Does Eastern Orthodoxy Have the "Fullness of the Faith?"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.ค. 2024
- In this video I respond to Jonathan Pageau's claims that Eastern Orthodoxy has the fullness of the faith. I show that this is not the historic Orthodox view, nor the historic Roman Catholic view, and then suggest reasons why the Protestant approach to discerning the one true church is superior.
See the original video here: • Johnathan Pageau PRESS...
Truth Unites (www.truthunites.org) exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Church.
SUPPORT:
Tax Deductible Support: truthunites.org/donate/
Patreon: / truthunites
FOLLOW:
Website: www.truthunites.org
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
MY ACADEMIC WORK:
truthunites.org/mypublications/
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/truth-unites
DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM
Striving Side By Side: / discord
CREATIVE DIRECTION: Clau Gutiérrez (www clau.uk)
CHECK OUT SOME BOOKS:
www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-Wo...
www.amazon.com/Theological-Re...
www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
www.amazon.com/Retrieving-Aug...
00:00 - Introduction
01:32 - The "One True Church" as a Hierarchy
03:31 - The "One True Church" as Noah's Ark
04:54 - Views in the Early Church
06:40 - Orthodox Views From 9th-19th Centuries
07:50 - The Filioque as Damnable Heresy
09:01 - Paisius Velichkovsky
11:26 - The 1672 Synod of Jerusalem
12:42 - The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
13:57 - The 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs
15:05 - Other Examples of Orthodox Exclusivism
16:35 - Medieval Roman Catholic Views
19:14 - Modern Roman Catholic Developments
20:59 - The Protestant Alternative
24:53 - Assurance of Salvation
26:57 - Final Matters - บันเทิง
![[FULL EP.14] เซียนหรั่ง สอน มาร์ชจุ จับปูนา ฮากระจาย | เฮ็ดอย่างเซียนหรั่ง | One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M8mPjd_T2lo/mqdefault.jpg)
Petition for Gavin to interview Jonathan Pageau! Please make this happen :)
That would be great
Yes!! I want this so bad. Talk icons!
Yes. As a Protestant who's interested listener of both (and a customer of Pageau's artwork) I'd love to hear them together.
Yes please please! Jonathan Pageau and his insights are so enriching, inspiring
Both of them are extremely formative for my development
Fascinating. Thank you for talking about this. I've been wondering about Eastern Orthodoxy myself.
Love your work Sister. Been studying this stuff for about a year or so
Glad you enjoyed, thanks for your work!
@@TruthUnitessame! I enjoy your videos and I learn a lot from them.
@@TruthUnites Hey, Gavin. Hope you are well. I was wondering if you engage with all the comments, or just ones made by more known individuals? Was hoping you would respond to the argument I posted.
If you're wondering about Orthodoxy, then perhaps speak to some Orhtodox people?
If you truly wish to understand something, why would you get your understanding on that subject from someone who rejects it?
I converted to Orthodoxy in 2016 after losing our son to suicide and the protestant church we attended just ignored us and did not come to support us...I found grace, a merciful God and the fullness and truth of the Christian life and salvation...
I'm sad that the protestant church you attended was so callous towards you in your suffering. They failed you. I hope you find lasting peace in orthodoxy, and I'm glad you're still interested in the dialog between protestantism and orthodoxy, as is shown by you watching this video.
@@KevinSmile thank you for your post. I was raised a conservative Lutheran with a wonderful grounding in scripture and the gospel. I have many families that are Catholic and I too find a richness in that expression of Christianity. But I have noticed and found a disturbing trend in a lot of protestant and non-denominational churches toward watering down the gospel to get more people in the front door instead of challenging them with the gospel the truth of the Gospel. I believe that scripture tells us that there will be a time of apostasy and it even mentions that will there be anybody of faith when Christ returns. That saddens and worries me.
I am born and raised Greek Orthodox, I then had my doubts on Orthodoxy so I looked into Protestantism. What I can say is this, I love my brothers and sisters from the Protestant faith but the church/churches-because they keep splintering off is/are a bit watered-down. So I came to the conclusion that the Orthodox faith is closer to the time of Christ. Any frustrations that Luther had with the Catholic church then I think he should have looked to the Orthodox faith. So, I completely agree with Jonathan Pageau here.
I’m very sorry for your loss and that situation, but did you watch the video?
@@georgiakiriaki in Christian history Luther actually did contact the Orthodox Church looking to move that direction but I think the divides of Western Europe in Eastern Europe and the language just. Made it unlikely to come together. But he did contact them.
I'm Orthodox and watched that video by Ruslan, and the number of times Protestants in the comments called me or the Orthodox Church heretics and pagan was pretty consistent. I actually encounter this regularly from Calvinists but it's hard to say which denomination I enteracted with in Ruslan's particular video.
I will say this, the gospel itself is exclusive. Jesus claimed to be THE only way to the Father. Jesus established a church, His one body, I don't see why Protestants would have an issue with exclusivity. The church has a right to bind and loose and anathmatize those who teach heresy. And this was an issue right out of the gate of the Reformation with those on differing sides condeming and almost going to war over those differences.
I know of many God fearing and wonderful Protestants who have done great things out of their love and devotion to Christ. We must seek understanding and be able to dialog regardless if we disagree and do so in love.
Christ is exclusive...but I do not see Christ exclusive in regards to the church AT ALL.
“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Mark 9:38-39
1. If submission to the apostles was essential, why didn't Jesus tell them that it was no big deal and to just let them go their own way without submitting to the authority of the apostles? And if not true for the apostles how much less for those claiming to be their "successors"?
2. How in the WORLD could they drive out demons unless they truly had Christ's authority? Read the book of Acts and see what happens to those trying to cast out demons without true faith!
@@hexahexametermeter "For us" is not the same as "with us" or "one of us", as clearly indicated by the verse. There were pagan Romans and Greeks who didn't hate or persecute the Christians and in fact accepted Christ among their pantheon of existing deities. There are also hindus who do this today. Does that mean they are followers of Christ? No, obviously.
@@hexahexametermeter The interpretation assumes a Protestant paradigm in that the church is just anyone who believes in Jesus. Well, Protestants will then start narrowing the list down to remove Mormons or JW's, otherwise you'd have to say just let them be because they "believe" in Jesus too. The interpretation also fails to account for the establishment of the church at Pentecost. Prior to this time, that structure was not in place (although it was being built), however, the principles of which come from the old testament and are enacted in how the church is governed. Once the church was established at Pentecost, submission to the Apostles was absolutely necessary and you can read that in Acts 15; their ruling was binding on the church. What Mark 9 is forbidding is sectarianism, something very prevalent in Protestantism.
Yeah cool, the ruling in acts 15 was binding because it was the whole church (and was not overseen by Peter, mind you--Peter was the one in the wrong and represented the heresy.) And at the same time you dont have the "oh, youre not a true church" nonsense like you do today and still exists between east and west churches. I love that we protestants can totally bypass your red tape. God isnt confined to your selfish possessiveness of the Gospel. You also see that in acts. The Ethiopian Eunich comes to mind. Meanwhile you Romans and Orthodox can figure out which one of you is the "true church". Control freaks.
@@Hoi4o Absolute nonsense. You think actively casting out demons is on par with being passively "not being against Christians"? Jesus is TOTALLY legitemizing the practice because the work of God is beyond even the control of the disciples themselves. You seem to miss the very fact that they were casting out demons by the power of Christ, because you are so myopically focused on control. Noone can cast out demons except by Christ alone. You are making the same case as the Pharisees did against Jesus--that they must be casting out demons by the power of demons.
Great video: once claim that's difficult for Protestants is whether Protestant ecclesiology existed before the Reformation. Could you make a video on that?
Coward
That would be an interesting video. I think the standard answer is that it is what was modeled in the Bible and can be seen in some 1st century documents, but after that the ecclesiology was much closer (but not identical) to those in the ancient churches.
The Other Paul did a couple streams on this topic a couple years ago. I think he did a good job distinguishing between the Roman/EO understanding of the Episcopacy and a more Anglican one and showing how the R/EO view doesn't fit with the evidence. I would argue that the scriptures, our ultimate foundation, are more concerned with the goings on of local congregations and is silent on the matter of larger organizational structures within the Church. Ultimately I think scripture leaves such things up to circumstance, giving Christians the freedom to organize in whatever way would fit their needs best.
TOP's streams:
th-cam.com/video/xr_2SydH3gM/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ZIZlV7QhjCg/w-d-xo.html
I think by that you mean the attitude that there is salvation outside specific church institutions? I don't know whether or not it did properly exist prior to Protestantism because virtually every split prior to it had featured as the standard norm, anathemas written by both parties against each other. So in a sense, this might be new, but I think like the other commenter mentioned, it is far more in line with what we see in the early church and the Bible than the "paranoid pretention" that existed leading up to the Reformation with RC and EO, and all the rest anathematizing each other without qualm.
Yeah, it would have been called arch heresy
Please make more videos about this topic. Eastern Orthodoxy has very little engagement from Protestants.
How can it? No papacy means no grievance against them...
I would like this too as my son converted over years ago and is a monk at an EO monestary.
@@Anita-silver Yes. If I am honest I too am considering conversion to EO. It's so hard, all the arguments feel very weighted towards the Orthodox side since the Orthodox are the ones actually engaging.
This is one of the few good arguments I've heard.
For me personally, the best decision was to visit an orthodox monaster for a view times. It got me out of the vicious circle of endless rational analysis. I always recommend this to inquierers. No pressure though, just a recommendation!
cuz it's just ridiculous, even Catholics will all their issues doesn't get into the nonsense of EO
I’m not going to lie, lately I’ve been diving more into church history and the different traditions and their beliefs and overall, I get more and more demoralized. You have traditions like Roman Catholics and orthodoxy that both claim to be the “one true church” and that there is no salvation outside the church, etc. And when I zoom out and look at the big picture, I can’t help to feel an overwhelming feeling of grief and anguish.
It’s like no matter which way you turn in the Christian faith there are different groups that all believe the same core essentials; that they are a sinner who has placed their faith fully in Jesus Christ and his resurrection, Jesus is divine, etc. but yet they are so quick to-almost pridefully-condemn fellow believers to Hell because they don’t believe in the exact same doctrine and tradition you believe.
And yes, there were different heresies that arose a long the way that no doubt should be condemned as heresy, but the average lay man Christian doesn’t spend hours a day studying church history and different theological matters. These schisms and different interpretations aren’t apparent to them. And while I may disagree with say, a Coptic Christian or a Nestorian, I’m not going to sit here and say their faith and belief in Christ and what did for them isn’t genuine or sincere. Sure they have theological issues (according to my perspective), but at the end of the day, they are putting their faith in Christ and believing his resurrection.
It’s like… “congrats, you found your way to Christianity and Jesus. Now go join a church and be with a body of believers and get baptized. Oh… and one more thing… you better make sure you choose the RIGHT church. You have like fifty different options in front of you and half of them all believe only their church is saved and everybody else is damned to hellfire for eternity, and the other half a mix mosh of different traditions that ultimately pick and choose what that like about the other church’s and put them together it a “soup” that has no real historical foundation (this is basically most 21st century non reformed protestant churches). Choose wisely, only eternity is on the line.”
So true
Don't be demoralized. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church on ecumenical efforts and how damnation can only happen in case of mortal sin which means full knowledge, willful and on a grave matter.
Also don't be deceived, Protestants had no problem calling the Pope Antichrist and the Catholics pagans damned to hell. Gavin Ortlund is over stating his case. In my experience as a Catholic convert from protestantism I've seen vitriol primarily from Protestants who still today call us pagans. Gavin is not honest here. However I encourage you to look into the Catholic Church more so than any other Church because all the creeds use the word Catholic, it's not surprising then that the true Church has maintained emphasis on its title.
I grew up Lutheran and they had the True Church claims. Everyone else was in theological error. It's the elitist mindset
This 100%!
Seriously, somebody frame this comment.
"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever." Blessed St. Theophan the Recluse (1815-1894)
Yeah this guy doesn't care to know the actual Orthodox position. He's been banging on this strawman position for a while now.
Yet Jesus addresses 7 churches in revelation.
@@PreciousBloodOfJesus7777 7 churches that were all in communion and Orthodox!
and the Roman Catholics make the same claim (Council of Trent). No wonder many of us are stressed.
@@PreciousBloodOfJesus7777 Uhhhh yeah. They're local congregations, all in communion with one another, and under one authority. It never ceases to amaze me the things people will say, LOL!
Christian youtube needs more Gavin Ortlund's.
Indeed. I was hoping Dr. Ortlund would give his take on that Ruslan interview, and now he has.
@@Mrdllish777 So many EO/Cath pop apologetic lies flooded that comment section. I have been in World War 2 telling them things like that source you quoted is a well known FORGERY
I think Theocast's channel is educational!
Christian TH-cam needs more Gavin Ashendens.
I disagree. I believe this video presents a misrepresentation by taking texts and phrases out of context, particularly from Orthodox sources and Pageau. He implied extensive research on elder fathers and saints, but lacked in depth understanding. He seemed to just pick out what was fitting for this video. It's disappointing to see the text referenced in The Holy Standards book manipulated out of context. For example from the text he quoted,; "That the dignity of the Bisdhop is so neccessary in the Church, that without him, neither Church nor Christian could either be or be spoken of. For he, as a successor of the Apostles, having received in continued succcession by the imposition of hands and the invocation of the All-Holy Spirit the grace that is given him of the Lord of binding and loosing, is a living image of God upon the earth, and by a most ample participation of the operation of the Holy Spirit, who is the chief functuary, is a fountain of all the Mysteries[Sacraments] of the catholic Church, through which we obtain salvation. And he is, we affirm, as necessary to the Church as breath is to man, or the sun to the world. Whence it has also been eleganty said by some in the commendation of the dignity of the High Priesthood, "What God is in the heavenly Church of the first-born (cf. Hebrews 12:23), and the sun in the world, that every High Priest is in his own particular Church, as though him the flock is enlightened, and nourished, and becomes the temple of God" (cf. Ephesians 2:21)."
I felt a draw to orthodoxy during my journey of theological study. The liturgy, the imagery, it all spoke to me so much more than Protestant churches that I grew up in (although it could have just been because the mysticism spoke to my knowledge seeking nature). As I studied orthodoxy, their exclusivity was the same red flag I encountered. I just could not believe that the power of the Holy Spirit was restricted to a single institution. I consider orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist etc. to be my brethren in Christ as long as they profess and live the faith. God knows who is in his sheepfold and I trust him. Thanks for this video Gavin!
I think you missed the point of the video. First, he stated he was simply using Orthodoxy as a convenient example of something that's common throughout Christianity. Second, the point of the video is that Orthodoxy was exclusive in past centuries but has changed. Using exclusivity as a reason for not joining the Orthodox church today is nonsensical given that the Orthodox church is not exclusive.
All non Christians feel the exact same way about Christianity. Christ taught that few people find the narrow path and even fewer will be chosen to follow it
@Jy3pr6 exactly, and these protestants keep getting so offended with their "we accept that you have Christ too, why can't you accept we have him?" Sillyness, but then have no problem accepting that 6 billion of the 8 billion people on planet will all suffer in Hell.
No one within the Church is on the business of telling Christ where has to be. If he wants to save billion plus Hindus before me then so be it. I can't fathom that per se, but I'll accept whatever he tells me his will is.
@@patrickbarnes9874 What do you mean Orthodoxy was exclusive but not anymore?
@@Jy3pr6 because in the post-19th century when Orthodox was beginning to encounter far more western thought and far more western Christians contemplating and entering the Eastern Churches the previous unanimous teachings of exclusively and especially the stronger versions of such argument have softened. Although Roman Catholic has more officially updated its dogmatic stances on the condition of souls found outside of its own institution walls, the East has in official and unofficial capacities acknowledged degrees of brotherhood with Protestants and Roman Catholics.
The perhaps unsurprising tendency of Protestants who have converted as well as Roman Catholic surrounded by Protestant, Eastern Orthodox converts from Protestantism rarely shed the notion that they has simply left a denomination for a better one and not that they for the very first time have become Christian.
Gavin, I always appreciate your thoughts, sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing and sometimes wishing I could ask you questions to flesh out your arguments more. As a Protestant reared in the Holiness tradition through the Church of the Nazarene, I have seen the exclusive claims of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, however, at least at the lay level, we Protestants and Evangelicals often are pretty exclusive. When I was growing up(I am 69) Catholics were considered heretical and at least the Catholic laity looked on Protestants the same way. It saddens me now that the Body of Christ was so fractured and remains mostly the same today. My prayer is for Unity. And I agree with whoever suggested that you should talk to Jonathan, he is a deep thinker.
As a former Nazarene, I agree 100%.
I am a Georgian Orthodox Church member, I am also Georgian. As a Christian I do not have right to determine who will be saved and who will not, so be more careful until judge someone, only God knows.
It would be much easier if you act : Matthew 7 :: NIV. "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
Well, your church history doesn't support that position
@@SahihChristian How so?
This video was very helpful Gavin. I have been dealing with ecclesial anxiety recently and videos like this help me get back on track to just focusing on Christ and His promises.
I experience that too, ecclesial anxiety (good term for it). I think sometimes I read or listen to too much on the Internet and it gets to be too much. Need to simplify and trust God.
Yes! Online discussion almost always focuses on one person's opinion on salvation outside the church (i.e. Pageau, Bishop Baron for Catholicism, others in both camps) instead of looking at OFFICIAL church teaching on things. When considering divergent traditions, we have to look at official teaching rather than individual opinions.
For Catholicism, the fullness of the church view is official church teaching. It’s in Lumen Gentium (one of the main documents from the second Vatican Council). It’s not a contradiction from the Noah’s Ark view (since all non-Catholics experience an imperfect communion with the church), and it’s not a modern innovation, since it’s based on the ideas of material & formal heresy and schism and the objective effectiveness of the sacrament of baptism at uniting non-Catholics to the Church, which are both ancient ideas.
Essentially the Catholic view is that, because of their baptism, Protestants experience an imperfect communion with the Catholic Church. They could be saved based on that communion because though they may formally believe heretical things (like denying a post-Mortem state of sanctification, like purgatory), they have may not given matter to that heresy because of coming from an environment where they would not have good reason to believe otherwise.
Sure, people haven’t always talked this way, but it is the logical conclusion of ancient theological principles, making it a development in the truest sense.
Hope this helps!
@@michaeljefferies2444I know Vatican II’s teaching on salvation of those outside communion with Rome. I think it is out of step with historic Roman Catholic teaching, which explicitly denies salvation to anyone out of communion with Rome.
@@colinbrown9476 My point is that you said Barron's view wasn't representative of "official" church teaching. My point is that it is official church teaching, it's from a dogmatic constitution in an ecumenical council. And Protestants do have communion with Rome in the Roman Catholic view. That was the point of my previous comment.
I think the charitable thing to do is to say that it is not a contradiction to re-articulate how we think about certain things based on new information, as long as the core ideas remain (like the necessity of salvation through Christ and his Church alone). I don't know about your views personally, but most Protestants I meet today would not say that people from uncontacted tribes who have never heard the name of Jesus are automatically damned, however, most Protestants in history have had the view that explicit faith in Jesus is necessary. Biblically, this is also understandable. Does this make most Protestants inauthentic?
The official teaching is that there is no salvation outside the Church. He's looking at this from a very legalistic and systematic mindset. That's not how the Church works. He also doesn't understand what "no salvation outside the Church" actually entails. It's more nuanced than "everyone who isn't a card carrying member of the Church on earth goes to Hell."
@@CosmicMystery7 I understand the Roman church's position today allows for the possibility of salvation outside the church. The problem from my vantage point is that it seems to be a very new view on salvation outside the church (and people of other faiths in general). For instance, Unam Sanctam: "...we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
I don't think it is uncharitable to take that statement at face value to mean you have to be Roman Catholic (subject to the Roman pontiff) to be saved. I am not subject to the Roman pontiff. Therefore, according to church teaching, I am missing something necessary for salvation. Which would mean I am damned according to historic Catholic teaching.
To say that conclusion is uncharitable does not make much sense to me. It was Rome that declared Protestants heretics and schismatics, Rome that pronounced anathemas, Rome that persecuted Protestants for centuries. Then when Protestants take Rome's anathemas and decrees against them seriously (anathema also means "damned" by the way), it's uncharitable?
Bless you, brother! Your videos have been a huge help for me personally as I wrestled through ecclesial anxiety.
Ecclesial Anxiety - I'm stealing that. Right there!
Thank you for this Gavin, I've been listening to a lot of orthodox stuff recently because I appreciate the sense of holiness they bring to the faith, which I feel Protestantism lacks, but the downside is my own reassurance has been wobbling (a lot!). I feel Orthodoxy has something to offer to those of us who seek a sense of the sacred we find lacking in our own churches (when/why did we drop the word 'holy' from Communion? Why are we so casual about it?); Why are we almost offhand, in the way we offer up prayer & worship? I long for a sense of the sacred/holy in our approach to God & the restoration of some prayer practices. I'd love to hear you speak on that?
Had a deep dive into EO from a Baptist upbringing. All of the anathemas (icons, bread, filioque, etc) were just ignored at the greek EO church. Gavin and Brian Wolfmueller both were lights in the darkness. Now glad to be Lutheran (LCMS specifically). Hope you can find a path that gives you rest.
It sounds like the church(es) you've been going to just don't take it seriously. Holy Communion is partaken of in many churches I've visited, all of which are Protestant and sound in their theology. I highly recommend looking into finding more authentic church communities to visit if this is a concern. Also there's an online community Gavin helped start that you can join, which has a ton of awesome people who like helping out fellow brothers who have questions or are struggling in the faith.
You could seek a “high church” protestant church that takes the sacraments more seriously. I totally agree with you. God bless you
A lot of the issues you are describing are symptomatic of low-church American Evangelicalism, not Protestantism as a whole. Check out confessional Lutheranism and Anglicanism.
I am where you are too.
This is great. I was just watching these ruslan vids with pageau and was wanting a good response to it. Thanks!
This isn't a response to it in the way you're implying. It's just saying that people in the past had a different view of the Orthodox church's position on what constitutes the body of Christ than people today do. It was not a response about whether any particular view is correct or incorrect. If you're looking for a counterpoint to Pageau's view that the Orthodox church is closer to pure true faith than other traditions are, this video doesn't do that.
And there still isn't a good response.
I gotta be honest that I dislike exclusivity Orthodox and Catholic say about themselves. No salvation outside their church, making fun of Protestant church building, making fun of Protestant gospel songs, those things really make me sad. I remember an orthodox open a Q&A session on Instagram and someone asked "do protestant go to Heaven?" and he answered "I love my protestant followers but sorry to be honest that they can't enter heaven" . I was really sad reading his answer
I am sorry that you have experienced mockery by Orthodox people, definitely not okay. But understand their perspective, heresy leads away from God, not to it. Do you believe a Muslim will be saved if they do not accept Jesus as their savior? That would probably make them unhappy as well but there is always boundaries.
@@sn00dles83 none definitely can enter heaven is they do not accept Christ as their Lord & Savior. I'll say the same. But to say muslim and protestan at the same position is just wrong. Protestant have faith in Jesus as Lord, second person of God and savior.
The same I read by a lot of protestants. So what? Should I think all protestants think the same?
EO members cannot in good faith claim a Hierarchical model of salvation while being faithful to the teachings of the Church. The EO church does not allow for development of doctrine like the Catholic Church has. This was why our family left the Orthodox Church. We do not believe this claim (when we were received in, we were exposed to a more liberal/generous model that would say “we know where the church is, we don’t know where it isn’t”). Our consciences could not allow us to stay in the church when we were in such disagreement with it.
Why do you assume that innovations are a good thing?
So you left the church because of a good thing?
Thank you. Just found your channel and it's great. You certainly have a gift for this. Keep it up 🙏
thanks, glad to be connected!
Its basic gaslighting. You need "us" they say. You're not complete until you are under "our" observation and we give you "our" approval.
Brilliant video, Gavin! You’ve put into words a lot of important points that people often do not consider, or even know about while discussing these important matters, especially the historic context and inconsistencies that may arise in contrast to the original view of the early church. Looking forward to more such insights in the future.
As a former EO convert, I can say for myself one of the biggest appeals to the Orthodox Church is this idea that you have a unified body that can interpret the scriptures for you. However, when you get into the church you realize it’s not as unified as they would claim. The unity comes through the life of the church and participation of sacraments. That said you can have someone like David Bentley Hart who is practically speaking, if not outright, a universalist on one side and someone like Fr. Josiah Trenham on the other side who would argue that only those within the Orthodox Church can be saved. There are also disagreements about which canons are binding and interpretations of church fathers (which should be included and areas where they erred). And if you really want to start a dumpster fire on any Orthodox chat board, just bring up toll houses. The unity is institutional and sacramental, but the idea that the church has this unified understanding of the interpretation of the faith is simply false.
Their more unified in their doctrine than Protestants.
@@russellservice7997 yes, a little more, but not as unified as the Catholic church since they don't have a Magisterium.
Just some of the many reasons I also left Orthodoxy for confessional Lutheranism.
th-cam.com/video/IysmQUWtyFU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=bakDmMnXRc7dgcvB
This is what the channel Theoria has to say about church unity. She makes the case that unity is about practice and life transformation rather than a post enlightenment articulation of views.
That's kind of where I'm heading@@theodosios2615
I have been BLESSED by this video today. Every since converting to Christianity in my heart (I’m a cradle Russian Orthodox) but I was never taught the gospel , only brought to church on holidays. I converted to Christ at 23 years old and have NOT looked back since! I first started attending a baptist church but then people from my Orthodox Church started telling me that they are the one true institution of Christ and that everyone else is heretical. This gave me so much confusion and fear and I have been studying theology and ecclesiology ever since. The most peace I get though is through your channel when you speak on these topics. I believe that an institution is to be judged on the fruits of the spirit just like Jesus teaches us! And in many orthodox churches I did not see true fruits (but there are many that have them). I just want to say that your outlook on the spirit not being limited to one institution is so true! I pray that people can have calmness in their hearts by following the true teachings of Jesus and not falling into pseudo-Phariseecal traps of fear of damnation if they are not of a certain institution.
You are more of an insider to Orthodoxy and I'm on the outside It appears to me from my dealings w/ them, that so many are far more in love w/ and prideful of their ancient traditions, and endless claims of exclusivity, than they seem to be w/ Christ. When I encounter protestant Christians and many Catholics, they are just really in love w/ God, and it shows in their language and actions. The Orthodox are said to be the highest earners of Christians, yet have the lowest rates of giving to charity. The giving to charity part was actually polled, but I never hear of Orthodox food banks, or all the wonderful community helps the Salvation Army does. Protestants and Catholics really shine in al those charitable respects. I don't hear of the Orthodox evangelizing or sending missionaries either. Really shows the fruit.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 yeah I don’t notice orthodox giving out to communities other than monasteries that may provide locally in some way but are still reliant on locals donations. The evangelizing part is what gets me. It feels like orthodoxy still remains such a “mysterious” church out in the west because they do not evangelize Christ? But seriously this is a case by case basis. But I understand what you mean. I do on the other hand really respect a lot of their theology , especially the doctrine on theosis. But to me I feel like orthodox gatekeeper their churches
Similar for me, a cradle Roman Catholic, and the Holy Spirit led me into protestant congregations when I was in my mid-20s. It was hard to leave the RCC because of that "No Salvation Outside..." teaching that they taught me in catechism at a young age. Capturing and retaining the members through fear tactics strikes me as a sign of a false cult. Fear not, our Redeemer lives! No church died for us; only Jesus Christ suffered and died as He made complete propitiation for every one of ours sins! 😊
@@jennacuna3674 I've heard of some Orthodox churches so exclusive, they don't even both to put a sign. Those tend to be the ethnic Orthodox where all the immigrants know where their local Orthodox church is. They don't care about newcomers, or winning souls. Whereas protestant churches have outreach. They will have signs that all are welcome, they will post in papers and let the community know they are opening, etc. They will have youth groups and encourage members to invite people to retreats. They have Alpha meetsing and the outreach is endless. Catholics are terrific at community charities, as are protestants.
I'm an American who became Orthodox, specifically in the Russian Church. It's not fair to compare the worst of one group with the best of another. You see the difference between communities and fruits in the literature that they produce. Western communions emphasize intellectual study of the Scripture or emotional "worship". Orthodoxy emphasizes spiritual struggle and wisdom. When I read Western Christian literature, it's interesting and intriguing. When I r ad Orthodox literature, I feel the same way as I do when I read the NT, as if I ate spiritual food. Many times I literally lose my appetite because I'm so satisfied with the spiritual sweetness of what I read.
People can express themselves poorly, especially babushkas and other lay people. I agree, it isn't helpful to try to scare someone into not leaving your community. But it's only a recent phenomenon that a lot Protestants don't do this. Not too long ago, many would be no different in this regard and many still are.
Я надеюсь, что однажды вы дадите Церкви ваших предков еще один шанс. По моему мнению, она самая чудесная и глубокая в мире.
Only part of the way in, but this is the biggest reason why Im a Protestant. If you're *consistently* Roman Catholic or Orthodox, you *must* see other Christians as damned to hell over minute differences and dogmas that clearly just dont have anything to do with salvation. Dogmas that werent believed as necessary to salvation in the first 5 centuries. That's a huge problem.
Likewise
Never in my life have I told a protestant that they aren't Christian. I get told by protestants I'm a pagan all the time.
@Qwerty-jy9mj I'm grateful for that (and of course saddened by Protestants who have called you pagan), but I've been called a non Christian and so has Gavin by EO and RC Christians. I'd wager to say that, if you think I'm a Christian, that's a very happy inconsistency.
Myself as well.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj
Thank the Lord you don’t but unfortunately your church does.
All eastern orthodox churches are call to formally and ritually curse every year all that disagree with them. The document they use to curse all non-orthodox is called the synodikon of orthodox and is supposed to be read yearly on the feast or orthodoxy
Here is an official description by the by the patriarch, of Constantinople at the synod of Jassy in 1642 regarding what an anathema means (after excommunicating the heretic in question from the church it then adds to the excommunication):
“And let them be subjected to an eternal anathema, and excommunicated by the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit, the only God, one in nature, both in the present life and that which is to come, and cursed and unforgiven and unabsolved after death, and partakers of eternal punishment” (acts and decrees of the synod of Jerusalem, page 100)
Thank you for making this video. It blessed me greatly. May you continue to create content such as this.
I was born and raised Evangelical Protestant. My entire family was very non denominational for my entire life to the present with a few agnostics sprinkled in. It wasn’t until 2020 and 2021 that I came to know and hear about Eastern Orthodox Christianity ☦️ and it was just everything I could’ve needed and wanted for my soul and spiritual life. Thank God that I was baptized and chrismated back in November last year into the Orthodox Church! It is just so rich with the Holy Spirit and feels so much like a home for the soul.
Kyrie Eleison! Glory to Christ!
Also something that's difficult for me is - how can we have an OBJECTIVE standard for which institutions are part of the "one true church"
There is not "one true institution"...they were first called Christians at Antioch. ALL believers who know, worship & follow Jesus & God's word w/ fruit of the Spirit are the family of God & the church. Anyone who places an institution/ denomination above "God's family" has an erroneous loyalty & focus.
Continuity.
You can literally see the apostolic succession. Not that hard, just see the apostles who established the 5 seas that still exist now. It's only Rome that has fell in shism but technically still closer to the one true church.
@@ilovechrist914Rome is the only one of the 5 ancient sees that *hasn’t* fallen. The other 4 don’t exist anymore. That reason alone is a major point in Catholicism’s favor for claiming to be the original Church founded by Christ.
@@EC42904 lmao go home papist
Thanks so much Gavin, I was hoping you would address this!
As a greek protestand who is familiar with orthodoxy, I see all those western orthodox christians as soft orthodox. Jonathans ecumanical views are indeed hard to be found within orthodox tradition and culture.
To be fair, Jonathan is a soft and poetic person in general. I wouldn't say he's a great representation of the west.
@@CanditoTrainingHQ I personally don't view him as a soft individual, I was more referring to his positions as an orthodox (he doesn't seem like a hardcore orthodox) Personally I quite like the guy.
I’m a Greek Protestant too!
@@MrMfloor awesome
@michaelpelidis9088 that's what I meant by soft lol. His views dance around blurred edges and aren't representative of others in the west. Just himself. Never said I didn't like him.
YESSSSSS I was hoping you would see this
I think one thing that may be of importance to note here is that there is a strong meta narrative within Orthodox or Eastern thinking of what is called the "both and." This runs somewhat counter to this hyper rational post enlightenment dualism that we find in reformed or protestant thinking, or in the West general. Simply put it's the notion that when we are dealing with divine things. , we are often in a paradox of sorts, where two seemingly contradictory things can be true to an extent, often with an addendum to both. So yes,we do have a dogmatic teaching that no salvation lies outside Christ's church... Not unlike most protestants believe that no salvation lies outside of faith in Christ. However there is also an individual as well as a communal component to our salvation and we don't believe salvation to be some sort of a fixed thing or a singular event, as in many protestant confessions.So yes, an Orthodox Christian can lose his or her salvation. There is also a strong acknowledgment that salvation is a mystery of God. So while dogmatically Yes we adhere to the notion that it will not be found outside of the church, We also acknowledge that the Holy Spirit can act how and where it wishes and we give no last word on any one individuals salvation. We are often encouraged by our Priests to "live in the tension" between two difficult realities...this is a good example of that. We hold fast to the teachings of the Church but we also believe in God's mercy and Justice.
Live in the tension, but ignore the character of Christ? He didn't come to give us a lottery system, nor did he come to give us unlimited and unconditional grace. It's fascinating to me that both the Catholic and Orthodox church largely believe anyone outside of its confines are damned. Who is right? What if you're both wrong? That's a lot of assured believers claiming exclusivity of salvation.
Dude, I'm so thankful for you and what you are doing for the Church. You've really helped me better understand who God is. God is using you to help strengthen the faith of his sheep across the globe.
Thank you for your ministry Gavin! I just finished a Sunday night series at my Baptist church that was based on your “Theological Retrieval” book!
Christ is risen!
Glory to God!
Amén ✝️
Protestants say, "AMEN!"
Thank you for another great video!
You said that in the case of the Church Fathers, establishing their view of exclusivism is rather difficult. It seems to me that this topic would interest me the most, because I have at least the the impression that in the first five centuries the ancient Christians had a different ecclesiological paradigm than the Protestants in the sixteenth century or today. Above all, their emphasis on visible yet institutional unity combined with exclusivity is disturbing. If you were planning to make a video on this subject, I would greatly appreciate it.
God bless you!
Hi! I think it's more a case that back then there was just "the Church"... You (as, for instance, Irenaeus would point to in the 2nd century, or the 3rd and 4th century "giants" in the faith) were either "in". or "out"... "out" were they who immediately or eventually excommunicated themselves through inadequate, heretical views. But! The 5th, 11th and 16th century "splits" happened! But! - as Gavin points out - God "works with what he's got - even if organisationally fragmented from an Orthodox or Roman Catholic perspective - which major on Apostolic succession and the transmission of a particular tradition : )
The reformers still thought churches with incorrect confessions of faith ie Rome were not true churches and thus not salvific
Visible Body is NOT limitation of the action of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit acts wherever He wants. The Church has NEVER limited the Holy Spirit to Her. It's what you have to understand. Ortlund says that Orthodoxy teaches something that it doesn't. The Church has never taught confinement of the Holy Spirit.
The question of the salvation of non-Orthodox believers outside the Church is a theological topic that has been approached in various ways within the Eastern Orthodox tradition. The Orthodox Church generally asserts that it is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and holds the fullness of the faith. However, there are diverse views within the tradition regarding the salvation of those outside the Orthodox communion.
Historically, certain Eastern Orthodox theologians have expressed a more inclusive understanding of salvation. Some have highlighted the mystery of God's judgment and mercy, leaving room for the possibility of salvation for individuals who, for reasons beyond their control, did not have the opportunity to know or embrace the Orthodox faith.
The Orthodox perspective often emphasizes the transformative encounter with Christ and the working of God's grace in the lives of individuals. This allows for the acknowledgment that God's mercy is not limited by visible boundaries.
It's important to note that while some Orthodox theologians have expressed inclusivity, there are also more conservative views within the Orthodox Church that stress the significance of being within the visible boundaries of the Orthodox Church for salvation.
Ultimately, this is a nuanced and complex theological issue within Eastern Orthodoxy, and views on the salvation of non-Orthodox believers may vary among theologians and communities within the Orthodox tradition.
So variance is cool, as long as you remain in the ark of the church....
Protestants believe that people will vary in their beliefs on a lot of things, minor issues especially.
"Whether we live or die, we do it to the Lord."
Perfect timing of this video. I'm currently in RCIA to become Roman Catholic (lifelong Charismatic) and something that was brought up on Catholic Answers radio program recently stopped me in my tracks and made me rethink my conversion all over...one of the hosts stated that salvation is possible outside of the Catholic Church BUT if a Catholic was to become a Baptist (or any other denomination), that person would lose their salvation because they are blatantly denying Christ.
That statement SCREAMS "Pharisee" and "legalism" and irked me to my core. In fact, that single phrase has made me question my entire motives of becoming a Catholic and I'm struggling on what to do next.
To make a statement like that one is calling Jesus Christ a liar, just as you stated in the video. Not sure if the radio host's comment is official Catholic doctrine, something I need to look into personally or speak to me priest about. But if so, I'm not sure I can continue a faith that explicitly damns people to hell just because they worship God differently than them.
The Gospel is very clear on how salvation works and if one believes in the trinitarian God and that Jesus, being God's Son came in the flesh to die to atone for our sins, repents, and becomes baptized then we're saved. Are you still a Catholic catachumen?
Hopefully your RCIA director can help you. It is not an easy question to answer in the comments section.
lowxclazz I can relate. I had recently decided to return to the Catholic church. I then encountered their "missing Mass is a mortal sin" doctrine. I am now attending an Episcopal church, perhaps you would enjoy Episcopal better. They don't require attendance, also they dont teach veneration to Mary. Episcopal is similar to Catholic, but without the heavy pressure to follow man-made dogma.
@@pugetsound1272 God dealt in a like manner to his people in the old covenant? what makes you think the new covenant would imply laziness. read leviticus and the commemoration of the feasts>
Very helpful, Gavin. As someone who hasn't delved deeply into historical sources (and needs to) I greatly appreciated you citing EO sources directly to explain your point. This was very clarifying.
Awesome - this kind of teaching and encouragement is so necessary and helpful. Truth unites!
Than you for pointing this out Gavin. So many modern Orthodox converts gloss over this
Gavin is correct about his major premise - many modern Orthodox Christians have an incorrect ecclesiology that crept into the Church, unfortunately. This is nothing new in that many heresies over the centuries have “infected” the minds and souls of some in the Church, only to be rooted out at a later time by the grace of God.
Metropolitan Kallistos, as good of a man he was, was wrong in his book, and unfortunately through his book he very much so popularized this idea.
In the consensus of the saints, however, you will find surprising consistency regarding this subject - this is why Orthodox Christianity’s cry is to “follow the saints”, as they are ambassadors of the Holy Gospel, the living proof of its reality, given to us from age to age.
A key point that Gavin misunderstands, however, is the Orthodox understanding of salvation- it is a dynamic word, with many meanings, as attested to by St Paul who says in various places that one “has been saved”, “is being saved”, and “will be saved”.
We Orthodox reject that those outside the Church can be “saved” in one sense; they can’t be deified, can’t be partakers of the divine nature, can’t yet grow into the full stature of Christ. They may be virtuous, but they are just a bud waiting to blossom.
However, they can be “saved” at the second coming of Christ, according to His inscrutable judgment. We leave this to God.
the one issue i'm having is this - is there any precedent for the protestant invisible church idea within the early centuries of Christianity? is there any precedent for agreeing w Gavin? I want to hold what Gavin does, but was that what the early church believed?
I personally havn't found that to be the case. I think part of the reason Gav is so successful is he makes apparently modest claims that arnt really designed to sell anyone on Protestantism, but more that they are set up to cast enough "reasonable doubt" to prevent someone from being Orthodox or Catholic.
It's like the implication that protestants "invented" being nice to other denominations....but like before protestantism you really didn't even have "denominations" you had schisms, sure, with the OOs and the RCs and the EOs but the both of those schism were way more complex than a clean break and none of them included the wide scale open revolts and ripping apart of society that you had in the west when Protestants came into existence. So even if it was true that there wasn't any nuance in let's say 1600 by Orthodox and Catholics in categorizing different types of heritics (and there certainly was) at that point protestantism was a brand new type of schism that hadn't really been seen before, I mean give people a century or 2 to see how everything pans out and figure out how you relate to this new heresy that is ripping the known world to pieces....
That said is obvious the Church: Orthodox or Catholic have always made distractions and had a higharchy of how "wrong" different sects are.
@@mrjustadude1 i have engaged with baptists online and their arguments often in regards to the traditional "denominations" is always in a odd defensive manner that makes it seem that they themselves doubt what they hold
Hi Pastor Gavin: if you were a Baptist who wanted to study patristics / early church history and historical theology, for a doctorate, where would you try to go study today? (Thanks for your time and for making these videos)
I recently had the thought that the ancient western church, The Latin Catholic Church, was mostly affected by the Protestant Reformation but escaped Islam and Communism while the Eastern churches Gavin mentioned were acutely affected by Islam and Communism but escaped the Protestant Reformation.
Great stuff as always, Dr. Ortlund!
Didn’t expect to tear up at the end of this video. Thanks so much for doing these videos, Gavin. They’re desperately needed.
The video puts forth an argument that over time the exclusivity of Orthodoxy has relaxed. It's a statement you can classify as accurate or inaccurate but how does it stir up powerful feelings for you? I am curious what about the video provoked tears.
@@patrickbarnes9874for me it's the reminder of the assurance of our salvation (those of us who have placed our faith in Jesus Christ). Salvation isn't exclusive to any one denomination
@patrickbarnes9874 probably on the assurance of salvation. I'd guess the commenter felt the depth of hearing 100% certainty of salvation. That being said that isn't my view lol. But I get the emotional appeal.
@@patrickbarnes9874Gavin’s message at the end re: ecclesial anxiety and assurance of salvation spoke so directly to my decade+ experience agonizing over Orthodoxy. The whole video was intellectually engaging, but then when he flipped over to pastor-mode, idk. It snuck up on me.
@@OMNIBUBB I’m glad it made you feel good, but would you be interested in engaging intellectually to learn how the position is actually unsound? I can show this to you, and explain a way that is Biblical and sound. Only if you would like to hear it though.
This video was timely for me! Thanks once again Pastor Ortlund.
Around 20:45 "then the practical utility of it seems to be greatly reduced..."
I laughed for a full minute, and then I want to say, I Profoundly appreciate your work here, and your exhibition of great patience, regarding an issue that Constantly troubles me- the issue of authority, both in the church and spreading into government. I thank God for this video, and pray to Him in Jesus' name, and get back to work
It’s seems the hang up here can be due to language, and how it’s understood.
“The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that fullness of the means of salvation-Sacraments, Holy Tradition, the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, etc.-is preserved within the Church. It sees the Church as the Body of Christ, within which believers participate in the divine life through the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments), especially the Eucharist.
At the same time, the Orthodox Church recognizes the mystery of God’s grace and mercy, which can operate beyond human understanding and limitations. The concept of “oikonomia” (economy) in Orthodox canon law and theology allows for pastoral flexibility and acknowledges that God’s grace can work in ways and places beyond our comprehension. This concept can extend to the question of salvation, reflecting a hope and trust in God’s boundless love and mercy for all humanity. “
This doesn’t mean the church has changed or Jonathan’s way describing is some how new or modern.
It’s means the word and meaning of salvation is more nuanced, and not merely a “so I’m in!?” as the western perspective often seeks to grant / wants to land upon.
I share this not a means to debate nor judge, but in hopes of offering clarity as these things often end in an attempt to force our human understanding upon it, and we tend to want to draw lines in the sand instead of leaning on and begging for God’s mercy in all things.
you can assert that, but its not what the historical evidence shows. see the passages I worked through.
@@TruthUnitesthe historical evidence shows protestantism started in the 16th century, with a short referendum of some heretics going back maybe 3 centuries beforehand.
You are well known by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox community to quote mine references, and you falling under the delusion that people will buy into the arguments you build is a bigger delusion than the very reality you have created for yourself where early church fathers are prostestant because they differed, ignoring their general consensus and blantant submission to councils and the church.
I never thought of this day coming in my own generation but what's left of protestantism is already a very similar picture to jehova witnesses.
Eastern Orthodox here, and convert from Evangelicalism. Good on you to remark on this issue. There's a sense in which Pageau is correct, but only in our paradigm of thinking. We believe that all truth is God's truth and that God's grace is "everywhere present and fillest all things". This does not, however, mean that the Church is a hierarchy. You are either in the Church or you're not.
Where you err though is that we don't view membership in the Orthodox Church as a status of salvation. We view it as the plan, design, and best chance of salvation, as participation in the life of Christ is necessary for union with Christ.
I think Pageau has been surrounding himself with so many non-Orthodox people that it's hard for him to not be Ecumenical, and so he tries to articulate things in a more palatable way. Not saying that's good or bad... It just is. Protestants don't understand us at all, and so trying to communicate with them is really an exercise of translation.
One can say that Protestantism preserves more of God's truth than say Muslims or Buddhists, and at the same time say definitively that Protestants are not inside the Church founded by Christ, and at the same time, not have that be a condemnation of eternal salvation. That's all possible within the Orthodox frame of mind. But because that doesn't compute in a Protestant mind, some of us tend to air on the side of a more charitable tone.
sounds like what Martin Luther said... there can be salvation outside of the church, but not outside of Christ.
Gavin spent almost this entire video talking about how MODERN day EO members say the being in EO church is not necessary for salvation, but ALL of the historical judgements of the EO Church throughout its history have AFFIRMED the Ark view, just like the RC Church.
Hey man, thank you for the great comment.
This video made me smile at the end! Thank you so much for this! That outro music is a jam too! God bless you, Gavin.
It wouldn't be so bad if just one Orthodox leader would admit just once that "maybe" the church has erred in a historical instance (anathematizing those who don't kiss icons with affection, canonizing the known murderer Constantine, claiming we only get to Christ through Mary, etc).
But they won't. All you'll hear is that the Eastern church is perfect, is guided by the Holy Spirit, and cannot do wrong.
Beware those who claim perfection. At heart, they are anti-Christ.
Almost every one of these claims is false or misleading. Let's explore them:
1. Holy Orthodoxy is composed of humans who make mistakes. We don't have a pope, much less a doctrine of papal infallibility. We even have instances where the laity have rejected decisions from the clergy (e.g. the Council of Florence).
2. What does it mean to kiss the icons "with affection?" Do you think there are Orthodox police watching everyone, from the time they enter the narthex, ensuring that they not only kiss all the icons in the church; but that they do so with the appropriate level of affection? Some of my brothers and sisters don't kiss any icons, for whatever reason: My priest has yet to ban them from the church. What you cannot do, from a position of public influence, is preach iconoclasm: If you do this, you will be directed by your priest or bishop to cease or repent. Failing to do so, you will be excommunicated.
3. St. Constantine the Great was a killer, for sure, a soldier and military leader. You know who else was a known killer? St. Paul. St. Constantine's conversion was a gradual one, and he was not baptized until near the end of his life. Do you have evidence that proves Constantine killed anyone as a baptized Christian?
4. We only get to Christ through Mary? It's weird that, as an Orthodox Christian, I've never heard this. She is the Theotokos, the Mother of God. The Father handpicked her to be so, and the Son loves and honors her. So, following Christ, we love and honor her. The Theotokos is a powerful intercessor with her son, naturally; but we can and do speak directly to Christ.
I invite you to attend a service at a local Orthodox church, speak to the faithful and coffee hour, and see what Orthodoxy is all about for yourself.
I think they really need to believe that, because some people cannot fathom Christ being perfect without His church being perfect
@@shaunsteele6926 There's no such thing as an anti-ecclesial Christianity; likewise, there's no such thing as a generic ecclesiology. The Fathers didn't believe in Sola Scriptura and play Last Supper with grape juice and crackers. An invisible church is no church at all. Such is the spirit of antichrist.
Constantine supposedly still practiced the pagan rite of Sol Invictus despite proclaiming himself a Christian. It seems it was all for political purposes anyhow. Everyone who was a Christian was welcome to a good position in his club, and if they weren't, they wouldn't get a job.
I find it interesting, -there are so many times I'm in debate with a Catholic or Orthodox that they make this appeal, "You Protestants don't hold to traditional Protestantism: this is what Luther believed, here's what Zwingli believed, and Calvin believed ___. Where are you getting your modern beliefs?"
Okay, but when we pull up how past generations of Catholics and Orthodox were emphatic that those outside their institution were damned, all of a sudden we got to get into interpretations. Not that Protestants claim they have infallible doctrine or perfect tradition. I have a saying which is meant to shut up Catholics and Orthodox on this issue: "Luther is not an Ecumenical Counsel." It doesn't matter what Luther says, he's not an infallible authority of doctrine. I have liberty to disagree with Luther, and Calvin, and Zwingli, -even my very own pastor. And so, when I come across a doctrine which seems to go against Scripture (like how John 15:26-27 is Jesus literally saying that He sends the Holy Spirit), I am able to follow Scripture rather than the traditions of men.
Gavin himself quoted Church Fathers who considered pagans could be saved. Saints in both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches. So just by that fact you are refuted. Gavin just arbitrarily refused to let us use common Church Fathers, he's not a serious person here.
Also remember Dantes Inferno and how pagans are saved in classic Catholic work of litteratur? Exactly you have no case.
Amen and Amen!! Thank you Gavin for your scholarship and pastor's heart. The Lord God has blessed you to be a blessing to all brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. Again I say Amen!!
Hi, convert to Orthodoxy here:
Let me make a distinction: when the Orthodox, historically or modernly, use the Ark analogy, it’s speaking broadly. There is no other Church; Christ didn’t establish multiple churches; the Apostles didn’t adhere to different faiths or preach multiple discordant versions of it; ancient Israel had one Passover, with one Temple, and one valid priesthood, and only one Messiah. The Apostles warned strongly against schism and false belief. So the Ark analogy has never gone away, and these more modern statements that we hear from Pageau and the late Met. Kallistos (Timothy) Ware are not dogmatic assertions, but gentle statements meant to soften the traditional exclusivity which sounds so harsh to modern ears. Yet what they’re saying isn’t false: God is sovereign and saves whoever he wishes. We have the Good Thief as an example of someone who was clearly outside of the faith, was never baptized or communed, and yet his repentant heart confessed to God, asking forgiveness, and we Orthodox regard him to be the first person ever admitted to Paradise. We have also other examples, such as the cruel pagan Emperor Trajan, who martyred countless Christians, in the erroneous thinking that Rome’s loss of faith in the pagan gods made the Empire weak. Yet his soul was rescued out of hell through the consistent prayers St. Gregory the Great. So the context of modern Orthodox speakers and writers isn’t wrong, but it’s exceptions known only to God.
Those outside the Church today would be like those who claim to worship Christ in His day, but didn’t follow the Apostles. Christ said: “for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward..” But this doesn’t mean that Protestant beliefs or Roman beliefs aren’t errors. Indeed, they all deviate from the Apostolic Faith to varying degrees, and only Orthodoxy is the singular Body of Christ, with Him serving as High Priest. All other beliefs, whether schismatic sects or paganism, are merely false temples erected to error and falsehoods. Return to the original, and be saved.
I very much like the idea that we know that salvation and grace is found within the Church. That is what we are given. Can people outside Orthodoxy find grace? That's up to God. Personally, I think that Catholics have valid sacraments. If I look at their fruits, they seem like they are producing saints. Some protestants are also very saintly. Am I to say that the Spirit doesn't work in them to transform them and save them? Of course not. That would be rather foolish. Not to mention that the context of the teachings of the fathers was very, very different. They haven't lived in a situation with 2 major Christian hierarchies, some smaller ones (non-Chalcedonian) and a bunch of random whatever-thing protestants have going.
_Yet his soul was rescued out of hell through the consistent prayers St. Gregory the Great_
Is this taught as dogmatic truth that you can pray people out of hell? Can someone pray Hitler out of hell in the orthodox church?
_Return to the original and be saved_
I think the frustrating thing about dialogues like these is in one breath you'll say that non-Orthodox Christians are not damned for not being orthodox, but then you'll end by implying that they kind of are. It sends so many mixed signals, it's baffling.
The apostles inevitably have different churches
Can’t say one true church exists
@@duckymomo7935 Different congregations, all part of the One Church.
@@duckymomo7935 Christ only began one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church; not 12 different churches:
For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are [f]contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:11-13)
Did Luther, Calvin, Zwingli & other reformer's use the same argument (Gavins) against the Catholic Church, or did they change over time, while parting ways from each other?
Gavin is a Baptist. The people you mentioned would have had him executed for being a heretic. Not my judgement, that's just what they would have done.
In Dr. Orthlund's other video, he shared some quotes from both Luther and Calvin that said Catholic churches are still true churches. They just believed the pope was an antichrist.
I was told by an Orthodox Priest, I as a Protestant am NOT a Christian.
I mean you hear the same stuff coming from protestants towards Catholics and orthodox
Yep, they claim to be the Truth and that can produces fanaticism.
There is no salvation outside of the church. The church is the body of Christ. Jesus is the head. We are “Christ” and saved only while in the body. Calvinism has caused so much damage. Salvation is hard, is a struggle for the Christian. Christ has provided the way to salvation, were need to believe, have faith in Jesus to do as he has said he’ll do for those who persevere to the end.
@@cimmbasso no, Salvation is in Christ and him alone. Acts 4:12. 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” Or, will you throw out Luke’s letter?
Not surprised. I've talked to Orthodox people online who say that Orthodoxy and protestantism aren't even the same religion.
Thanks Gavin! In your opinion, is the catholic and orthodox stance on this matter an accretion? And would be interested to see a video on that!
Great video. Personally I think the current setup looks great. Decent lighting and a ton of books!
If the “real studio” is even better k can’t wait to see it!
You have no issue with Protestants saying, "you don't have to believe in the doctrine of sola fide to be saved by faith alone.
But then put pressure on Orthodox Christians who are allowed to have different views and oppinons on this subject, that they must believe there is no salvation outside the church? Seems like a double standard.
Also there's significant quotes from saints that can give us great hope for the salvation of those that are lost. "So many wolves within, so many sheep without!"
Interesting thought ☝️
Mm agreed
Dear Dr Ortlund, have you considered that you may be reading your western/ protestant understanding of 'salvation' into the church fathers and that properly understood in context, this is a false dichotomy?
yeah lots of people say that, but I'm not able to abstract any specific coherence as to why a Western framework changes everything. I might as well just say, "have you considered that your comment here is the result of an Eastern framework?" It doesn't really do much unless specifics are advanced.
@@TruthUnites Well, the Orthodox view of salvation is based on theosis which is a lifelong process and, in being a lifelong process there are many intermediary stages between saint and devil. As opposed to the binary view of salvation that you seem to be taking in the video: eternity in heaven vs eternity in hell. In my view, you could use either of these frameworks to interpret the quotes given in the video and you would obviously get very different results
@@TruthUnites Also, I appreciate the response and look forward to more Orthodox content
I say this to anyone considering the Orthodox Faith: please reconsider.
Coming from someone who personally tried to join the Orthodox church: what the online apologists say the Orthodox church is and what the Orthodox church *actually* is when you try to join it are two very different things.
Orthodox apologists love to emphasize the sacramental unity with Jesus and participation in the divine energies and the reception of the true body & blood of Christ in the Eucharist. They love to emphasize and try to agree with protestants that we're all sinners and we need to come to Christ and he will make us well again. Not just impute a legal bill to our spiritual account- but *actually* make us whole and heal us.
This is a far cry from how things actually shake down when you try to become Orthodox in real life.
I spent a year trying to join the Orthodox faith because I was convinced from history and the Bible that it was correct. Looking back, I wonder if God in His kindness was keeping me out for a reason.
Almost a year of regular attendance and my priest would not let me become a catechumen. When I asked why all he would really tell me is "keep coming and you'll know when you're ready." No sense of urgency, no sense of "Today is the day of salvation," no sense of the dangers of me being outside the Orthodox faith if their claims are correct, and no sense of the urgency of me being united to Christ truly & not superficially as fast as possible.
I asked various online groups and was essentially told, in not so few words, that there's a threshold of piety that I'm expected to meet before my stated desire to join Orthodoxy is taken seriously and I'm considered as one eligible to join the faith.
I needed to be doing and living a bunch of the Orthodox things *first* (mind you, without ever being taught how to do those things), and *then* I could be eligible to start the process of joining Orthodoxy. I was told to donate a month's worth of savings, to drive to every hospital and cemetery in my town and pray over them with a prayer rope, stay after church and clean all the icons and kiss all of them. And I was then told that I needed to repeatedly do these things until my heart began to soften so that I could then hear the call of God to the Orthodox faith and the priest would see my sincerity and let me begin the process of joining. In other words: I need to make myself right before I can come to Jesus.
All the while the Orthodox church still maintains that the grace and empowerment to be born again and live the Christian life only comes through the sacramental & liturgical life of the Church.
But I'm expected to produce pious deeds within myself before I can become catechized into the church so I can then... receive the Sacraments which are supposed to be the necessary prerequisite for me to be enabled to produce those same pious actions.
All of the things I need to be made spiritually well, according to the Orthodox church, are only available to baptized & communed members who are participants in the liturgical & sacramental life of the church. But before I can be allowed in to participate in those things I have to... make myself spiritually well by my own discipline and efforts.
I constantly asked people: if I'm able to do all of these things now, and I don't need the grace of the Sacraments - or if God has already given me everything I need right now - what do I need the church for? There was no straight answer for this question apart from basically an appeal to pelagianism. "You're an image bearer of God, you have everything you need intrinsically by nature to mimic him rightly in your life even without being communed in the church. I am sorry you feel that the image/likeness of God in you has been damaged to the point where you can't be like Jesus right here and now if you wanted to." This all sounded completely crazy to me.
Ultimately when it comes down to brass tacks, the way Orthodoxy functionally operates has little to do with what they claim should be happening through their most vocal advocates, and the bible, and the historical tradition of the church. Orthodox "inquirer" phases are often up to 6 months long apparently. And catechism classes are another 6 months to a year. In the past they have been upwards of 3 years. Repenting, turning from a life of sin, and believing and trusting in Jesus with full confidence are not sufficient prerequisites for a person to begin the process of joining the church. Meanwhile the apostles frequently baptized people on the spot for their professions of faith. Seems very unChristian to keep people at arms length and refuse them entry into the Church even after they tried to repent and believe because... they aren't pious enough yet, or something?
Just, if anyone is looking to join the Orthodox church - be ware that these things might happen to you.
May I ask what type of Orthodox church was it? I would suspect Russian.
Different parish priests deal with enquirers and catechumens on a parish level, and there is no universal method how someone is received in terms of time. Some may take 3 years and other just 6 months.
Nobody is expected to show their level of piety, but to simply accept the teachings and Traditions of the Faith.
The length of time required and a lengthy period for a catechumen is so the person is sure it is the way they want to go and to be sure they understand as fully as possible what the faith is that they are embracing.
When you turn to a new way of Christian life (which is what Orthodoxy is), you need all the tools to be able to live it, and the 'weapons' to be able to fight off the inevitable temptations of the Devil when you are received. Catechism is how you armour yourself, and baptism into the Church is when the real difficulties begin.
Christianity is not an easy option. Humility is essential before Christ. Orthodoxy embodies that.
I'm genuinely very sorry you feel you weren't dealt with well.
When you go to a hospital for help to be cured, the care in some wards are better than others. Care and love should always be the priority, and it requires the patient to submit to the authority and treatment offered.
Did you try a different parish?
@@ArchangelIcon Greek orthodox. And no, I didn't try another parish, as it's wrong to be a church-shopper/church-hopper.
@@iKentine Well, sometimes church-hopping might be needed. When someone asks about Orthodoxy, the usual answer is to suggest going to the nearest churches and seeing what they are like. There's absolutely nothing wrong with visiting more than one church. When it comes down to personal salvation, some 'church-hopping' is very much a minor consideration. You might find that another church has the same approach, and in which case you decide if the Church is right for you or if you simply need to show humility. I know it isn't easy.
Everyone should stay away from the online Orthodox unless you already know who is authentic. Go to a church, talk to a priest.
@@iKentineYour experience sounds horrible. I’m not orthodox currently but I wanted to say that in some way church hopping/shopping is bad if you are doing it because you are too easily offended, or feel like you only want to hear the word one particular way. The church itself is infallible but humans aren’t. I would cast my vote that under diligent, humble circumstances it’s ok to try a different church.
@21:05 - which "we" affirm that doctrine?
I was raised Protestant my whole life. The more I read my Bible and prayed, the more I began to see that Protestantism just couldn’t be it. I prayed that the Lord would lead me and guide me into all truth. I stumbled on a Hank Hanegraff video on Orthodoxy (providentially). The theology was impressive. I found a local Orthodox Church. My first visit there, I knew I had come home. My husband was against it at first, but after a few months he was fully on board. We were baptize into the Orthodox Church Sept. 30th! Glory to God! We are home and we are in His body, the Church He established. Please come and see! Test it. Don’t follow the naysayers but experience the Divine Liturgy and the life of the Church for yourself. Learn about Orthodoxy by talking to an Orthodox priest and attending the services. You can never understand Orthodoxy outside the mind of the Church. There is so much more than we have been led to believe. Glory to God for His goodness and that the Orthodox Faith has come to America!
Glory to God and welcome to His Church! ☦☦☦
@@Hoi4o thank you! Yes! Glory to God!
I was also raised Protestant my whole life, though I have not regularly attended church (any church) in about 20 years. It was just becoming too much of a circus, and I was always searching for a "better church" but never really finding one. Recently I've been feeling a draw to Orthodoxy. The zeal and passion for Christ these people have is infectious, and it really feels like a "church". Unfortunately there are no Orthodox churches close to me, so at the moment I'm just enjoying them through TH-cam.
@@shaunsteele6926 God can make a way! Praying for you!
Remember the words of Paul to the Phillipian jailor: "Believe in the doctrine of the One True Church, and thou shalt be saved."
Wait, that wasn't it...
Awe, it isn't? But but, the Catholics always tell me it says that. Orthodox don't deign to talk to us. They don't consider us the same religion and they don't evangelize, just preen on how they are the only ones saved.
This is a funny comment but it’s self refuting. Every Christian believes in one true church. It’s just a matter of where you draw the line.
@@neildegraide2297 The line is in the very Gospel presentation. If you affirm the Gospel by trusting in Jesus Christ for salvation, you will be saved, regardless of what false popes or bishops might declare to the contrary.
Paul actually teaches that the church is the pillar of truth. This was before there was a New Testament
What a great video!! Very well documented
Gavin is my favorite Protestant commentator. He motivates me, a Catholic, to learn more about my faith to address his arguments.
Thank you so much for your work, Dr. Ortlund. You are one of the champions of Christ today. God bless you
Isaac of Ninevah (7th century) belonged to the Church of the East, not the Eastern Orthodox Church, & was accepted as an EO saint. This speaks to the possibility in the EO view of people outside the visible/institutional Church not only being saved, but of being worthy of veneration as saints of the Church.
However, as someone who has been inquiring deeply into Eastern Orthodoxy for years now, I too find those quotes you pulled from the Confession of Dositheus troubling and cannot agree with them at all. I'm not entirely sure how binding that 1672 Council of Jersualem is for EO Christians.
I think that a dialogue with Seraphim Hamilton on this topic would be very fruitful. He's an EO Christian who is deeply familiar with Church history, canons, councils, dogma, etc. and from what I understand, he is not a sacramental rigorist nor a institutional exclusivist in terms of who can be saved. He's a very irenic, charitable, and clear-minded thinker, and I think that a dialogue with him could really bring out some of the theological and historical nuances of this topic, especially in terms of what EO Christians can and cannot consistently believe about the bounds of the Church and the bounds of salvation.
God bless!
I'm inquiring atm while attending an anglican parish, for almost 2 years, will be doing catechism soon. Not easy that's forsure hehe. Have you read seraphims work on protestantism? Or his course I believe it is? Planning to get it soon
@triplea6174 I haven't read much of Seraphim's content on Protestantism, though I've listened to quite a lot of his stuff, some of which addresses Protestantism. His course looks solid but I haven't had the time to check it out yet. I've visited some Anglican parishes as well during my time attending an EO parish regularly, and could see myself possibly going the Anglo-Catholic route if for some reason I couldn't go all the way to Eastern Orthodoxy, though as of now I'm closer to Orthodoxy. May God guide us both! 🙏
@cosmicfrog612 I see and interesting! And indeed brother godspeed on our journeys 🙏🫡
I do think it would be pretty cool to have a good faith dialogue with an Orthodox scholar. I've recommended Fr. Stephen De Young before. I imagine it would be a great discussion.
fr sdy was a baptist minister too
Can I have a citation for cyprians doctrine of salvation including heretical groups
EO here: I also hold a hierarchical view like Jonathan in the video. While I agree there is no historical explicit official statements, there are some things to consider:
. Baptisms and ordinations from anti-chalcodonian and Latin traditions after the schism were accepted when conducted in proper form
. The Pope was still spoken of using his title as “pope of old Rome” after the schism in all correspondence
. There is no official statement that those outside the visible church are damned as there was in the Latin church at Florence
. St Gregory of Nyssa believed in a form of catharsis and apektasis for those even outside the church
. St Isaac the Syrian was a member of a “Nestorian” communion and still regarded as a canonised Saint
. “Blessed” Theodoret is still honoured despite the official condemnation of many of his earlier writings by the 5th EC
. St Paul mentions different levels of glory for each star in heaven
. Jesus said His father’s house has many mansions
. While the “ark” view is the most common view, we cannot take analogies as true in every aspect without nuance and to the exclusion of other models
. St Symeon of Thessaloniki wanted to restore the ancient privileges to old Rome and the pope if they repent of their heresy - there was no need to reordain the west
I love Gavin's work, but he glosses over his statement of a doctrine just popping up six hundred years into church history. A great example of this would be Calvin's doctrine on the perseverance of the Saints. No one in church history, including Calvin , taught this doctrine for the first 15 centuries of the church.
That was a bit of a head scratcher.
I haven’t heard from the modern Orthodox theologians or priests that believers in Christ are damned. The response usually is: “only God knows the heart of a man and only He can judge”. Reading diaries of Alexander Schmemmen I could sense that he wasn’t very happy with the rigidity of the “tradition” and “churchianity “…
You won't hear many "modern" Orthodox say this. It was replaced by the "We can only say where the church / Holy Spirit is not where it is not" rhetoric. But this is new. That isn't the historic or canonical position of the Orthodox Church. That those outside the Orthodox Church were outside the ark of salvation was in fact the prevailing, official view. Look up Triumphalism.
@@EricBryant we do not believe there is salvation outside the Church. Pageau is not speaking for the Church and Im sure he would never claim that he is speaking for Orthodoxy. That is not to say the Church absolutely declares the fate of non christians. And yes, protestants are absolutely NOT CHRISTIAN. The simple answer is they are not saved, but we cannot say they are damned either. We dont know. But Protestants are anathema and not saved. No ifs or buts.
@@EricBryant It's a very different time today than it was much earlier in Church history where well hearted people find themselves in false Christian traditions through no fault of their own. These sorts of positions are not so rigid as you make them seem.
@@TyrannicalReigner I was a catechumen for 2 yrs. And I could not be Chrismated unless I agree with all Orthodox teachings. And yes the Orthodox Church officially IS just that exclusive, I know it from personal experience.
@@EricAlHarb How do you know that Protestants aren't saved. You don't even know if YOU'RE saved.
This is another helpful video. I thank God for your work.
Oh wow!! Deep within me, I have been expecting your response to that podcast. God bless you immensely 🙏❤️✝️
I thank God for you, Gavin. This content is gold.
I think it’d be cool to do more content on baptismal salvation and whether or not it’s biblical. I struggle with that area. If it doesn’t save you, then what does it do exactly?
We’re supposed to be Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but what does that mean exactly? I thought we were baptized in water, how is one baptized into a name? I’m just confused.
Hi Gavin, do you have a video on the role of women, especially as in the office of deacon, as what's your view on replacement theology
Thank you for this excellent presentation. I experienced a lot of anxiety and intimidation caused by a few members of the EO church asserting that their way is the only way. Even though I knew without a doubt that I'd been saved, they still caused me a lot of stress because I was worried I might be being disobedient to God if I didn't convert to EO.
Cant the same be said about Christianity overall? Gavin very much belives for those who don’t believe his ideology they are going to hell
Velichkovsky is one of my favorite saints. You just made me love him more. Thank you!
Yes, "there's no salvation outside of the true Church" only for those who abide by the discipline, dogma, and mysteries of the Church. That is to say, those who received Holy Orthodox Baptism/Chrismation but have not lived the Christian life or have fallen away their salvation is in question.
"The Spirit moves where it will" (In 3.8) reminds us that the Holy Spirit dwells externally with It's Grace to those who are pure in heart though outside the Church. While we must attempt to convert all outside The Body of Christ, we are not permitted to judge anyone out there who never heard a good witness of Christ.
Heretics and apostates are only worthy of Orthodox criticism. Even the act of "excommunication" is a Love call to return to the Church.
--A Monk of the Orthodox Church
A few things:
(1) Ortlund characterizes what he calls “the historic view” as “If you’re outside the Ark of the Church you are not saved.” My main problem with this view is that it presupposes a binary “you’re in or you’re out” view of salvation, which is across the board not what Orthodox Christians believe nor have ever believed historically. Salvation is about deification through union with Christ, and that’s a process.
(2) Ortlund is correct that the view of “we know where the Church is not but where the Church isn’t” is a modern view, and because of this it’s a view I don’t affirm. The Church is the Orthodox Church, and to not be in the Orthodox Church is to be outside the Body of Christ. However, to say someone is not in the Church is not the same as saying that the Spirit is not at work in them. The Northern Kingdom of Israel was not “part of the Church” because they did not have the Davidic king, true sacrifice in the temple, etc, but God still sends them prophets and works through them. St. Maximos the Confessor says the Spirit works outside the Church, but always for the purpose of uniting people with the Church.
(3) Ortlund says “I have not been able to find any historical affirmation that those outside the Orthodox Church can be saved.” Here’s one: St. Gregory the Great praying the pagan emperor Trajan out of hell: ( academic.oup.com/book/1885/chapter-abstract/141638221?redirectedFrom=fulltext ). Similarly, while I think Roman Catholics and Protestants are in error and outside the Church, I think it is possible for them to be saved by coming into union with the Church after death if they did not become part of the Church in this life.
(4) Ortlund is correct that some Orthodox theologians and saints in the last century speak of the impossibility of the salvation of those outside the Church. I would agree with this, with the important caveat made before, I think people can be reconciled with the Church after death, much like Trajan. It’s also important to take into account that a lot of these statements were made in the face of Orthodox Christians trying to defend themselves against aggressive evangelization from Catholics and Protestants.
(5) To refute his claim that “no one from the 9th - 19th century speaks of salvation of other groups” I’d point to how St Theophylact of Ohrid in the 11th century speaks about Latin Christians in his time, in which he affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (thus Theophylact denies the filiqoue) but simply said this should be attributed to the poverty of the Latin language and not to them being damned. Also it’s not like the 5th century council of Chalcedon happened and immediately there was a monophysite church and an Orthodox Church and immediately in 1054 there was a Latin church and an Orthodox Church - these schisms took literal centuries to solidify and in many cases important fathers and theologians affirm that those they disagree with (including those who affirm things like the filioque and monophysitism) are in the Church.
These are the types of responses videos like this need! May God bless our journey.
great response! He is presupposing protestant heretical views of salvation and using it to interpret the orthodox church fathers', hence there is no true theology outside the True Church, Gavin does not understand Orthodox theology
Great response. I would love to see if Gavin cares enough to engage.
Additional thoughts:
His defense of the Protestant view of ecclesiology is self-contradictory in that he dismisses the idea of the Church residing in a single institution, but is fine with it residing in several defined institutions, even though some of these hold contradictory ideas and even anathematize one another. He is essentially trading visible, physical boundaries for a fabricated unity of ideas which doesn’t actually exist.
I mean you basically admitted he was right but then added a little Mormon spice to it. You SO GENEROUSLY consign Christ followers to Hell and then say maybe you'll be nice enough to pray us out. Collective narcissism does wonders for humility.
_which is across the board not what Orthodox Christians believe nor have ever believed historically._
Depending on who you ask, of course. The official position is if you're outside the EO church, you're damned to hell. The non-official position is what you said in the 2nd point.
God bless you and your invaluable miniustry
This is my biggest stressor. I see issues in each church. I no longer feel I can be Protestant but I also don’t know how to deal with these difficult topics in Orthodoxy. I feel without a home at times.
I understand this feeling.
I felt the same during my long (7 year) journey. I finally joined myself to the Roman Catholic Church 19 years ago this Easter and despite all its problems, I have not looked back. I increasingly focus most of my energy now (as I get older) on my prayer life and my spiritual life. There are many riches in the Catholic Church for these things.
You should go visit an Orthodox Church, we will welcome you with open arms! Orthodoxy is not something you can ever really just grasp between your ears. Go and experience the liturgy, stay for coffee hour, speak to the priest.
I feel like once you commit yourself to a church you already implicitly state that that particular church is the true church and is to benefit your salvation. You can’t escape making some implicit or explicit exclusive ecclesiastical statement.
From my own Orthodox experience, knowledge and perspective, it is clear to me the Orthodox Church professes to be the one true Church, but doesn’t shut the door completely for the salvation outside the Church.
Thanks so much for this Gavin. It was definitely time someone addressed this.
Confessional Lutheran here...Indeed, this is a great strength of the Reformation and that is a fabulous point relating this issue back to assurance. Christ alone. Amen.
Thank you so much Gavin! I really appreciated your words especially on assurance of salvation. Can you or anyone direct me to other work or videos you have on this topic specifically?
Your position is crystal clear Sir. Other institutions are hypocrites to not even admit that they explicitly say that others are damned outside their "instition".
What does Messiah say. Read the Bible.
Is there salvation outside reformed theology?
Yes, there is.
Depends on the reformer you are talking with
There is no salvation outside Christ, the Messiah, who is God.
❤ Thanks .....this video is a wish come true, i was thinking abt this.
Love Ruslan 😊
MANY Orthodox still hold that view today.
Well, that's the problem of orthodoxy, they can't fully agreed with anything after the great schism.
I heard Bob of Speakers Corner would love to have you on his channel for a chat! You share a lot of views. Would be so cool!
Naaaa
Bob is ecumenical, he likes to pretend that the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic church, and protestant churches don't have any major theological differences.
@@morghe321 No. That’s not even what ecumenical means. There can be major differences, that don’t effect soteriology. I believe that to be the case, EO, RCC, and Prots are all saved. Bob believes this, and Gavin does too.
@@brando3342 I'm not saying that it's what it means. I meant that he is an ecumenist who likes to pretend that thare aren't any major theological differences. At least, that's the impression I get from him. He doesn't seem to be interested in talking about these differences, like Gavin does all the time. Or perhaps I'm wrong?
@@morghe321 Do you believe there’s salvation outside your specific denomination?
Could you do a video on the history of Church Discipline from a Protestant perspective?
It’s a trap!!!
@truthunites Gavin, I appreciate your videos and your irenic approach to controversial issues, especially regarding Genesis and questions of creation and scientific issues. Your flexibility and humility in this area has helped calm my fragile faith.
In a recent video, you mentioned that although there is institutional disunity within protestantism that there is a unity around the gospel that's transcends institutional borders.
How you would respond to framing a different argument in a similar way for older Christian ecclesiological traditions which assert their own institutional exclusivity as the one true church. Ironically, this claim of institutional exclusivism unites them philosophically, if not institutionally.
I understand that those arguments function differently in that one of them is mutually exclusive and the other is inclusive, but the question I'm asking myself is "Is the institutionally exclusivist argument the more historical view which is reflected in these different traditions because of a common source?"
Your last words and conclusion just put a smile on my anxious face (tough period right now) and made me feel some subtle and powerful energy within my being. Always such holy pastoral so well-informed conclusions.
God bless you Brother Gavin as well as your beloved ones.
Cheers from France :-)
Different denominations and religions clearly have different theologies. They can not all be true because they contradict each other.
Orthodoxy claims that they have THE CORRECT THEOLOGY revealed by Christ.
If you actually know God and have a personal relationship with him, you have the correct theology. How could you not? If your theology is wrong, then you don't actually fully know God. You just know of him.
The Orthodox Church claims that their theology is revealed through people who had a direct experience of God. This is either right or wrong, it cannot be somewhere in between.
If you truly know God, you have "Orthodox Theology."
And here is where a lot of misunderstanding comes from. Knowledge of God and participation in God is Salvation. If you are saved while you are still in this life, you have "Orthodox theology."
At the last judgment, there will be no dispute about what is correct. Christ will be all in all, and there will be no excuse for ignorance. You are either with Him or against Him. Paradise will open for those who know Him and love Him, and hell will swallow those who know Him and hate Him.
So, how do we secure salvation while still in this life? We know Christ as he is (we have "Orthodox Theology"), and we enter into participation with Him (join the Church and participate in its sacraments).
At the last judgment, there will be only one Orthodox Christ, and He will be undeniable. So, of course, people who were outside the Church while alive can be saved then if they choose Christ. This has been the stance of the Church since its conception (see St. Macarius and the skull of the pagan priest.) They can still come to know and participate in God but their salvation is not secured now.
And, even joining the Church does not completely secure salvation. We can still apostasize from the Christ we once knew and loved (Judas).
Whether the Eastern Orthodox Church actually posesses this perfect "Orthodox Theology" is something we can debate. Whether there is salvation while alive outside the Church is not up for debate. And if it is true that a house divided can not stand, then when theology changes, the Church ends.
It is up to all of us to strive for knowledge of God, perfect our theology, and unite ourselves to The Church that offers participation in that theology.
This is exactly the reason that has kept me from becoming Orthodox. I love the Orthodox liturgy, I love the beauty of their churches, I agree with the Orthodox view of the trinity. I agree with the perpetual virginity of Mary and have no problem calling her theotokos. (I still struggle with some of the other dogmas) I’m past the arguments against intercessory of the Saints. I still struggle a little bit with icon venation. But I could never bind my conscience or the conscience of my family to the anathemas of other Christain.
The video opens with the Noah's ark view of the past being contrasted with the hierarchical view of the present. You are saying that you agree with the doctrines of Orthodoxy today but you could never join the church because of the exclusivity, but the entire point of the video is that the Orthodox church no longer holds the view that you're objecting to. It makes no sense to say you agree with everything an organization believes today but you won't join it today because of a view the organization held in the past which the organization today also disagrees with.
@@patrickbarnes9874Genuine question: does the Eastern Orthodox Church believe in the infallibility of official doctrine from councils or bishops? I know Roman Catholics believe anything officially declared by the Pope or the councils to be infallible.
Anyways, the major talking point that Orthodox and Roman Catholic apologists use is that “the church has stayed the same since the first century”. Well, if your church dogmatically decreed that everyone outside of that church is eternally cursed and then eventually changed its position on that, doesn’t that disprove that whole argument?
The whole allure of converting to these traditions for many people is that they’re getting back to the unchanging tradition of the apostles. When you lift up the covers and shine a flashlight on the issue, it’s not unchanging. These traditions have verifiably changed a lot.
@@patrickbarnes9874
Not all orthodox doctrines but enough for me to worship there.
It was “impossible” for the EO church to error in there councils and cannons as they were led by the Holy Spirit. Yet the church has made clear what is anathema and who is anathematized. (See the Synodikon of Orthodoxy for more details)
I’ve put this on another comment but will put it here as well.
Here is an official description by the by the patriarch, of Constantinople at the synod of Jassy in 1642 regarding what an anathema means (after excommunicating the heretic in question from the church it then adds to the excommunication):
“And let them be subjected to an eternal anathema, and excommunicated by the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit, the only God, one in nature, both in the present life and that which is to come, and cursed and unforgiven and unabsolved after death, and partakers of eternal punishment” (acts and decrees of the synod of Jerusalem, page 100)
@@patrickbarnes9874
BTW, all eastern orthodox churches are call to formally and ritually curse all that disagree with them yearly on the feast of orthodoxy when they read the synodikon of orthodox. Most churches don’t do this, though they are supposed to, for obvious reasons.
Here are a few of the anathema’s.
The Synodikon of Orthodoxy
Anathema against all that “innovate” or “enact” anything “outside of Church Tradition and the teaching and institution of the holy and ever-memorable fathers” (The Holy Standards, pg 530)
Anathema against those who do not ” confess with heart and mouth that he is a child of the Eastern Church baptized in the Orthodox style… shall be outside of our Church and shall be anathematized “ (The Holy Standards, pg 567)
Anathema against those who do not affirm that Christ had leaven bread at the Mystic (last) supper, while also condemning the Armenian Orthodox Church.
I could go on with more anathema’s but you get the point. Again the EO church has made it clear what an anathema is and what they are declaring when anathematizing others. “To be outside of the EO Church is to be outside of the body of Christ and to be outside of the body of Christ is to be outside of Christ himself . Anathema
I simply can love my Orthodox bothers and sisters in Christ but like I stated in my original comment, I simply can’t bind my conscience or the conscience of my family to this.
@@ogloc6308 The Papal throne has only spoken infallibly twice in the 2000 year history of then Church of Rome and that was to clarify teachings about the Theotokos.
Could you link the video in which you address the “One True Church” understanding according to Church Fathers?
And no salvation outside the church
I really appreciate your professionalism with these videos. I studied Eastern Orthodoxy for two years and prayerfully considered it. However, I had genuine questions and kept getting the same regurgitated responses that you've even mentioned. But something felt off the entire time that I could not shake. I have received my answers and thank you again, sir.
Thank you for this!