You needed a cannon of Faith before a cannon of the Bible. Or else, what will you use to determine what defines 'scripture'? Anyway, new sub. Good vid man. Stoked to watch more.
@@ChristianCombativesyeah that’s easy to understand when the Septuagint was translated and compiled 250 years before Christ and used by Him and the apostles. The New Testament scripture were not as clear. Especially since the last of them was not written until all but one apostle died!
@@ryanbutelaThe New Testament scriptures are, actually, very clear as to which are first and second hand accounts from the apostles and their immediate students. In fact that was the metric by which the early church determined what should be added to the Bible. What came from the most valid sources and what is consistent with those valid sources. If I have someone who contradicts what Mark, John or Paul said about Jesus, I'm not going to listen to them because they are not the closest possible people to the original events. That's not an authoritative statement, it's good historical analysis. The problem I have with the idea that ecumenical councils have a higher authority than the Bible is you are effectively trying to say that the scholar can correct the source material. Which is absurd. That doesn't mean that ecumenical councils are invalid, you can make observations that have some authority, but never more than the first and second hand accounts you're drawing those conclusions from. If I compile first hand accounts from WWII that does not then give my testimony about the conflict more weight than the original source. So yes, Sola Scriptura is accurate. The Bible is the only infallible and thus most authoritative source for guidance in the church. And it does contain all the necessary information for your salvation. If it didn't the gospels wouldn't serve much purpose. The only thing I will concede is that this is misinterpreted in a lot of Protestant and Restorationist churches as "I don't need to do good scholarship, I can just read the Bible without context and I'll learn all I need to know." Which is also absurd. If you want to know what the Bible is saying, then you need to understand the context behind it. So do your research. Also, on the video, "most Christians throughout history have been ill prepared" is honestly a little funny. You're willingly ignoring and misinterpreting the tenets of the Reformation. You've completely forgotten Sola Fide. You aren't saved through the scriptures alone, they are the primary source for the information that can lead you to salvation. It is your faith that brings you to salvation. And we can have a long discussion on salvation by faith alone if you want, but that's beside the point. I don't see the need to misrepresent the doctrine of it's so obviously wrong to you.
@@ryanbutela I tried to post this already, but apparently youtube ate my comment as it sometimes does, so I'll repost what I had here and hope it goes through this time. The New Testament scriptures are, actually, very clear as to which are first and second hand accounts from the apostles and people they personally trusted to document their teachings. In fact that was the metric by which the early church determined what should be added to the Bible and what should not. What came from the most valid sources and what is consistent with those valid sources. If I have someone who contradicts what Matthew, Mark, John or Paul said about Jesus, I'm not going to listen to them because they are not the closest possible people to the original events. That's not an authoritative statement, it's good historical analysis. The problem I have with the idea that ecumenical councils have a higher or equal authority than the Bible is you are effectively trying to say that the scholar can correct the source material. Which is absurd. That doesn't mean that ecumenical councils are necessarily invalid, you can make observations that have some authority, but never more than the first and second hand accounts you're drawing those conclusions from. In essence, any further interpretation of the doctrine of the church needs to be vetted by how it relates to Scripture. If I compile first hand accounts from the World Wars or going further back the Hundred Years War that does not then give my testimony about the conflict more weight than those first hand accounts or the evidence supporting them. My observations are subject to the source material. So yes, Sola Scriptura is accurate. The Bible is the only infallible and thus most authoritative source for guidance in the church. And it does contain all the necessary information for your salvation. If it didn't the gospels wouldn't serve much purpose. Everything we do in the church, every interpretation, every sermon, every tradition needs to be referenced back to scripture and vetted for consistency. Ecumenical councils can do this, or they can not. But whether they do so or not still does not make their findings equal to Scripture in authority. They are interpreting the Word, not changing the meaning. Further, their interpretation can be just as wrong as the layman's if they are not being intellectually honest about their research and doctrine. Which is why it needs to be vetted against the primary source. The only thing I will concede is that Sola Scriptura is misinterpreted in a lot of Protestant and Restorationist churches as "I don't need to do good scholarship, I can just read the Bible without context and I'll learn all I need to know." Which is also absurd if the goal is to understand what's being relayed to you by the text, and not a representation of consistent Protestant doctrine. If you want to get a full understanding of what the Bible is saying, then you need to understand the context behind it. So do your research. Also, to the OP on the video, "most Christians throughout history have been ill prepared" is honestly a little funny. You're willingly ignoring and misinterpreting the tenets of the Reformation. You've completely forgotten Sola Fide. You aren't saved through the scriptures alone, they are the primary source for the information that can lead you to salvation, and that can indeed be relayed to you without necessarily corrupting it. It is your faith that brings you to salvation. And we can have a long discussion on salvation by faith alone if you want, but that's beside the point. I don't see the need to misrepresent the doctrine if you understand it well enough to say that it's objectively wrong. I'm not trying to judge any of you, by the way, and I don't want this to spill into a hostile argument. But this is a misunderstanding of Protestant doctrine, and I think if we are going to truly get to know God and how the church should conduct its business then we need to acknowledge the authority of Scripture as the word of God on such matters. If we don't, and we hold the traditions of men above that primary source, then we are in a lot of danger. I would also point out that, before you bring up the "thousands" of Protestant denominations (more like 8 or 9 consistent traditions), that the Orthodox church is not without its internal divisions, and some of those extend to pretty foundational issues of theology. Let's also not forget the various schisms the Orthodox church has been involved in. Not just with the Catholics, but the Oriental Orthodox. Again, there is a lot of division among Protestant traditions, and not all of it should be viewed as valid or sound doctrine, but that does not discount Sola Scriptura as a principle that the church should follow, nor does it mean that not following it leads to any kind of more complete unity than what we see in any particular Protestant denomination.
Technically no. St. Constantine allowed for Arianism to be defeated by holding a council. The Canon of Scripture wasn't established until the 6th Ecumenical Council .
When you became Orthodox, did it take you many years to get to the point you are at now? I'm wondering with what you share and your heart for this... how long from when you first became Orthodox until you started these videos. You have excellent presentation/communication skills and i feel are an important service for the good of the church. If i come to want Orthodox baptism, will it be a long time before i'm accepted? I'm sorry for all the questions.. haha.. i'm so interested in this and grateful that when you share, you don't make it complicated or confusing.
I studied Orthodoxy (via books, podcasts, TH-cam videos, etc.) for a few years before attending a parish regularly. I was received into the Church about two years ago. So in total, I began my journey maybe 4-5 years ago. I decided to make these videos primarily for my Protestant family and friends back home to explain to them my reasoning behind becoming Orthodox. However, being that I have experience with video editing/graphic design, I used that to my advantage when creating this content. It seems God has blessed the effort and it’s reached far more people than I was honestly anticipating! As far as how long it takes to be baptized/chrismated, that depends on the parish. I could be six months, it could be three years. Your local priest will determine that. Most parishes have a formal catechesis period where you learn about the faith and attend services. This process can’t be rushed because Orthodoxy is a comprehensive paradigm shift. Even though there may be similarities to other branches of Christianity, it is very different from Western Christianity. Hope this helps!
As a Protestant trying to learn more about Orthodoxy, what specifically are the “traditions” spoken about in the passage you quoted (2 Thess 2:15)? And how can I verify them to be accurate as the ones that were truly passed down? Several faiths outside of Protestantism claim that their traditions are the “real” ones passed down by the apostles. In other words, why should we believe that Orthodox traditions are the right ones? Not trying to be rude, but to be straightforward so I can learn. Thank you.
@@nemochuggles In general, valid “Tradition” is what has been accepted everywhere, by Christians throughout time. Orthodoxy takes a position of preserving the faith, whereas Catholicism arguably innovates quite frequently, and then post-hoc calls these innovations “Tradition.” There are also some things considered “tradition” in Orthodoxy, which are generally pious beliefs held by local communities that haven’t been accepted by all. Moreover, the Scriptures themselves are considered Tradition, as they are a written form of what was once orally taught. Hopefully this helps a little! Orthodoxy is a paradigm shift from Protestantism so the answers aren’t always simple.
These kind of people often don't hold much of an affective argument in a real-world debate with a well-educated atheist or agnostic. I thank the Orthodox Church for staying true to itself, as that is one of the things that has led me back into the hands of God and away from the delusions of the left hand path.
Yeah, as a cradle Orthodox, I've never understood the whole "I just read my bible and the Holy Spirit guides me" thing. One look at history shows that isnt necessarily effective
It's biblical though. Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that He has promised us--eternal life. These things I have written to you concerning those who [try to] deceive you. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. - 1Jo 2:24-27 NKJV
@wiard according to your interpretation of that passage it is. But not everyone agrees on that. By your logic, is there any way that multiple people can determine the correct way to interpret the Bible, or do they just have to each individually assume the Holy spirit is guiding them and nobody elss?
@@melonyrobinson9944 by your logic the passage can be misinterpreted in any way you want to, which basically means that any understanding possess the truth except the literal.
@wiard 1) that doesnt answer my question. 2) people can have different literal interpretations depending on the translation they use and their own philosophical and religious background and understanding, so yeah, you don't just read the Bible and get it. And for that matter, how do you even know which Canon of the Bible to use?
Yes it is. Which is older? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James and Christ, or the men at the Council of Nicaea? Or the Council of Ephesus? Or the modern clergy? Which one of those groups is closest to the original teachings of the church and who should we look to to inform our policy? Ecumenical councils, while they have some validity and authority, are and should always be subordinate to Scripture. Which isn't just a record of the early church, but the Word of God. The early church fathers, the Apostles and Christ all affirmed this and said repeatedly that the Church's doctrine was to be corrected by Scripture. Yes, the Church determined through good scholarship which books should and should not be included in the Bible, but that is not an act of authority over scripture. They used the metric that those books written by the Apostles or the people they trusted should be included and those that obviously were not should be discarded. They did this because they also valued the primary sources surrounding the ministry of Christ and the early Church. They did not put their words above scripture and also said repeatedly that Scripture was to be used for correction in the Church. It is Scripture that holds primacy.
@@acekoala457 They did both, actually. There's a reason all of the books in the New Testament are from the Apostles and their aids directly rather than their descendants. Otherwise we would have books written by Ignatius of Antioch, or Polycarp. We do not. Why? They were several degrees removed from the teachings of Christ and affirmed, as did the Church fathers that established the canon, that their writings and opinions held far less weight than that of the Apostles.
@leftwardglobe1643 Hello, I am 7 months late, But I felt it nessecary to add the that, pre Nicea and there where bibles that had texts from St Ignatius of Antioch, Clement, and the Didachade, and I believe The letter of Baranabas, (not the gospel of Barnabas.) This because there men were seen as apostolic leaders in the church as a whole and seen as people who taught what the apostlestaught, and not everyone had the whole NT at that time either. I hope that helps.
The Church established by Christ in 33 AD which was responsible for which writings were to be included in the list of the Sacred Books is the authority, not the Bible.
I’m not sure which council you’re referring to; the biblical canon wasn’t discussed in Rome. But there were councils where bishops met and acted in accordance with God’s will. I’m not sure where you get the idea of man having higher authority than God from, I never said or implied that.
@@untoages ''dont those who detern the Biblical canon have higher authority than the Bible?'' you said it in 0:59-1:04, so you admit you were wrong when you said it and now you would reword this?
@@Carneadesorg You’re presupposing your view onto mine rather than listening to what I actually said, so if that’s what you’re going to do, there’s no use in continuing to talk about this.
I don't think you quite understand what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches, and might be unintentionally misrepresenting it. The position is not that only the printed Bible is authoritative, but rather that God's Word is the sole highest authority of doctrine. Other authorities exist, but God never gave any other source the same level of authority as He did with His own Word. And while he certainly said more than what was recording in Scripture, we know that what was recorded in Scripture was definitively what He taught. Confidence we have never been commanded to have in anything else. For example, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 tells Christians to hold fast to that thing which was given to them by letter or spoken word. Which means that the same thing was taught by two methods of delivery. So we don't need to seek out some hidden doctrine communicated only in liturgy or some sort of Oral Torah, because it would be the same thing as we have in writing.
I appreciate your charity with this comment, but I believe there are some glaring issues with your epistemology as a Protestant. Who says the Bible is the highest authority? You don’t get that from the Bible. You get that from the Reformers. Ergo, the Bible isn’t the highest authority for Protestants - the Reformers are (at least for the more historic-minded Protestants). One other thing - there’s no indication that St. Paul is conflating word AND epistle in 2 Thessalonians. He says by word OR epistle, which refers to written and oral tradition, which are two different sources. Beyond this, the scripture itself is the product of tradition.
@@untoages The Bible claims to be God-breathed, if you have the Bible as your starting point, you don't need either the protestants or the Church Fathers to know that the Bible is, as Gregory of Nyssa would say " our umpire, and the vote of truth", or Irenaeus, "the ground and pillar of our faith". These things are truth even if faithful Christians hadn't affirmed or explained them. There is no reason someone needs to be a higher authority than God's written Word for them to say something true. As for Paul, yes, "Word OR Epistle", means 2 forms of communication, but only one set of teachings. One set of tradition, communicated 2 ways. So when someone later tries to add to the authoritative list of teachings, we can, like our Church Fathers wisely did, hold them against Scripture.
@@ChristianCombatives When an atheist makes are argument and says that something is immoral, a Christian can easily combat it by saying “You have no standard for believing in objective morality because you don’t believe in God, who is the objective source of morality. Therefore, your argument is invalid.” The same is true when it comes to theological epistemology. My point in bringing up where the doctrine comes from is to address the question of authority. Who has authority to determine what is to be believed? This is a presupposition that we have to answer before we even address the Bible itself. Certainly the Bible didn’t fall from the sky, nor is it self-interpreting after all - that was my point in bringing up the passage in Acts in the video. Protestants merely co-opt the inheritance of faith by using Scripture and Church Fathers, and yet they’re divorced from the Church that gave them those things (as you yourself do to prove your own case, right after you say they’re not necessary). Therefore, just like the atheist has no basis in believing in objective morality, the Protestant has no basis in appealing to the products of a Church that they reject. Last thing I’ll say is this - my objective here is not to win an argument, but to give a case for what I personally believe and why. You are free to take it or leave it. This is the third part in a ten-episode series on my conversion to Orthodoxy. As such, this one is contingent upon the others for the full case. Many of the points I discuss, both in this video and these comments, are elaborated upon in the next one releasing Monday evening. Perhaps we will have more agreement when I get to my assessment of Catholicism later on 😉 You seem like a respectable person and I’m not out to attack or debate you, so I will leave it here. Forgive me if I have offended. God bless you and thank you for hearing me out.
@@untoages My presupposition is that God's Word is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, that it is the Holy Spirit who grants us understanding, and the Bible which was written in such a way that it could be understood. By creating an infallible individual or group of individual, you haven't resolved the issue of needing someone infallible to interpret, you've just invented another layer that you logically would need an infallible interpreter for. So you run into two major problems. First, you have a group claiming to self authenticate, just like the Roman Catholics, "We are infallible because we infallibly decided we were infallible, and we are infallible, so we can trust our judgement about ourselves." Insert magisterium, council, modern prophets, liturgy, or councils. They no longer have to demonstrate that what they are saying is true, it's true BECAUSE they say it. And while this is true for God and His communication, such an ultimate authority is never granted to anything or anyone else. Just like the atheist who has no standard for morality, such a council or individual likewise decides for themselves what is true, and is accountable to no one because they are the highest authority, just like the atheist is the highest authority for his own morality. Second, you've created infinite regress. If you can answer "Who has the authority to determine what is to be believed?" you've just created the need to ask the question "Who has the authority to determine who can be the one who determines what is to be believed?" Then who picks the one who picks the ones who pick what can be believed, and so on. All of this is easily resolved by holding Scripture as the umpire of our Faith. Following in the tradition of the Church Fathers, we can explain what we believe, not by declarations of self-infallibility, but by explaining it through God's Word. I'm interested in truth, as I'm sure you are as well. I believe in the approach of asking "What do you believe? And why do you believe it?" and I think this is perhaps one of the more respectful ways to discuss perspectives, internet debates don't tend to be quite so useful so I avoid them. You haven't offended me, if you have firm convictions about anything, I would be offended if you DIDN'T defend them, as though theology is not a hill worth dying on. I'm in the middle of a military exercise right now, but when I get back home in a few weeks you'll likely have more videos out, so when I get the free time to go through them all, I think it might be a fun and insightful experience. I might make my own video commentary, not to debate, but because I think your experience might be something worth talking about, even if in disagreement (though I expect there will be more agreement than not.)
What you described is not Sola scriptura, but prima scriptura. That scripture is the highest authority above all other authorities. To my understanding, being new to orthodoxy, this is what the orthodox believe. They wouldn't believe in something contrary to the Scriptures.
The problem is r fellowship, sola scriptures or any of that mess. The problem is the disobedience with the refusal to love. Catholics disagree in a number of things including eschatology. I’m from a rural town. There was a Methodist church to which baptists, Methodists, Presbyterian and other all attended every Sunday…because it was the church of the community. Now, one is commanded to withdraw himself from those who walk disorderly and not after the traditions of the apostles (distinct from the traditions of later councils). Is the person who withdrew the cause of the schism or the person who disobeyed the scriptures and traditions of the apostles? It is most in fact the later. It is not the mere reading of the prophets, because Jesus is his in the Old Testament and is “shut up from faith” which is why the Ethiopian eunuch needed the interpretation of Isaiah. However the gospel account and epistles are different, they are the commentary on the will of God concerning the former writings (aka Old Testament). The gospels and epistles are the interpretation. Whether by spoken or by writing, the epistles is Paul’s and other apostle’s preaching. In the end, we must love one another, because it is fellowship with Jesus that unites us and is the chief thing by which we are known of Christ-not the belief in transubstantiation, sola scripture, Trinity vs oneness (as both attest to the full divinity of Jesus ), pre-millennialism vs amillennialism etc. We must agree to love one another first and put off the nicolaitan practice of controlling one another that dates back to even the times of the apostles spoken of by Jude.
@@melonyrobinson9944 Mormons believe “As man is, God once was. As God is, man can become.” They in fact, having many tenants stolen from freemasonry, believe in a totally different god altogether. They o not believe Jesus is the creator of all things on existence if you pin them down on that concept. They believe that there are many gods in existence and our god is the one god for this world here. To answer your question, they are not part of the fellowship of Christ. They cannot be. You can put a Presbyterian, a Catholic, a Coptic, a Pentecostal, and a Baptist in a room and they would all agree that Jesus is the creator of all things in existence, all worlds, and that he always was who he is, and that man will never be a god in the sense of master and creator.
Let’s re phrase that sentence. All that crap about the birth giver of god you mean?? Would you face Jesus and say this about his mother . I’d hope not…
Keep up the great work!
Thank you!
You needed a cannon of Faith before a cannon of the Bible. Or else, what will you use to determine what defines 'scripture'? Anyway, new sub. Good vid man. Stoked to watch more.
Thank you!
@vaporizejello Jesus and the disciples had a pretty good idea what was "Scripture" long before any other group showed up to define it.
@@ChristianCombativesyeah that’s easy to understand when the Septuagint was translated and compiled 250 years before Christ and used by Him and the apostles. The New Testament scripture were not as clear. Especially since the last of them was not written until all but one apostle died!
@@ryanbutelaThe New Testament scriptures are, actually, very clear as to which are first and second hand accounts from the apostles and their immediate students. In fact that was the metric by which the early church determined what should be added to the Bible. What came from the most valid sources and what is consistent with those valid sources. If I have someone who contradicts what Mark, John or Paul said about Jesus, I'm not going to listen to them because they are not the closest possible people to the original events. That's not an authoritative statement, it's good historical analysis.
The problem I have with the idea that ecumenical councils have a higher authority than the Bible is you are effectively trying to say that the scholar can correct the source material. Which is absurd. That doesn't mean that ecumenical councils are invalid, you can make observations that have some authority, but never more than the first and second hand accounts you're drawing those conclusions from.
If I compile first hand accounts from WWII that does not then give my testimony about the conflict more weight than the original source.
So yes, Sola Scriptura is accurate. The Bible is the only infallible and thus most authoritative source for guidance in the church. And it does contain all the necessary information for your salvation. If it didn't the gospels wouldn't serve much purpose.
The only thing I will concede is that this is misinterpreted in a lot of Protestant and Restorationist churches as "I don't need to do good scholarship, I can just read the Bible without context and I'll learn all I need to know." Which is also absurd. If you want to know what the Bible is saying, then you need to understand the context behind it. So do your research.
Also, on the video, "most Christians throughout history have been ill prepared" is honestly a little funny. You're willingly ignoring and misinterpreting the tenets of the Reformation. You've completely forgotten Sola Fide. You aren't saved through the scriptures alone, they are the primary source for the information that can lead you to salvation. It is your faith that brings you to salvation. And we can have a long discussion on salvation by faith alone if you want, but that's beside the point. I don't see the need to misrepresent the doctrine of it's so obviously wrong to you.
@@ryanbutela I tried to post this already, but apparently youtube ate my comment as it sometimes does, so I'll repost what I had here and hope it goes through this time.
The New Testament scriptures are, actually, very clear as to which are first and second hand accounts from the apostles and people they personally trusted to document their teachings. In fact that was the metric by which the early church determined what should be added to the Bible and what should not. What came from the most valid sources and what is consistent with those valid sources. If I have someone who contradicts what Matthew, Mark, John or Paul said about Jesus, I'm not going to listen to them because they are not the closest possible people to the original events. That's not an authoritative statement, it's good historical analysis.
The problem I have with the idea that ecumenical councils have a higher or equal authority than the Bible is you are effectively trying to say that the scholar can correct the source material. Which is absurd. That doesn't mean that ecumenical councils are necessarily invalid, you can make observations that have some authority, but never more than the first and second hand accounts you're drawing those conclusions from. In essence, any further interpretation of the doctrine of the church needs to be vetted by how it relates to Scripture.
If I compile first hand accounts from the World Wars or going further back the Hundred Years War that does not then give my testimony about the conflict more weight than those first hand accounts or the evidence supporting them. My observations are subject to the source material.
So yes, Sola Scriptura is accurate. The Bible is the only infallible and thus most authoritative source for guidance in the church. And it does contain all the necessary information for your salvation. If it didn't the gospels wouldn't serve much purpose. Everything we do in the church, every interpretation, every sermon, every tradition needs to be referenced back to scripture and vetted for consistency.
Ecumenical councils can do this, or they can not. But whether they do so or not still does not make their findings equal to Scripture in authority. They are interpreting the Word, not changing the meaning. Further, their interpretation can be just as wrong as the layman's if they are not being intellectually honest about their research and doctrine. Which is why it needs to be vetted against the primary source.
The only thing I will concede is that Sola Scriptura is misinterpreted in a lot of Protestant and Restorationist churches as "I don't need to do good scholarship, I can just read the Bible without context and I'll learn all I need to know." Which is also absurd if the goal is to understand what's being relayed to you by the text, and not a representation of consistent Protestant doctrine. If you want to get a full understanding of what the Bible is saying, then you need to understand the context behind it. So do your research.
Also, to the OP on the video, "most Christians throughout history have been ill prepared" is honestly a little funny. You're willingly ignoring and misinterpreting the tenets of the Reformation. You've completely forgotten Sola Fide. You aren't saved through the scriptures alone, they are the primary source for the information that can lead you to salvation, and that can indeed be relayed to you without necessarily corrupting it. It is your faith that brings you to salvation. And we can have a long discussion on salvation by faith alone if you want, but that's beside the point. I don't see the need to misrepresent the doctrine if you understand it well enough to say that it's objectively wrong.
I'm not trying to judge any of you, by the way, and I don't want this to spill into a hostile argument. But this is a misunderstanding of Protestant doctrine, and I think if we are going to truly get to know God and how the church should conduct its business then we need to acknowledge the authority of Scripture as the word of God on such matters. If we don't, and we hold the traditions of men above that primary source, then we are in a lot of danger.
I would also point out that, before you bring up the "thousands" of Protestant denominations (more like 8 or 9 consistent traditions), that the Orthodox church is not without its internal divisions, and some of those extend to pretty foundational issues of theology. Let's also not forget the various schisms the Orthodox church has been involved in. Not just with the Catholics, but the Oriental Orthodox. Again, there is a lot of division among Protestant traditions, and not all of it should be viewed as valid or sound doctrine, but that does not discount Sola Scriptura as a principle that the church should follow, nor does it mean that not following it leads to any kind of more complete unity than what we see in any particular Protestant denomination.
They view St Constantine as evil, wven though he called the church together to decide on rhe Bible. Contradictions rule protestantism.
Technically no. St. Constantine allowed for Arianism to be defeated by holding a council.
The Canon of Scripture wasn't established until the 6th Ecumenical Council
.
When you became Orthodox, did it take you many years to get to the point you are at now? I'm wondering with what you share and your heart for this... how long from when you first became Orthodox until you started these videos. You have excellent presentation/communication skills and i feel are an important service for the good of the church. If i come to want Orthodox baptism, will it be a long time before i'm accepted? I'm sorry for all the questions.. haha.. i'm so interested in this and grateful that when you share, you don't make it complicated or confusing.
Visit an Orthodox Church. And then let it organically unfold. A priest will help you.
I studied Orthodoxy (via books, podcasts, TH-cam videos, etc.) for a few years before attending a parish regularly. I was received into the Church about two years ago. So in total, I began my journey maybe 4-5 years ago.
I decided to make these videos primarily for my Protestant family and friends back home to explain to them my reasoning behind becoming Orthodox. However, being that I have experience with video editing/graphic design, I used that to my advantage when creating this content. It seems God has blessed the effort and it’s reached far more people than I was honestly anticipating!
As far as how long it takes to be baptized/chrismated, that depends on the parish. I could be six months, it could be three years. Your local priest will determine that. Most parishes have a formal catechesis period where you learn about the faith and attend services. This process can’t be rushed because Orthodoxy is a comprehensive paradigm shift. Even though there may be similarities to other branches of Christianity, it is very different from Western Christianity. Hope this helps!
As a Protestant trying to learn more about Orthodoxy, what specifically are the “traditions” spoken about in the passage you quoted (2 Thess 2:15)? And how can I verify them to be accurate as the ones that were truly passed down? Several faiths outside of Protestantism claim that their traditions are the “real” ones passed down by the apostles. In other words, why should we believe that Orthodox traditions are the right ones? Not trying to be rude, but to be straightforward so I can learn. Thank you.
@@nemochuggles In general, valid “Tradition” is what has been accepted everywhere, by Christians throughout time. Orthodoxy takes a position of preserving the faith, whereas Catholicism arguably innovates quite frequently, and then post-hoc calls these innovations “Tradition.” There are also some things considered “tradition” in Orthodoxy, which are generally pious beliefs held by local communities that haven’t been accepted by all. Moreover, the Scriptures themselves are considered Tradition, as they are a written form of what was once orally taught. Hopefully this helps a little! Orthodoxy is a paradigm shift from Protestantism so the answers aren’t always simple.
@@untoages thank you for the explanation. God bless
These kind of people often don't hold much of an affective argument in a real-world debate with a well-educated atheist or agnostic.
I thank the Orthodox Church for staying true to itself, as that is one of the things that has led me back into the hands of God and away from the delusions of the left hand path.
These are awesome. Do you have a podcast on Spotify?
Not yet! But I do have plans to expand this onto other platforms in the future, so stay tuned.
Great video, keep the good work my friend... the comments are really interesting, and an interesting way to learn more points of view 🙏🏻☦️
Thank you! I just now noticed how long the comment thread has gotten 👀 very interesting indeed
Thank you, I really needed this...
I love your videos !
Yeah, as a cradle Orthodox, I've never understood the whole "I just read my bible and the Holy Spirit guides me" thing. One look at history shows that isnt necessarily effective
@@melonyrobinson9944 exactly
It's biblical though.
Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that He has promised us--eternal life. These things I have written to you concerning those who [try to] deceive you. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. - 1Jo 2:24-27 NKJV
@wiard according to your interpretation of that passage it is. But not everyone agrees on that. By your logic, is there any way that multiple people can determine the correct way to interpret the Bible, or do they just have to each individually assume the Holy spirit is guiding them and nobody elss?
@@melonyrobinson9944 by your logic the passage can be misinterpreted in any way you want to, which basically means that any understanding possess the truth except the literal.
@wiard 1) that doesnt answer my question. 2) people can have different literal interpretations depending on the translation they use and their own philosophical and religious background and understanding, so yeah, you don't just read the Bible and get it. And for that matter, how do you even know which Canon of the Bible to use?
Cool presentation style alone! Sub earned.
@OrthodoxKyle this guy and his channel are amazing, can you give him a shoutout in your next video?
God bless you ❤🙏
Im curious, at what age did you move to the Orthodox tradition?
I was 24 when I was received into the Church, but I was investigating it for a few years prior
Excellent video! Personally, I prefer to say Revolutionists rather than Reformers because you can't reform something your no longer a part of.
I sometimes think of the “Protestant Deformation.”
1:13 Oof. That's a brutal call to reality right there.
Yes it is. Which is older? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James and Christ, or the men at the Council of Nicaea? Or the Council of Ephesus? Or the modern clergy? Which one of those groups is closest to the original teachings of the church and who should we look to to inform our policy?
Ecumenical councils, while they have some validity and authority, are and should always be subordinate to Scripture. Which isn't just a record of the early church, but the Word of God. The early church fathers, the Apostles and Christ all affirmed this and said repeatedly that the Church's doctrine was to be corrected by Scripture.
Yes, the Church determined through good scholarship which books should and should not be included in the Bible, but that is not an act of authority over scripture. They used the metric that those books written by the Apostles or the people they trusted should be included and those that obviously were not should be discarded. They did this because they also valued the primary sources surrounding the ministry of Christ and the early Church. They did not put their words above scripture and also said repeatedly that Scripture was to be used for correction in the Church.
It is Scripture that holds primacy.
@@leftwardglobe1643
The Church determined what books belong in Scripture via the Traditions they were given. Not via Scholarship.
@@acekoala457 They did both, actually. There's a reason all of the books in the New Testament are from the Apostles and their aids directly rather than their descendants. Otherwise we would have books written by Ignatius of Antioch, or Polycarp. We do not. Why? They were several degrees removed from the teachings of Christ and affirmed, as did the Church fathers that established the canon, that their writings and opinions held far less weight than that of the Apostles.
@leftwardglobe1643 Hello, I am 7 months late, But I felt it nessecary to add the that, pre Nicea and there where bibles that had texts from St Ignatius of Antioch, Clement, and the Didachade, and I believe The letter of Baranabas, (not the gospel of Barnabas.)
This because there men were seen as apostolic leaders in the church as a whole and seen as people who taught what the apostlestaught, and not everyone had the whole NT at that time either. I hope that helps.
The Church established by Christ in 33 AD which was responsible for which writings were to be included in the list of the Sacred Books is the authority, not the Bible.
* (Actually, before 29AD)
@@Cjnw After his Resurrection.
Sola scriptura ❤😊
Oh well, i guess even a broken clock is right twice a day. Really its too bad
0:59 so bishops at council of rome had greater authority than God?
I’m not sure which council you’re referring to; the biblical canon wasn’t discussed in Rome. But there were councils where bishops met and acted in accordance with God’s will. I’m not sure where you get the idea of man having higher authority than God from, I never said or implied that.
@@untoages ''dont those who detern the Biblical canon have higher authority than the Bible?'' you said it in 0:59-1:04, so you admit you were wrong when you said it and now you would reword this?
@@Carneadesorg The Bible isn’t God. The Bible is of God, but it is not itself God.
@@untoages so you think that men who recognized the canon had larger authority than what God said?
@@Carneadesorg You’re presupposing your view onto mine rather than listening to what I actually said, so if that’s what you’re going to do, there’s no use in continuing to talk about this.
I don't think you quite understand what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches, and might be unintentionally misrepresenting it.
The position is not that only the printed Bible is authoritative, but rather that God's Word is the sole highest authority of doctrine. Other authorities exist, but God never gave any other source the same level of authority as He did with His own Word. And while he certainly said more than what was recording in Scripture, we know that what was recorded in Scripture was definitively what He taught. Confidence we have never been commanded to have in anything else.
For example, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 tells Christians to hold fast to that thing which was given to them by letter or spoken word. Which means that the same thing was taught by two methods of delivery. So we don't need to seek out some hidden doctrine communicated only in liturgy or some sort of Oral Torah, because it would be the same thing as we have in writing.
I appreciate your charity with this comment, but I believe there are some glaring issues with your epistemology as a Protestant. Who says the Bible is the highest authority? You don’t get that from the Bible. You get that from the Reformers. Ergo, the Bible isn’t the highest authority for Protestants - the Reformers are (at least for the more historic-minded Protestants).
One other thing - there’s no indication that St. Paul is conflating word AND epistle in 2 Thessalonians. He says by word OR epistle, which refers to written and oral tradition, which are two different sources. Beyond this, the scripture itself is the product of tradition.
@@untoages The Bible claims to be God-breathed, if you have the Bible as your starting point, you don't need either the protestants or the Church Fathers to know that the Bible is, as Gregory of Nyssa would say " our umpire, and the vote of truth", or Irenaeus, "the ground and pillar of our faith".
These things are truth even if faithful Christians hadn't affirmed or explained them. There is no reason someone needs to be a higher authority than God's written Word for them to say something true.
As for Paul, yes, "Word OR Epistle", means 2 forms of communication, but only one set of teachings. One set of tradition, communicated 2 ways. So when someone later tries to add to the authoritative list of teachings, we can, like our Church Fathers wisely did, hold them against Scripture.
@@ChristianCombatives When an atheist makes are argument and says that something is immoral, a Christian can easily combat it by saying “You have no standard for believing in objective morality because you don’t believe in God, who is the objective source of morality. Therefore, your argument is invalid.” The same is true when it comes to theological epistemology. My point in bringing up where the doctrine comes from is to address the question of authority. Who has authority to determine what is to be believed? This is a presupposition that we have to answer before we even address the Bible itself. Certainly the Bible didn’t fall from the sky, nor is it self-interpreting after all - that was my point in bringing up the passage in Acts in the video. Protestants merely co-opt the inheritance of faith by using Scripture and Church Fathers, and yet they’re divorced from the Church that gave them those things (as you yourself do to prove your own case, right after you say they’re not necessary). Therefore, just like the atheist has no basis in believing in objective morality, the Protestant has no basis in appealing to the products of a Church that they reject.
Last thing I’ll say is this - my objective here is not to win an argument, but to give a case for what I personally believe and why. You are free to take it or leave it. This is the third part in a ten-episode series on my conversion to Orthodoxy. As such, this one is contingent upon the others for the full case. Many of the points I discuss, both in this video and these comments, are elaborated upon in the next one releasing Monday evening. Perhaps we will have more agreement when I get to my assessment of Catholicism later on 😉
You seem like a respectable person and I’m not out to attack or debate you, so I will leave it here. Forgive me if I have offended. God bless you and thank you for hearing me out.
@@untoages My presupposition is that God's Word is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, that it is the Holy Spirit who grants us understanding, and the Bible which was written in such a way that it could be understood. By creating an infallible individual or group of individual, you haven't resolved the issue of needing someone infallible to interpret, you've just invented another layer that you logically would need an infallible interpreter for.
So you run into two major problems.
First, you have a group claiming to self authenticate, just like the Roman Catholics, "We are infallible because we infallibly decided we were infallible, and we are infallible, so we can trust our judgement about ourselves." Insert magisterium, council, modern prophets, liturgy, or councils. They no longer have to demonstrate that what they are saying is true, it's true BECAUSE they say it. And while this is true for God and His communication, such an ultimate authority is never granted to anything or anyone else.
Just like the atheist who has no standard for morality, such a council or individual likewise decides for themselves what is true, and is accountable to no one because they are the highest authority, just like the atheist is the highest authority for his own morality.
Second, you've created infinite regress. If you can answer "Who has the authority to determine what is to be believed?" you've just created the need to ask the question "Who has the authority to determine who can be the one who determines what is to be believed?" Then who picks the one who picks the ones who pick what can be believed, and so on.
All of this is easily resolved by holding Scripture as the umpire of our Faith. Following in the tradition of the Church Fathers, we can explain what we believe, not by declarations of self-infallibility, but by explaining it through God's Word.
I'm interested in truth, as I'm sure you are as well. I believe in the approach of asking "What do you believe? And why do you believe it?" and I think this is perhaps one of the more respectful ways to discuss perspectives, internet debates don't tend to be quite so useful so I avoid them. You haven't offended me, if you have firm convictions about anything, I would be offended if you DIDN'T defend them, as though theology is not a hill worth dying on.
I'm in the middle of a military exercise right now, but when I get back home in a few weeks you'll likely have more videos out, so when I get the free time to go through them all, I think it might be a fun and insightful experience. I might make my own video commentary, not to debate, but because I think your experience might be something worth talking about, even if in disagreement (though I expect there will be more agreement than not.)
What you described is not Sola scriptura, but prima scriptura. That scripture is the highest authority above all other authorities. To my understanding, being new to orthodoxy, this is what the orthodox believe. They wouldn't believe in something contrary to the Scriptures.
The problem is r fellowship, sola scriptures or any of that mess. The problem is the disobedience with the refusal to love. Catholics disagree in a number of things including eschatology.
I’m from a rural town. There was a Methodist church to which baptists, Methodists, Presbyterian and other all attended every Sunday…because it was the church of the community.
Now, one is commanded to withdraw himself from those who walk disorderly and not after the traditions of the apostles (distinct from the traditions of later councils). Is the person who withdrew the cause of the schism or the person who disobeyed the scriptures and traditions of the apostles? It is most in fact the later.
It is not the mere reading of the prophets, because Jesus is his in the Old Testament and is “shut up from faith” which is why the Ethiopian eunuch needed the interpretation of Isaiah. However the gospel account and epistles are different, they are the commentary on the will of God concerning the former writings (aka Old Testament). The gospels and epistles are the interpretation. Whether by spoken or by writing, the epistles is Paul’s and other apostle’s preaching.
In the end, we must love one another, because it is fellowship with Jesus that unites us and is the chief thing by which we are known of Christ-not the belief in transubstantiation, sola scripture, Trinity vs oneness (as both attest to the full divinity of Jesus ), pre-millennialism vs amillennialism etc. We must agree to love one another first and put off the nicolaitan practice of controlling one another that dates back to even the times of the apostles spoken of by Jude.
Does this fellowship extend to Mormons?
@@melonyrobinson9944 Mormons believe “As man is, God once was. As God is, man can become.”
They in fact, having many tenants stolen from freemasonry, believe in a totally different god altogether. They o not believe Jesus is the creator of all things on existence if you pin them down on that concept. They believe that there are many gods in existence and our god is the one god for this world here.
To answer your question, they are not part of the fellowship of Christ. They cannot be. You can put a Presbyterian, a Catholic, a Coptic, a Pentecostal, and a Baptist in a room and they would all agree that Jesus is the creator of all things in existence, all worlds, and that he always was who he is, and that man will never be a god in the sense of master and creator.
This sounds like a chicken or the egg problem.
The church pre-exists the bible so it's really not.
I follow The Orthodox Creed of 1678.
Go read it as well!
of course, you reject Sola Scriptura; you have to in order to believe all that crap about Mary and your works- based dogmas
I don’t believe that. See my video on why faith is not enough for clarification.
Protestant disdain for the Mother of God is insane 🤦
@@calebbrunson7120That is what reformation heresy eventually leads to. Protestantism is a atheist factory.
Can you explain to me what you mean by "all that crap about Mary" ?
Let’s re phrase that sentence. All that crap about the birth giver of god you mean?? Would you face Jesus and say this about his mother . I’d hope not…