วีดีโอ

Yeah, it seems like he might have jumped ship before the great theosis revival in American Lutheranism (with people like Jordan Cooper). Certainly, within the last century a lot of these ideas were lost in our churches and our pulpits, but it wasn't that long ago when CFW Walther would preach from his pulpit that the reason for the Incarnation was to make men divine. It is certainly not common for us to hear that kind of talk today -- but it is both traditionally Christian and Lutheran.

​@@vngelicath1580 yeah Lutheran Theosis as presented by Jordan B Cooper is closer and way to generous with Scholasticism and Natural Theology

Ps 82 is about humans... therefore, John 10 reference is also about the humans becoming gods. Learn about the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of Theosis.

"the first serious readers of the Fathers were the Lutherans" 😂 then who was getting quoted at Chalcedon by the Bishops present? Who recorded St John Chrysostom's homilies in the 4th century? Who read and kept the writings of the Cappadocians?

Writings of the Holy Fathers were collecting the dust until unhappy drunken German monk showed up back in 16th century.? AHAHAHAHAHAH...

Martin Luther and the early Lutherans probably imagined they were loyal to the Church Fathers but they were very selective. Yes, the Lutherans were right that the Church Fathers rejected indulgences, purgatory and papal monarchy. Yes, they were right that the Church Fathers advocated communion in both kinds, a vernacular liturgy and the right of married men to be ordained. However, it was the stuff Luther invented that showed the new movement was not truly in keeping with the Patristic consensus.

I'm curious why this teaching is so unheard of within Lutheranism.

@@looqo7632 It isn't unheard of, but I would say that, because it doesn't form the basis of our right standing before God, it isn't emphasized as much as Justification proper. For similar reasons, I suppose, Justification is not given proper attention in Orthodoxy because of such a weighty emphasis on Theosis. However, one could read the Philaret Catechism and see hints of substitutionary atonement and Justification in not dissimilar terms as you would find it amongst the Lutheran Confession.

@@marcuswilliams7448 Thanks for that. Though I would state that Orthodoxy just has a different understanding of justification so it would seem we don't emphasize it much when really it's everywhere.

Can you provide quotations from some?

Orthodox understanding is that the writers of the Gospels and epistles are members of the Church of Christ and were so inspired by the Spirit BECAUSE if this. These sacred writings were written to inspire the Church already established, and we not the foundation of the Church.

In Orthodoxy we can't separate the Scriptures from the Church. We don't hold the Church hostage by claiming sola scriptura every time a 'reformer' invents a new teaching. The Holy Spirit created the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit created the Church at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit maintained the Scriptures through the Church through out the centuries and the Fathers (and mothers) are Spirit filled teachers so there is no contradiction. Ask yourself, Am I in that Church or a poor copy?

@@looqo7632Lutherans agree with this.

@@StefanoNikolaou-m2d Sorry, this is a lengthy response to your comment - I feel you were mischaracterizing the reformers and the idea of Sola Scriptura. Luther and the early reformers made the bold proclamation that the Church can err. Indeed, not unlike the whole history of God’s Chosen People in Scripture continuously falling away again and again, the Church, too, needs course corrections. In Luther’s time, this was evident by the sale of indulgences, excessive veneration of the Theotokos, growing claims of papal infallibility, and other issues … but primarily the indulgences - literally exchanging money to affect one’s eternal state. Their project was not to separate themselves and recreate a new church from scratch (as many EO and RCC polemicists claim), but it was to identify the accretions that had crept into the life of the Church and remove them - reforming the Church *from within the Church*. If bishops and councils can err, where could they turn when confronted with a suspicious or problematic dogma or practice that had arisen? Scripture. Scripture is theopneustros - “God-breathed” - intimately connected to God in a way nothing else can claim to be. God is infallible, His Word is therefore infallible. This makes Scripture ontologically unique and uniquely authoritative. I know that this is recognized even within Orthodoxy (I was Orthodox for over a decade) - you may say the life and tradition of the Church is composed of the prayers, the hymns, the lives of the Saints, the icons, the liturgies, the Councils and the Scriptures as an organic whole, but we know that the Scriptures hold a heavier authoritative weight than a writing of a 4th century Saint, for instance. There is a hierarchy, and Scripture is clearly at the top because it is a direct, infallible transmission from God Himself. And so what Luther did was hold Scripture as the highest (but certainly not ONLY) authority to deal with the accretions that had crept in over the centuries. The reformers sought to keep what was good and eliminate what was corrupt. Realize that they understood themselves to be in direct continuity with the early Church - this was a project of restoring the unblemished Gospel proclaimed at the beginning. They frequently looked to the Fathers to bolster their conclusions. They affirmed the Ecumenical Councils (well, the first 6, at least). They were deeply rooted in history. They maintained the Mass/western liturgy, the sacraments, the priesthood, in ways that more accurately reflected the practices and beliefs of the early Church and were consistent with Scripture. They were not creating something new. For me, personally, Nicaea II began to look suspect. The theological reasoning you get from St John of Damascus to legitimize icon veneration is certainly elegant and reasonable, but it isn’t in agreement with the earliest witness of the Church. Orthodox like to point to a catacomb or baptistery image here or there, but the fact remains that the near universal belief of the first few centuries of the Church was against the cultic use of images. It is resounding throughout the early Fathers. Same thing with prayer to the Saints - the argument that we are simply asking for intercessory prayer from those who are now even more alive in Christ is reasonable and attractive. But the practice isn’t supported by history. Nowhere in Scripture do we see prayer directed to anyone or anything other than God, and we have zero examples of prayer being used in a non-worship context. We likewise don’t see prayer to the Saints in Clement, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Cyprian of Carthage, the Didache, Athenagoras - the list goes on. It’s a practice that we get inklings of in the 3rd century but clearly developed and spread in the 4th. Like icon veneration, which really developed in the 6th and 7th centuries, these practices are simply *not* apostolic. Okay, so if the Eastern Orthodox Church is likewise susceptible to proclaiming errors (i.e, icon veneration goes back to the Apostles) where can we turn for that necessary course correction?

@@OMNIBUBB Hi there, I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I do agree that things such as purgatory, papal infallibly, indulgences and withholding the communion cup from the laity were errors. But, other changes by Luther were his own invention and he did this in the name of sola scriptura. Justification by faith alone is simply not biblical. Luther added the word 'alone' to his translation of Romans and his narrow interpretation of 'justification' is just not the way the early church understood it. The evidence for the intercession of the saints is universal. I trust John Chrysostom in this. Go to an Orthodox Church and see if we love Christ less. Icons are such a minor point. The lack of evidence is just that- a lack of evidence. If you don't like icons or the veneration of the saints then don't; however I find modern Lutherans aren't the early church with these 'additions' removed. There is so much liberalism. The state churches in Germany have united with the Reformed. Where Lutherans were once adamant in denying Calvinism it has now become an acceptable opinion. Apparently the Bible now teaches both a limited and a general atonement. Lutherans have also decided (using sola scriptura) that gay marriage and women bishops is now biblical.

It changes Christ. Gives something that only belongs to the Father to the Son. So it is literally preaching a different Christ to the Gospel.

I am in the same place. May we find the strength to do what is right.

If you actually think that the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't have splinters, you are gravely mistaken.

@Dave Sure, there are different churches scattered all over, but are they in communion with each other? That's the question. The other problem is that lutheranism is a descendent of Augustin, who is a descendent of Anselm, hence penal substitutionary atonement, and a blood thirsty God the "father", which makes many an atheist, with good reason, since he taught that it was the only way that proper and right justice could be done for the sins of the world. His intense emphasis on personal sinfulness is an affectation of his having been an Augustinian monk, and Augustin being intensely focused on his personal sinfulness. (Which then compels one towards personal holiness as a penance for all the Jesus killing they do through being sinful, guilty as they are already by merely being human. Except for babies, who may or may not be condemned, haven't quite got that sorted yet.) The reason faith alone doesn't work is because the natural conclusion to that is that I don't have to do anything but believe, and I'm all good. Because lutheranism is itself a descendent of Roman catholicism, it can not shake off the incorrect theology of the Roman catholic church. Next, Luther, in order to rebuke many things he didn't like, rejected many biblical texts. Kind of makes Sola scriptura a problem when he can just go around taking a theological axe to everything he doesn't like, so he ends up having to dump maccabees, which necessarily means he also has to dump Jesus because without the temple functional, Jesus cannot be born under the law, fulfilling all parts because then the temple wouldn't have been functioning properly, which it obviously was since Paul and Peter go there all the time. That's just one example. Another is his insistence that the mazoritic text be used. The MT is *specifically* a text edited and commentated and even rearranged and reorganized to avoid anything that might point to Jesus as the messiah. His choice to destroy the OT has caused the nearly 90,000+ variations of protestantism that corroded not only Christianity as a concept, a lifestyle, a moral baseline, but also the society it built. By the end of his life, Luther was a straight up heretic, condoning polygamy and all manner of insanities, and being forced to change the Bible, not only by slashing books he didn't care for, he *added to the text* in order to make his assertions work. Most Lutherans I know say he went mad. I disagree. Imo, he went to the logical conclusion of his assertions and came out the other side, making no sense.

I think the church being just the eastern orthodox church is not that easy, just like you would argue of the Roman Church of pope. From the beginning the apostles went different ways. Thomas went to India and started a church that worked with Christ as their head, as did the churches that Paul established. No apostle was greater than other and no apostle had power over other churches and their teachings, not even their "own" churches because there is only one head of church that is Christ. Paul writes in Corinthians 12 that one body many parts that I recommend you to read. We can't say where the* kingdom of God is because it is in the faith. Also if you think there is only one visible church of Christ there will be not true believers inside the church so you will never even know if your own local church even has true believers. Always focus in your own faith not in the worldly things, and not even in your own faith but to Christ who was risen and you will rise as He when you believe in Him if He so wishes. (20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.) People (mostly Roman catholics or russian orthodox) confuse their heads when they teach that the perfection and full body of Christ is visible only in their church when we can clearly see that God has given his holy spirit, gifts of the Spirit; faith, tongues, profesies to other "churches" also. In my opinion that just shows how Great and beyond human thought and imagination the body of Christ goes. If someone claims that their visible church is the only body of Christ I think it denies that anyone not in that body could be a part of the Christ. It reminds me of Peter how he realised how God gave holy spirit also to uncircumcised. 1 Corinthians 3 is also a good defender of this position I explained. "The gates of hell will not prevails against it". They never will like our Lord said.

I feel the exact same way! I am an ex Muslim and been a Lutheran for about 1.5 years now. During this time, I had Orthodoxy in the back of my mind the whole time. Pray for me

Orthodoxy: Salvation is a realtionship and works like other relationships, requiring consent and effort. Lutheranism: Salvation is a legal contract that you only have to verbally sign.

@@jacfalcon In Lutheranism, it's more like the legal contract of a betrothal/marriage; all that is mine becomes Christ's (my failure, my death) and all that is Christ's becomes mine (His righteousness swallows up my sin, His eternal Life becomes my life). The full glorious consummation is yet to come, yet we have a foretaste of it, according to God's Word.

@@j.g.4942 That sounds a lot better to me! Mainly just pushing back against the original comment, but what you said is a lot better. Historically, marriage wasn't actually viewed as a legal contract before God, but that was more a later Catholic development. Marriage was the relationship, the bond itself, but the Church knew such a bond when done well was never broken. Pagans were seen to have marriage, but what was in the Church was not a contract but a sacrament, meaning marriage in the Church united one with God through the sacrificial bond of the marriage. And this sacrificial bond is why God shares everything with us, not so much a contract as the natural order of relationships.

I’ll take the Lutheran approach, which, coincidentally, happens to be the New Testament approach.

Christ is Risen! Care to debate that?

@@orthodoxchristianmen Agreed Christ is risen. I only managed the first 3 min of your video and that is where my comments come from. What you said the early church fathers said do not even agree with scripture so who do we beleive then? The church fathers or Scripture? Is the church above scritpure or scripture above the church? Should they not be in agreement with one another? Shouldn't scripture tell us what we should believe about the Gospel? Isn't that where the Church gets its authority?

This may help understand theosis th-cam.com/video/FbnWQY-We9k/w-d-xo.html

@@DEADn1 Great questions! Watch the whole video as I answer some of them; but I should really do a follow up show and go into greater detail.

Not Mormonism. We become "gods" be grace, i.e., the enrergy of God, not the essence of God - that would indeed by blasphemy. "God became man so that man may become god (by grace)" was written by St. Athanasius, and all of the Church Fathers - yes ALL - taught this from the beginning. It is not New Age, it is the Ancient Orthodox Faith. That's why I became Orthodox, it is the One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Body of Christ; it IS Christ-ianity.

Thank you dear sister! AVE CHRISTUS REX!

Alethos Anesti! Thank you brother, love to hear more of your journey to Orthodoxy. Join us sometime on Catacombs Thursday night at 9pm EST. Message me for details. AVE CHRISTUS REX

Christ is Risen! Care to debate that?

Thank you! It's been a hard work in progress and only getting better. Join the brotherhood!

Thank you! You are not alone, we always have our brothers' backs. Join us!