@TheLaymansSeminarycook him bro

Seraphim’s original RU-vid name used to be Kabane. It doesn’t mean anything, it’s just a name he chose when he was younger.

Kurt Cobain was a guitarist and vocalist for the jazz fusion band Nirvana from Albuquerque, New Mexico that won the battle of the bands competition at the Tueplo High School sock hop in 1977. Cobain committed suicide by gargling nitroglycerin (an extremely unstable chemical used in some more southerly forms of pea soup and gumbo) to make his friend (Pinchot Gluubersmeith) laugh.

Kabane is a brilliant young apologist. Nobody will be asking who his is a year from now.

I didn't know that Seraphim was also called that. I assumed that was either the case or his opponent was in the wrong debate.

@@flyswatter6470 I agree

It’s not either/or, it’s both.

​@@MaximusWolfe Thats not what it says. Please read again: _5 "But _*_to him that worketh not,_*_ but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness._ _6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom _*_God imputeth righteousness without works,"_* It cannot be both. It’s either by grace or by works. *Romans 11:* _5 "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the _*_election of grace._* _6 _*_And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."_*

@@Romans-hu3uy Wow I never read Romans 4 before, thank you for bringing it to my attention, I will now accept sola fide [end sarcasm]

@@glennargento4849 Bro straight up rejecting what the Bible says. You do you bro, but being sarcastic is not an argument. You are just in denial.

@@Romans-hu3uy It’s both, as the scriptures which provide that portion of scripture with context (the part that Luther tried to obfuscate by removal) provide; as was the holding (consensus) of the Church for thousands of years before “reformed” heretics decided to reimagine soteriology.

i apologize for pronuncing better.