Independent Baptist vs Eastern Orthodox Church - What's the difference?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 เม.ย. 2019
- The Eastern Orthodox Church is not prominent in the United States, so many are unfamiliar with them. This video discusses their differences with Independent Baptists.
Thank you for your commitment to fairness and objectiveness in your videos.
As a graduate of a Baptist seminary almost 50 years ago and having been Orthodox for twenty five years, I appreciate your work so much.
This is such a rare thing in our culture.
Since you are so careful and painstaking, I think that I owe you several clarifications and one insight into a real difference that is easily misunderstood.
Clarifications:
1. Orthodox Christians also believe in the priesthood of all believers but view the position of priest as that of presbyter, an elder who presides over the flock.
2. An Orthodox priest is not a mediator. Only Jesus is, but, like all believers, priests are intercessors.
3. The appellation 'Fr.' before a name means Father rather than Friar, a term not used in the Eastern churches.
4. As far as I know, pouring may be used in medically necessary situations (e.g. hospital bed) but it is not an optional choice in other situations.
5. I have never heard or seen a newly chrismated person called "a christ" except in the quote you read.
6. The central doors in the iconastasis are used by priests as well as bishops.
Insight:
The fact the "ethical works" are a necessary part of salvation is best understood if it is known that those works are NOT meritorious, that is they do not earn salvation.
Rather, the transformation of our person is how God saves us.
Thank for your comment. I have heard each of these corrections before, and agree - this video was one of my first before I had any subscribers and back when I wasn't quite as thorough in my research (My channel was not about denominations back then)
I expect I will probably redo this video some day but it is a lot of work! I will pin this comment since it is a good succinct description of the corrections this video could use.
Point number 2 is inaccurate. Why? Saint basil explained it .
Yes our Lord is. However the priest represents our Lord. Orthodoxy and Catholicism agree in this . Ask any Orthodox and Catholic priest they will fully agree with my statement. In the liturgy the priest represents our Lord and he goes through that sacrifice.
Fr. Is an abbreviation for “Father”, not “Friar”. Friar is a term used only in the Roman Catholic order of the Franciscans. Never used in Orthodoxy.
interestingly there are some (though few) orders of eastern catholic friars. i believe some are bi-ritual. as in they also engage in the roman rite. The byzantine discalced carmelite friars in bulgaria are an example of this, though i do not believe that are particularly bi-ritual.
Fryers are what we buy at the store when frying chicken. Or barbecuing.
the title for friars is br. or brother !
I made that mistake before
@@bbseal6174 Yes Friar is "Brother" (frater,) Father is obviously another concept!
Extremely well done! My wife and I used to be a Baptists. 17 years ago we both converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, so I am very well versed in the practices and beliefs of both churches. The presenter in this video was spot on with both! And what I really appreciated was how impartial he was! He didn't try to "sell" either one over the, but rather just shared the facts of the practices and beliefs of both churches. Very impressive!!
Christ is risen! :)
@@steveAllen0112 Truly (or indeed) He is Risen!
Yikes! How could you?
@@Reid-yy5nw How could I what? Convert to Orthodoxy? Because after much study of scripture, history, and the writings of the early church, I found it to be theologically and historically sound, and the only continuation of that Church that was born at Pentecost, that Christ died for, and was spread throughout the known world by the Apostles.
@I've Got A Name Not bragging. Just answering a question. And so far the Orthodox Church is the only church that hasn't gone that direction, since it is the One True Church. And we don't use wafers, so 3 out of your 3 statements were incorrect.
As an Orthodox Christian, I compliment your video. You obviously went to great lengths to accurately represent Orthodoxy.
Im Orthodox Christian, very good presentation.
I second that
Raised IFB, now Eastern Orthodox these last 11 years, I have to give you kudos for the depth and accuracy (generally) of the information presented here. I only noticed a couple of points of departure worth mentioning.
1) It's not "friar", but "father". "Friar" is a Roman Catholic monk.
2) On the issue of the Theotokos ("God-bearer") vs. Christotokos ("Christ-bearer"), you have unfortunately misunderstood Nestorius' position entirely.
In fact, you have thoroughly misunderstood the whole controversy. You say, "This view would be that Mary gave birth to Christ in His human nature, but that His divine nature was entirely of God." This Orthodox hold this entirely. The controversy was not over the origin of the natures, nor of their union in Him, but rather the nature (pun intended) of the union.
Nestorius taught that the two natures were basically two different subjects -- two people, if you will -- and that the Word (with its divine nature) dwelt in the man Jesus (with his human nature) as in a temple, but that they were not one and the same Person. Therefore, he taught, Mary did not bear the Word Himself in her womb, but only the man Jesus (a different subject from the Word). Ergo, "Christ-bearer". He just couldn't bring himself to call the "holy thing" she bore in her womb, "God". (Thomas, after the Resurrection, had no qualms about this, crying out, "My Lord and my God!"
The title "Theotokos", in response, is very explicitly defined in the anathemas of Cyril, which were approved by the Third Council, and also in the dogmatic proclamation of the Fourth Council, which further clarified the point. (See below for that.)
- "If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the holy virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh (as it is written, “The Word was made flesh”) let him be anathema.
- "If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God the Father is united hypostatically to flesh, and that with that flesh of his own, he is one only Christ both God and man at the same time: let him be anathema.
- "If anyone shall after the union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connection alone which happens according to worthiness or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together, which is made by natural union: let him be anathema."
So you can see that the title "Theotokos" explicitly concerns the union of the two natures in the one Person, and specifically excludes any idea that the nature of God was generated from/by Mary.
The title is not a statement that Mary is the Mother of the divine nature. It is a statement about who Christ is: namely, that He is God the Word in the flesh dwelling among us, having united our nature to Himself. He is ONE person, existing in TWO natures. The human nature was generated at the conception, from Mary, but the Person that grew there was the Word Himself, God, having been timelessly begotten of the Father before all ages, and therefore having been eternally with Him. There is no time when the Son was not. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God." (John 1:1) "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." (John 1:14)
Nestorius taught a "two-subject Christology", wherein he interpreted "nature" more in line with "person", and taught that the Word was different from Jesus, with the two being united in some way, but not being the the very same Son existing in two natures. And so, he said, Mary did not bear God the Word, but only the man Jesus, who was anointed by God (ergo, "the Christ").
On the contrary, the Orthodox Faith holds (along with the IFB doctrine I learned) that the man Jesus IS the very Word of God in the flesh, not merely united to the Word as to another, but the very Word Himself. "In whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily."
To quote the hymn of Justinian, which said (Orthodox) Emperor wrote in response to these things,
"Only-begotten Son and Immortal Word of God;
Who for our salvation didst will to be incarnate of the holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary;
Who without change didst become man, and wast crucified;
Who art one of the Holy Trinity, glorified together with the Father and the Holy Spirit:
O Christ our God, trampling down death by death, save us!"
Your characterization of Nestorius' belief, however, would imply that you believe that the title Theotokos was defined as meaning that Mary generated the nature of God. This is flat out incorrect. If the Orthodox held that view, we would not be Orthodox at all! Rather, we would be in grave heresy, since to hold that would imply that Mary herself is divine by nature (i.e. a goddess). Such is madness.
In case it's still not clear, here is the exact definitions and anathemas given by the Fourth Council, which further confirmed the distinction between the natures and also their union in the Person (i.e. the "hypostatic union"):
"Following the holy fathers, we teach with one voice that the Son and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same, that He is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, true God and true man consisting of a reasonable soul and body, consubstantial with the Father as touching His Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching His manhood; having become like us in all things save sin only; begotten of His Father before the ages according to His Godhead; but in these last days, for us men and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to His manhood.
"This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son must be confessed to be in two natures, without confusion, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably, and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets of old have spoken concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the fathers has delivered unto us."
Note: As I was becoming Orthodox, having been taught the hypostatic union in Doctrines 101 at GSBC -- albeit without reference to the term "Theotokos" at all -- I had no problem accepting the term "Theotokos", because, having studied the controversy and read the dogmatic definitions for myself, I understood that it's not a statement about who Mary is in _her_ nature, but rather about who Jesus is in His Person. It is in fact a reaffirmation of that very doctrine of the hypostatic union that I had learned already at GSBC, and which I'm 99% sure you teach in your own classes as well: namely, that Jesus Himself IS 100% God and 100% man. That Jesus IS the Word, not just a good man cooperating with the Word.
I hope this helps clarify that for you. Since you seem to be one who studies things carefully and desires to present things as they are in truth, might I also hope that with this newly clarified understanding (that the term Theotokos _as defined by the Councils_ is not in fact at odds with IFB doctrine on the topic but rather supports it), you will be sure to teach your students this going forward?
Forgive my forwardness, but if you are such an one as I have hoped, then before God and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I also go beyond and ask that if you have found this correction helpful, and have changed your view either in the meanwhile or because of it, that you might also issue a correction/update video on this particular point, so that all may benefit. And may it (and you) be blessed! :)
3) You say that only Bishops are permitted to use the center doors of the iconostasis, but this is not quite correct. The Priests also use it during the Liturgy, and the Deacon comes out through it when he is to read the Gospel as well.
Excellent presentation! Mary is Theotokos, whose womb is more spacious than the heavens.
fun fact: the Nestorian churches aren’t even Nestorian anymore and they’re practically Orthodox in everything they do
@@blade7506 Except, you know, actually BE Orthodox.
@@steveAllen0112 they are, look into them, they even came to a Christological agreement with the RCC not too long ago- they see it as two natures, one person without separation, division, mingling, and generally follows the Chalcedon formula (they agreed with the Council)
@@blade7506 You can't 'be Orthodox' outside of the communion of Orthodox Churches, though. Because schism is a theological problem too. If they are theologically united with us, and will make a statement as such and seek re-communion, then great. But they can't just stay in schism even if they corrected their theology. Christ's body cannot be divided.
I was born into a Mormon family and since then I have been converting to Orthodoxy, and this was very informative with the more obscure traditions and details.
I’m glad I’m Orthodox. June 21.2020!
I left the Protestant sect after 47 years of searching for Christ.
Glory be to God!
Christ is in our midst.
☦️☦️☦️
I, too, am an Orthodox, a former evangelist. But I want to say that great frustration awaits you ahead. Because orthodoxy has lost what it is proud of. Has long been lost. I just want to warn you that your joy is temporary.
@@tradertrader8838 well it’s sounds like you should be in prayer. If you lost your joy it may not be your churches fault it may be your spiritual walk and life that you live.
@@tradertrader8838 what has it lost? Im considering converting and I find the history, fruit bearing lifestyle, and dogma convincing and attractive
Converting from Calvinist Protestantism by the way
@@Orthodoxology I am happy for you. It’s the absolute best decision I’ve made. It’s just a beautiful thing. God bless you on your journey to Orthodoxy.
I’m sooooooo glad I converted to Orthodoxy! There was a lot to unpack at first but when you surrender to the true church everything makes sense. I just love being a Christian and I’m actually proud of my faith. Great video. Did a great job explaining theosis. God bless!
I suggest actually reading a Bible and find out what it really says about your mystical pagan practices and traditions of men that you are now following. Do it soon though because if you die right now your going to burn up in the pits of hell because you are trusting that Christ alone paid for your salvation.
@@johnf817 lol I’m embarrassed for you, orthodoxy is 2000 years old founded by Christ and the apostles. Your church dogmas were literally invented by a man named Luther whose church is named Lutherans literally after a man who invented a schismatic church based on his personal understanding of scripture.
@@johnf817 im embarrassed you are using the same arguments as Muslims do. You think of the 300 million members and 2000 years no one thought "oh the bible!". Who do you think out the bible together? Who do you think has all the books of it as well? How about making a christian argument instead of a muslim one
@Duck Meat Islam is a cult, started by a power hungry pervert over 500 years after the time of Christ. It's no different than mormonism. A prophet makes up his own religion and rules, and get people to follow. I am not a Protestant and I do not follow the false religion of Lutheranism. I just wonder where in the Bible does it describe The followers of Jesus performing rituals and traditions performed by the Catholic church today? Where did they do these things? If they did it in the Bible then I would be Orthodox. These rituals and traditions did not appear anywhere besides Rome, centuries after the time of Christ. These strange practices of kissing images and icons, praying/preaching in an unknown language, calling another man father, bowing before them, praying to saints/the dead, burning incense, repetitive chanting, fancy robes, beads/trinkets/superstitious objects are all specifically condemned in the Bible, and Jesus absolutely didn't teach these things. Also, the Bible commands us to study it ourselves, and in fact condemns allowing someone else to teach us the things of God without checking ourselves. Honestly the things you and the catholic church do are Blasphemous mockings of the word of God, there's no other way to "interpret" these things, they are very clear in scripture. Very sad
No offense but a lot of people think that they are part of the particular “church” that was founded by the messiah and apostles. If you are born again then you are part of the body of messiah.
About music in the Orthodox tradition: instruments are discouraged, because they take attention away from the hymns, the worship and the liturgy and not because the Orthodox think that there’s wrong in worshipping using instruments. The music in the liturgy is strictly a capella, using only the voices of the choir and there are two choirs in the church, at the left and right side of the iconostasis. Everyone can be a member of the choir, no matter the gender or age. Some of the Orthodox liturgical music are masterpieces of music. Especially beloved are pieces and hymns written by Romanos and of Kassia. The hymns during the procession of the tomb of Christ are particularly beautiful.
“Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp! Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe! Praise him with sounding cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals!”
Psalm 150:3-5 ESV
Personally I prefer that the instruments(preferably piano or organ) do not overwhelm the voices, but cannot deny this
There are not 2 notes of gorgeous Orthodox music on Earth! PURE AGONY with the exception of Rachmaninov. Thank you Lord for the incomparable western church music of JOHANN SEBASTIAN BACH, Handel, Mozart, and 100's more to name a few. Come JOIN US!
Listen to the monks of Vatopedi chant the Holy Saturday or Great Pascha hymns right here on TH-cam and tell me it's ugly. You must have never been exposed to good orthodox chant because it's sublime
@@Reid-yy5nw My guess is that you haven't heard much Orthodox music. You've probably only heard mostly Byzantine music and maybe some Georgian music. Both of those are very foreign sounding to the Western ear, and frequently mistaken as being ugly to those who aren't used to the sound. However, MUCH of the Russian music lends itself quite well to our more western ears (besides Rachmaninoff). Many great composers such as Gretchaninoff, Bortniansky, Archangelski, Tchaikovsky, and many more have written incredible works for the Church.
Don't get me wrong. I LOVE Bach, Handel and Mozart! I have sung many of their great works, and am grateful for their music. But to think that Rachmaninoff was the only one to have written beautiful music for the Orthodox Church just shows you haven't listened to very much of it.
@@artdanks4846 The first Orthodox parish I belonged to was Carpatho-Russian. The music reminded me of the great Russian composers. I now belong to a Greek parish. I didn't really have any idea what Greek music sounded like when I first went there. I thought it sounded very Middle Eastern--rather like what I would have expected to hear in an Arab country--not that I'm complaining.
I am a recent convert from various Protestant traditions to Orthodoxy. I have converted in repentance and out of obedience. My conversion has been violent at times, but I press forward. Thank you for your content.
have you read the letter to the Hebrews???
Theotokos vs Christotokos is tricky because while the fear surrounding "Mother of God" as a bear term may be understandable, it is indeed heretical to insist that Mary did not in fact give birth to God, but rather to "Christ" as though he is something other than Immanuel, God with us.
Nestorianism seeks to "divide" the two natures in Christ to the point that we really can't speak of a single _person_ ...As though Mary gave birth to the human Jesus of Nazareth, who is to be differentiated from the Second Hypostasis of the Trinity, effectively rendering there two Christs rather than two natures of one Christ -- God and man.
I think the tendency toward Nestorianism in much of Protestantism (Calvin and his legacy) is out of a genuine albeit misguided fear of idolatry and a concern above all to preserve distinct and clear the "Creator-creature" relationship... yet this while good, if taken too far undoes the whole point of the incarnation and insists on our remaining in the Old Covenant schema. Catholic-Orthodox Christianity celebrates the breaking down of the Creator-creature distinction in the incarnation of Christ, recognizing it as a paradigm shift in the way everything interrelates.
I once read a book by a Presbyterian minister, and I remember a reference in it to a scholarly journal article. The article bore the title, "Nestorius Was Orthodox." (Ha!) At least some Presbyterians believe in theonomy, that is to say, the the Law of Moses is still in force for Christians. The New Testament says we are no longer under the law. What law is that? The Law of Moses! Rather, we are under the Law of Christ--that is to say, all the commandments given in the New Testament.
There are definite knee jerk words… ‘Theotokos’ (Mother of God), ‘Mystical’ (Mystical Supper for the Eucharist…), ‘Mystery’ (things our rational mind can’t know), ‘Theosis’ (wow this scares people because they don’t remember 2 Cor. 3:18 the verses about ‘being transformed into the image of Christ’ or what the goal of ‘sanctification’ is!)
Calling Mary the "Mother of God" is a logical inference, given the doctrine of the Trinity. The low-church Protestant problem with that are the natural consequences of that: not just veneration, veneration that slides into full-blown Mary-worship.
I don't know enough about "eastern" Orthodoxy, but in the West, veneration of the Mother of God (mothers are super-special; how could the *Mother of the Creator of the Universe* _not_ be super-awesome special?!?!) quickly spread into *worship-in-all-but-name.*
@@RonJohn63 Why would you worship Mary from the title of Theotokos? Orthodoxy does not have this problem. Mary birthed Christ, person of the Godhead. She did not birth the divine nature. Therefore she is not a goddess.
There's only an issue here because the West adopted the false doctrine of absolute divine simplicity, and that heresy has its roots in a mistranslation between greek and latin. Go back to the original greek NT and early church father writings and you will see a clear distinction between God's essence and God's energies.
@@CHURCHISAWESUM re-read my comment. *The whole comment.* And then read it again, thoroughly and slowly.
Couple or three errors (Friar, Nestorians, Royal Doors), but you clearly did a *LOT* of research and presented it well. Impressive work. Definitely keeping an eye on this channel! 👍
Obviously, there are a ton of little things wrong with the assessment of Orthodoxy, but this was a decent 10,000 ft presentation. Its tough to summarize and compare a 2,000 year old church to something that is very recent.
In Orthodox ordination of clergy of any rank, acceptance of the full local church is required. The laity is an active participant and objections from the laity can even cancel the ceremony on the spot.
Very true! Thank you for making this very important point!
The cry is a triple "Axios!" The candidate doesn't want to hear an "Anaxios!"
I think the reason the Reformation never made it east of Poland is because it never occurred to the Greek evangelists to withhold the word of God. The Bible was always translated into the local language. Also, priests who served the laity were married, and the Eucharist was presented in both kinds, the bread and the wine. Also each national church was independent, so the Patriarch of Constantinople would never have presumed to instruct the Tsar how to govern his country. Thus the central points of contention of the Reformation, to have the Bible and service in the local language, a married clergy, communion in 2 kinds, and independence of the national churches, these points never arose. Nor was there any nonsense of sending vast sums of money to Constantinople. Whatever the Patriarch was like personally, he could never aspire to the greed of the Renaissance papacy.
Huh, this comment has really opened my eyes and left me with a lot to consider.
As a lifelong Protestant, I see your analysis makes a lot of sense. I would say the EO have a greater claim the be closer to the true “original” church vs the RC. Way to many errors on the RC side. As a side note, I prefer the RC prior to Vatican 2, when they viewed me as a heretic, being called “separated brethren” is pathetic.
@@ronvoyagew912 lmao true. I perfer to call prots heretics 2
@@ronvoyagew912 Yeah I have more respect for the EO.
There are 2 inaccuracies in your comment:
1. the bible was written in Greek or church Slavonic. Service was also held in those languages. If you spoke greek you understood, if not tough as nobody but priests spoke church slavonic. National translations of the bible came very late and they're exclusively based on the original 4th century greek version.
2 There were corrupt patriarchs but that was not such a huge issue because patriarchs do not hold temporal power at all. They are not the leaders of the church. The Orthodox Church is led by the great and holy synod, which is comprised of every single bishop in the church while the national churches are led by the national holy synods. The patriarch is an administrator and he is elected by the synod from among the bishops.
I am a Baptist and visited an orthodox church on Sunday. I was surprised that the priest never opened the bible. Never gave a gospel message. Just told a few stories. Along with that calling men fathers, icons all over the place( graven images). This is a big problem that goes against the Bible.
As an Orthodox Christian it seems you may not have been paying attention. Part of St. John Chrysostom’s Divine Liturgy that the Church follows is a reading from one of the Epistles and then a reading from the Gospel followed, usually, by a short homily.
Also, almost all hymns and songs are taken directly from the Psalter (Psalms) and all prayers are from scripture.
I can recommend some reading for you that gives more detail of the Divine Liturgy.
Definitely not paying attention. The bible is read right before Holy Communion. Between the bible reading to Holy Communion is half an hour or so of prayers.
"Too often modern Christians forget that the Church is not just an institution, but the Kingdom of God that is here but is still to come. The Church is described as the Bride of Christ. We are betrothed to Christ. The second coming is the wedding day and the final consummation. Therefore, we live this present life in two dimensions: as saved and yet hoping for salvation; as betrothed to Christ and yet in anticipation and anxiety for the consummation of the marriage; as joyful and yet penitent; as having everything and yet possessing nothing; as living in this world and yet “having here no continuing city”; as in the world yet not of the world; as being members of Christ’s Church, receiving the new life of baptism and eternal life in the Eucharist; and yet as striving to be made worthy of the Kingdom to come. This double character of Christian life is absolutely essential to the Church’s spirituality and role within society. "
- Fr. Vassilios Papavassiliou
I have never read in Scripture that the church is the bride of Christ. What verse is that?
@@au7-721 its all throughout, takes 2 seconds to look up. Theres multiple verses
I learn so much from your videos. Thank you for your very considerable efforts for us.
I grew up in an independent fundamental Baptist church.
I am ordained as a pastor by a non denominational Church but I have served as a minister in a Free Methodist church, a youth pastor in an evangelical Presbyterian church, and an associate pastor in a southern baptist church.
I’m now a nondenominational Christian.
And I have served as an associate pastor in a non denominational church. My wife grew up as an eastern rite Catholic.
Despite the differences and splits,
I have nothing but love for all brothers and sisters who call upon Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
basically, you do n't believe in anything
hi there.hola hooray hey. here we go the truth coming up,actually turah&bible were from god but they had been corrupted afterwards as a result god sent down quran upon prophet muhammed&god said i`ll preserved the quran thereby god had fulfilled his promise ,let me show u friendly&honestly the truth,okee dokee.shedding the light over christianity to know the truth first of all there is no original bible the 4 main bible are contradicted to each other yet there is 1 quran but who is the writer of bible the answer is paul the jewish who hates jesus let us discuss about the significant event which is crucifixion why does your would claimed god left his only son to crucify without any sin he had committed the disaster reached its uttermost when u found bible said on the tongue of jesus my god my god why do u forsaken me means jesus has never crucified willingly have u an idea why do they `ve crucified jesus because it`s a penalty of an impure &particularly crucifixion because dindn`t touched the earth make it an impured that what paul said jesus gets impure for the sake of us &see the authentic god what does said in quran chapter 3 verse 55 by the name of god the most gracious&most merciful ,
O Jesus, I will take you and raise you up to me, and had purified you from those who disbelieve, and He will place those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection, then to Me is your return, so I will judge between you regarding that in which you differed,the authentic god rose jesus to the sky before they kill him in addition he had purified him from a false accusation of he was an impure . quran verse is comply with the bible itself :So they lifted up stones to stone him. But Jesus did and went out of the temple, passing through them." ( John 8:59 ),let alone of many verses in the bible incites to violence thus u found the largest massacres had happened in history the ww1&2 christian countries against christian countries 100 millions had been killed not to mention the sex stories in the bible nay u never found a single sex word in quran,don`t take it in personal just i clarify u the plain truth,bible said woman when she during the menstruation she gets impure &any thing she would touched it will be impure &should stay at her room till had done of it don`t see that an insulting to woman &how does the claimed god in bible said so he demeans& underrates his own creatures, yet islam honored the woman &she has a complete chapter its name women show us her rights,let us look at modern medicine which refutes the bible, ovulalation happens every 28 days from overy next month from other ovary when fertilization fails to happen mestrual bleading happens it always stops when a female gets pregnant ,menstrual cycle ovulation the female genital system consists of one uterus to overuse vagine& externat genital organs ,,the blood during menstruation could cause diseases to spread and that’s why does a woman during her menstruation needed to isolate so the blood would not be passed around to other people & diseases not be spread that`s what god has said in quran and they ask you about menstruation say, isolate women don't come near them untill they get purified verse 222 chapter 2,why there are priests,pastors&nuns are reverted daily to islam,yet u `ve never a muslim clergy left islam as per western media said that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world,i didn`t like to push islam onto u god said no compulsion in religion verse 256 chapter 2,figure it out then make up your mind,peace....
Former independent baptist now Orthodox. There's quite a few of us and always room for more
Another great video. Very informative. They are very helpful as I review church history and Pre Nicene writings. You’re videos are a piece to the puzzle. Hope you continue this. Your teaching videos are good and solid.
Amazing. I'm not myself a Christian but this is profoundly informative. Your video scripting is fantastic. Maybe the best I've seen on the platform.
I look forward to exploring your other works.
Thanks Chuck!
Very well researched and informative. I loved the presentation. You taught me a lot about a topic I knew very little about. Thank you.
Thanks Randy!
I went to an evangelical church with a friend. There was bright purple lights, a coffee shop & a bookstore!
It felt like a combination of a school dance and a starbucks
I’m Evangelical too, but not all churches are like that, but it does sometimes look s/feels weird for me when I see it when visiting a different church.
And you think is a false denomination because of that? This makes me furious, because my protestant church of Christ does none of this things. How easy is to lead people astray, incredible.
@@JesusProtects not on its own merit, but it does make such a denomination modern and subject to modern sensibilities instead of relying on rituals and liturgical elements which are obstinate to change regardless of a society's particular whims. You certainly cannot claim such a church is the same church of Jesus' disciples. No protestant denomination can ever claim such a thing
@@colebernstein9954 and yet a few protestant denominations DO claim apostolic succession. It always involves a Catholic bishop who "changed sides", and then ordained the next generation. And so on. Examples are the Anglicans at at least some Lutherans (e.g. Finnish Lutherans). (I'm Russian Orthodox, btw, so don't take out your anger on me!)
@@JesusProtects It should not make you furious. For me, the bright purple lights, bad pop music, bookstore and coffee shop made me feel that there was little in the way of reverance. For me, not a reflection of the Kingdom.
On the flipside, when I took my Father in law to his first Orthodox service, he nearly flipped his lid - he was convinced that we were worshipping graven images!
"Fr." stands for "Father," not "Friar."
Very good presentation and fairly accurate of the Orthodox side of things. I don’t expect 100% accuracy in a TH-cam video but you did very well!
Well done as always. When talking about salvation, one thing that tends to be true amongst individual Baptist churches is that the smaller they are, the more often they believe they are the only ones that are saved for sure.
Thank you!Very well explained !
A balanced video clip on the EO, but I agree completely with @Paul Blattner on the points that he mentioned. Though, I'm from the Anglican tradion here in South India, to be more precise from the Church of South India, yet I had the opportunity to be part of the evangelical traditions. For the past few years after much research and study Im beginning to agree more with the theology of the Eastern Orthodox which is rich and has such deep spiritual material going all the way back to the Apostles. It's theology is backed by the scriptures,extra-biblical sacred history etc.
Very good video with an almost perfect description of a general view of Orthodoxy. In your description of the church layout, however, you claim that the center doors (Holy Doors) can only be entered through by a bishop, this is untrue and as priests may enter given that they are doing so for liturgical purposes
Could you a comparison of Eastern Orthodoxy vs Pentecostals broadly, thanks
Traditionally, in the Greek Orthodox tradition,as you look at the iconostasis, the left side is the side for women and the right side is the side of men. It’s not strict, anyone can sit or stand anywhere and certainly the children are free to be anywhere. At churches that have a balcony, that balcony is reserved for women only but nowadays literally no one is bothered to go there. In the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia , in the balcony was the place reserved for the Empress and her custody. The central door in the iconostasis is called “beautiful gate, Ωραία Πύλη» and not only bishops but clergy in general is allowed to go in and out in the holy place behind the iconostasis at the altar but ONLY during the liturgical service. Laity is generally discouraged to enter behind the iconostasis and when entering, only from the side doors. When a lay person needs to be in the area were the altar is, he can go only around the altar from behind, never between the altar and the beautiful doors. Women are forbidden to go behind the iconostasis all together with the exception of women serving as deaconesses. Women at clergy positions are forbidden, but there is a discussion of reviving the position of deaconesses for women, as that position existed at the firsts millennium of the church. At serious circumstances, laity can perform baptism without water, by lifting 3 times the infant in the air, calling the Trinity 3 times “ in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the the child of God is baptized..” and that baptism is legitimate. It can only be performed though if there is a fear that the life of the child is in danger. Everyone in the church can participate in the church life, no matter the age, gender or any other attributes. Children, even infants are considered full members of the church after their baptism and that includes communion.
There was an office of "deaconess" in the early Church, and it largely existed to assist the priest during the Baptism of adult females, because Baptisms were always done in the nude. Modern efforts to revive the female diaconate are more motivated by feminism and political correctness, as a gateway for a female priesthood, like the Episcopalians, rather than preserving the modesty of both the Baptismal candidate and the priest. Also, before the mass immigration (and the huge number of converts from Byzantine Catholicism) in the 19th century, Orthodox churches were generally "pewless", and worship was much less confined (and "fluid"), more "physical", with deep bows, or prostrations, with the congregation following the priest during processions and the incensing of the Nave, etc. Being "stationary", in one spot", despite of being pewless, is a Russian "Old Believer" practice.
I’ve been behind the Iconostasis with the Priest (Bishops permission given). All our women have. Just like men we don’t touch the Altar.
At Woman’s Monasteries Nun’s serve behind the altar assisting the Priest like Deacons.
The practice of separating women on the left and men on the right in the church is inherited from the synagogue. This separation is often illustrated in the iconography, with the most prominent icons on the left-hand wall being of the Theotokos, and the most prominent on the right being of Christ. In the church where I was baptized, the practice of separating the men from the women began to break down in the early 1970's, from what I've been told. Now people stand together in family groups, like the Protestants do. That church where I was baptized also has a balcony, but it isn't used to segregate the women. Rather, that is where the choir stands. In the choir, not only are the men still separated from the women, but the basses are separated from the tenors, and the altos are separated from the sopranos. After I moved to another parish, I returned once to my old church. I was horrified to see that they now have "altar girls" as well as altar boys. There is another rule inherited from Judaism that says that a priest with an open wound cannot enter the Tabernacle or Temple. This rule applies to the altar area of the church, that is to say, the area behind the iconostasis. Nobody is allowed to go back there if they have an open wound. Should somebody serving in the altar cut himself during the liturgy, he must leave the altar and go stand in the nave. If the priest cuts himself, he must stop the liturgy. This is the reason women cannot enter the altar. They have a wound that never heals. It might not bleed all of the time, but it never heals.
@@bigscarysteve to call the vagina and uterus a wound is... interesting (but not in a good way).
@@RonJohn63 I'm not the one who came up with this description. I'm just parroting the Church's teaching.
Very educational video! As a Christian who's been Baptist for most of my Christian life, not specifically Baptist these days, I'd like to kind of expand on a couple points. Regarding the faith and works point, a lot of us interpret scripture that salvation is by faith, yes, but by true faith we're compelled to service or works in another word. So while we don't believe that salvation is attained by works, we still value works as part of the sanctification process by serving Christ and service to community. Regarding the eternal security point, that's more along the lines of Calvinist Christianity which very many of us reject. They believe in once saved always saved due to not having free will to accept Christ as our Lord and Savior. They believe that God, prior to creation, has already predetermined what individual people have received salvation and what people have already been chosen to go to Hell, prior to them even being created. Which, by that logic, negates the point and purpose of Christ completely, as well as God's desire for us to have a relationship with him, and truly love Him. I'm not saying any of this to disagree or debate, I'm just kind of breaking some of it down a little further, if that makes sense, haha. Thank you so much for your videos! I definitely learn a lot, as I'm very interested in Eastern Orthodoxy!
Great information!
Great video. Something caught my attention. I have had some intriguing “academic discussions” with some Baptist brothers that have tried to argue that their lineage comes from This “Paulician” Group and their school in Syria. However, if we are talking about the early church history this group was a heretical group. They were an Arian, Marcian, and Gnostic group. They embraced Arianism and denied the deity of Christ, and accepted many Gnostic teachings. Moreover, they accept some Pauline Literature, but not all, and did not accept all 66 books of scripture. I have tried to understand my Baptist siblings on this one, but this group was a clear heretical Arian group. In both my intro to church history classes as an undergrad and now as a graduate student, both history books have them as an Arian Group. The first individual I ever heard talk about this group in a positive way was a preacher by the name Phil Stringer. However, not sure, where he got his information, teaching they were an orthodox group, as they were not. Arianism has been a heretical movement since its inception. Even today we reject any group that denies Jesus as been deity. Additionally, this group affirmed and were proponents of “Adoptionism” Theology. That says that Jesus was “adopted” by God as his son when we was baptized. This historically has been a heresy.
One thing that intrigues me is one of their views of Soteriology. Early Eastern Church Fathers have heavily influenced Wesleyan thought on a particular view of Soteriology, which it is not “transactional” as many of our Baptist/Reformed/Calvinist siblings see it, but it is medicinal. Sin is seen as a pollution or sickness that tainted God’s image in us. In Salvation and Holiness that image is restored in us, we are healed. We become more human, what humanity is meant to be, fully baring God’s image and loving him and our neighbor. However, because Wesleyans are Evangelical for the most part, we accept this not as part of salvation experience, but the holiness experience. Holiness is part of “full salvation” as seen in Wesleyan Theology. A concept influenced by Eastern Theology within Wesleyanism.
There are 79 books of scripture (give or take depending on how things are organized/compiled, if you're using the full Septuagint canon which is older than the Masoretic that we have)
I enjoyed this.
Great! Such a learned man! The middle doors, called the Royal Doors or Holy Doors are entered by priests and deacons as well as bishops. Also, 40 day old boy babies are taken through these doors and around the altar before being given back to the godparents. This because they may one day be ordained, perhaps. Also, musical instruments were used in the holy temple, and now we have no temple. Also, the Orthodox have very elaborate dietary laws and four major seasons of fasting. They are more or less vegetarian for something like half the year. Much religious observance and ritual takes place in the home, in fact.
By way of slight correction, my fellow Orthodox. It is not that we have no temple, but that the temple is our body (individually and collectively). Therefore we use the instruments in the temple we have: namely, our voice, which is the "psaltery" -- that is, that by which we sing psalms -- "and harp". Like a harp, the vocal cords (strings) are plucked not by the hand but by the spirit [literally, the "breath"]. And together we form "an instrument of ten strings" at the chant stand: five people would have exactly ten such strings among them! (Not that we are limited to five. But it's a pretty average amount, I'd say, of chanters.)
The "stringed instruments" of our voices ought to mirror as well the strings of our hearts, plucked by the Spirit. As St. Paul says, "singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord".
Of course in the voice is also understood the "organ", since it likewise functions by blowing air through the pipes of our throats. As Job in lamentation said, "My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ to the voice of them that weep." And of the king of Tyre, before his fall, it is written, "
"The sound of the trumpet" is the sound of the proclamation of the Holy Gospel. Viz., "lift up thy voice like a trumpet" (Isaiah 58:1). The pitch given by the protopsaltis also functions as the sound of the trumpet, setting the standard for song. The trumpet can also be heard in the ringing of the bells, which is a trumpet, although sounded by a hammer and not wind, and lets the people outside (and in, in case they aren't paying attention) know when various events are occurring.
Of course, the bells are also the "loud cymbals" and the little bells on the censer are "the high sounding cymbals".
As for the "timbrel and dance", this is nothing less than the very Liturgy itself, which is a dance before the Ark of the Lord, performed with all our might, with comings in and goings out, while the word of God resounds on the eardrum (the "tympanny", which is the Greek word in Psalm 150 LXX translated "timbrel").
So it is not that we do not have a temple, nor instruments, but that the temple is our body and bodies, our instruments being found therein, and being played spiritually, in a manner befitting our God who took flesh for our salvation, and gave us the earnest of the Spirit.
Christ is risen!
Not in the bible, useless man centered worship.
if in doubt, it's probably a "fast", unless it is a weekend, which probably isn't. Exceptions apply. Read the small print. etc. etc. ;-)
Today was my second visit to an Orthodox Church. There were 2 churching’s. I recognized it for what it was, cuz that’s what it reminded me of!!
I look forward to being a part of Christs church for the rest of my life!
You should do a video on the order of salvation (ordu solutis) and then compare how different denomination view it. I think it would be interesting because it might make people think about what they believe. When I read the scriptures I undeniably see that regeneration or being born again happens before faith and enables faith, this of course is the reformed view, but I don't think that many people understand the extent of how much this separates us from the rest of Christianity... We do not initiate our own salvation... I think it's an interesting concept and various churches will have different steps and orders of steps you could do a very good video on this I'm sure
Faith is Prima Gratia, primal grace. To say regeneration precedes faith is to toss out the OT.
Fantastic video
I cannot understand how independent Baptists can reject the title of “God bearer” for Mary while at the same time claiming to uphold the traditional Christian belief in the trinity, as expressed in the various creeds of the Church. To restate Jesus’ question to Peter - who do you say I am.
@J DV Is Jesus true God and true man - of one substance with the Father, one “person” not two? If this is the case, Mary who was the mother of Jesus and was truly the “God bearer” or Theotokos in Greek. To deny this is to deny this important Christian understanding of the true nature of Christ. Peter’s declaration was just one step in the realisation of the true nature of who Jesus is and begs the question as to what does “Son of God” mean when Peter used this in reference to Jesus. (In one sense we are all “sons and daughters of God” - but Jesus is not only “son of God” in this sense, but much more).
Do not expect rationale. Ask many, they can not tell you how the Bible came to be. Ask how the new Testament came to be. Or the criteria that determined which books would be included. Then when you get confusing input, recall the verse, God is not the author of salvation.
Yet do not forget not to offend, where if they're sincere and genuinely kind and such, it's best to leave alone, as some are very sincere, then believe how they have been taught. Which if they're good, that means a lot.
@@Noone-rt6pw I think we have a duty to disillusion, in a nice way. People aren't getting the whole story here..
Because over time, the EO and RCC adopted gnostic influences of Mary. Perpetual Virginity, Assumption into Heaven, etc. These things are not Biblical and therefore turn Mary into some sort of goddess... resembling Babylonian Mother Child goddesses, and the "Queen of Heaven" as mentioned in the Bible (a pagan goddess).
They now use the word "God bearer" to further make her into a deity, blaspheming God.
Eastern Orthodoxy is not the apostolic church of Christ. They are christianized pagans/gnostics.
@@eiontactics9056 What you say is a commonly held belief among protestants. The church fathers were in agreement that Mary was forever virgin. The reference to Jesus' brothers is confusing, but the church fathers being of that era understood that Jews referred to everyone of their equal generation as brothers and sisters as a formal title rather than using their name, which is considered being disrespectful. Many cultures still do this today.
There is no doubt that God chose Mary to carry the living God within her, joined with her as her child. The offspring of Mary and God. Mary is, in fact, the Mother of God. Jesus wasn't a test-tube baby that Mary carried, Jesus was ONE with her as every unborn baby is. She is the human that made Jesus fully human. Think about that. To treat her like some random girl off the street is terrible. Nobody worships Mary, contrary to protestant misunderstanding. Conversely, not to hold her in reverence is wrong.
What are the Eschatological differences, or did I miss this in the video?
I am not a Christian, but I find your videos to be fascinating and informative. However I have a question - why, of all Christian denominations, do you pick out Eastern Orthodoxy and Independent Baptists for comparison? I'm sure there's a good reason, but I cannot discern it or figure it out. Why these two, please??
Philippians 2:12-13. 12 Therefore, you beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do His good pleasure.
As a Coptic Orthodox, what it means to me is my free will in combination with God’s will that we have worked and keep working on my salvation together.
Quick question. Where does the Antioch church fit into the list of Orthodox churches?
It's strange that so many people in these comments can watch these videos and yet learn nothing from them.
LOL
Lord I just want to know you and be held when I am weak
I cannot do anything without you
For you are the vine
And I am the branch
Apart from you I can do nothing
Great video
How does one go about learning about Eastern Orthodoxy? Like not book knowledge and facts, but how to go to a service and not break rules. I want to go, but I do not know what to do when I get there. Can you stand in the back and not cause trouble or accidentally be strange by not doing something you should do?
Ask a priest.
Not Orthodox, but I know enoughto say that if you stand in the back and do nothing, it would be perfectly fine. If you want, you can ask the priest beforehand
Here's a few short videos you might like: th-cam.com/video/uZDSfN_WzO0/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/YimgCkBbH7c/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/CKWS1-cHenc/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/XDUMf7oFt2s/w-d-xo.html
I have been Orthodox for ten years. Look online for your nearest Orthodox Church, find out when the services take place. Then go!
No one will look at you like a stranger. PM me if I can help you in any way.
I'd love to see a video comparing Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, if you haven't done one already
That was a very god presentation. There are some things I have heard a little bit differently from the Orthodox, but I thought you gave a generally fair presentation.
I think there are many things wrong in orthodoxy
He did a mostly accurate job describing us, though we do believe in ancestral sin.
hi there.hola hooray hey. here we go the truth coming up,actually turah&bible were from god but they had been corrupted afterwards as a result god sent down quran upon prophet muhammed&god said i`ll preserved the quran thereby god had fulfilled his promise ,let me show u friendly&honestly the truth,okee dokee.shedding the light over christianity to know the truth first of all there is no original bible the 4 main bible are contradicted to each other yet there is 1 quran but who is the writer of bible the answer is paul the jewish who hates jesus let us discuss about the significant event which is crucifixion why does your would claimed god left his only son to crucify without any sin he had committed the disaster reached its uttermost when u found bible said on the tongue of jesus my god my god why do u forsaken me means jesus has never crucified willingly have u an idea why do they `ve crucified jesus because it`s a penalty of an impure &particularly crucifixion because dindn`t touched the earth make it an impured that what paul said jesus gets impure for the sake of us &see the authentic god what does said in quran chapter 3 verse 55 by the name of god the most gracious&most merciful ,
O Jesus, I will take you and raise you up to me, and had purified you from those who disbelieve, and He will place those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection, then to Me is your return, so I will judge between you regarding that in which you differed,the authentic god rose jesus to the sky before they kill him in addition he had purified him from a false accusation of he was an impure . quran verse is comply with the bible itself :So they lifted up stones to stone him. But Jesus did and went out of the temple, passing through them." ( John 8:59 ),let alone of many verses in the bible incites to violence thus u found the largest massacres had happened in history the ww1&2 christian countries against christian countries 100 millions had been killed not to mention the sex stories in the bible nay u never found a single sex word in quran,don`t take it in personal just i clarify u the plain truth,bible said woman when she during the menstruation she gets impure &any thing she would touched it will be impure &should stay at her room till had done of it don`t see that an insulting to woman &how does the claimed god in bible said so he demeans& underrates his own creatures, yet islam honored the woman &she has a complete chapter its name women show us her rights,let us look at modern medicine which refutes the bible, ovulalation happens every 28 days from overy next month from other ovary when fertilization fails to happen mestrual bleading happens it always stops when a female gets pregnant ,menstrual cycle ovulation the female genital system consists of one uterus to overuse vagine& externat genital organs ,,the blood during menstruation could cause diseases to spread and that’s why does a woman during her menstruation needed to isolate so the blood would not be passed around to other people & diseases not be spread that`s what god has said in quran and they ask you about menstruation say, isolate women don't come near them untill they get purified verse 222 chapter 2,why there are priests,pastors&nuns are reverted daily to islam,yet u `ve never a muslim clergy left islam as per western media said that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world,i didn`t like to push islam onto u god said no compulsion in religion verse 256 chapter 2,figure it out then make up your mind,peace....
I have been raised as a Roman Catholic and in your other videos on Orthodoxy you mentioned they "pray to Saints and Angels". As a Catholic I have been taught this is not the case for us. That Saints or Angels in prayers are not prayed to like a God but that Angels are his messengers and fulfill his work and Saints are holy people and serve as examples to us all. Only God in his three persons may be prayed to as I understood it. Does this differ for the Orthodox Church?
We EO don't pray to the saints like a god. We simply ask them to pray to God for us.
Oriental Orthodox here, good presentation
I am a subscribed fan of your informative channel, however to say Independent Baptists doesn't practice asceticism I take issue with, the practice of abstinence from alcoholic drinks by definition is a form of asceticism.
Actually asceticism is derided in protestantism and understood to be "works salvation". Teetotaling and the rest come under pietism.
I don't think he's right about all religions. I'm a fundamental independent Baptist, I do like to listen to him anyways
@@Orthoindian It just depends on what sort of Protestant. It's true there's no monasticism, but a lot of missionaries get sent out. A lot of them go to dangerous and backwards places, and live difficult and minimalist lifestyles. When I was a kid my mom read me this story about a missionary who went to the Amazon jungle to convert some uncontacted stone age tribes. I don't remember what the guy's name was, but he lived in that jungle without electricity or air conditioning, and ate what the natives ate. At some points he was tortured by them, and quite a few times he got sick. There was one incident where he fell asleep out in the open, and dreamed that he had swallowed a butterfly and could feel it in his mouth. Then he woke up, and actually a large worm was coming up OUT of his throat. It was some sort of parasite that had grown to an enormous size and was leaving through his mouth.
Really good job overall. Good summary except the church fathers would say scripture is inerant. Peoples intrepretation can be in error but not the scripture. Again orthodoxy does teach scripture is inerant.. Also orthodoxy believes saints and Mary are alive in Christ and we are asking them to pray for us.
I could be misunderstanding you, but I think perhaps you are confusing the meaning of the word "inerrant". Inerrant means "without error". So, that being the case, Orthodoxy and Baptists alike say the Scripture is "inerrant" (I.e. without error).
@@artdanks4846 Yes Art you are correct I meant to say the church fathers would say scripture is inerant. I corrected my statement.
@@artdanks4846 thanks for correction.
I am Eastern Orthodox and I used to be IFB. There are a lot of differences. I am thankful for how I was raised even though I understand Christianity differently now. I recognize some negative IFB issues that affected my life but I also don’t throw shade.
"Iconography is very important in Eastern Orthodoxy". LOL. If anything, that is understating it. We are knee-deep in ikons. I had a quick count up, and I think we have 11 at home (for just three of us), and that sort of ratio is not at all uncommon amongst Russian Orthodox folks I know. Ikons cover the "big things", but also stuff you might not realise - I have seen, in churches, "modern"-theme ikons that recognise the sacrifice of the folks that helped to clean up the mess after the Chernobyl disaster, for example, as well as from the somewhat controversial canonization of Tsar Nicholas II, his wife and family.
The Orthodox gotta have their ikons ;)
@@silentservant_ But what is the difference between an image and an idol? Do you have any photos in your house? What about old photo albums that have dead people in them? etc. etc.
You really need to look up the iconoclastic conflicts, and how the Orthodox Church settled on its position before making a glib comment.
Just to give you something to think about, what about the cross I wear hanging from my neck? Is it an idol? A talisman, maybe? Or is it something else?
What about the public statues in your town/city? Mine has 3 prominent ones, all near each other in the central part of town. One is a famous Jewish politician who used to live locally, one is a large nearby landholder killed in a war more than 350 years ago, and the third is a general from the First World War. So, two were "Christian" (in a wide sense of that word), and the third was not. There is also a war memorial. So what are these 4 things? Idols? "Heritage", or something else?
So is it about the objects (ikons, crosses, statues etc) themselves? Or is it about something else?
@@silentservant_ Why is glorifying God and his servants though artwork inviting God’s jealousy and being worship of alien gods? That’s just stupid.
It is not entirely true that Catholics view the Orthodox as illegitimate. Catholics view Orthodox sacraments as fully and completely valid valid, which also means that if an Orthodox deacon, priest, or bishop becomes Catholic, he is immediately given the appropriate ecclesiastical rank. A brother deacon who I know is a convert from Orthodoxy. He was not ordained again, simply asked to take a few classes before the local Catholic bishop assigned him to a parish.
Furthermore, Catholic discipline does not strictly forbid an Orthodox person to receive Communion in a Catholic Church, though Orthodox discipline normally forbids that, as well as forbidding a Catholic to receive Communion in an Orthodox Church.
Valid but illicit.
@@bigscarysteve my Orthodox wedding is valid but illicit in Catholic eyes. The wedding is fine, but they just don't think the presiding priest is legitimate.
A capella translated into english means: in the way done in churches.
Specifically, it's *Italian* for "in the style of the chapel", which amuses me when reading that on an Orthodox web site.
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽well done. Great video
Any bishop, priest or deacon may use the “central” door.
True, but they can only go through the doorway of the royal doors (or the beautiful gate, as it is also called) at prescribed points during the liturgy. Even the clergy aren't allowed to just go through it willy-nilly.
@@bigscarysteve and at set times during the Liturgy. The “central” door in Russian Orthodoxy are called the “Tsar’s Gates”. We’re taught from early childhood to walk semi-sideways or walk backwards so the back is never to the Alter & Gates (like in court with a throne).
Huge cringe when we see people with their backs to the gates other then the clergy serving Liturgy.
We also don’t stand directly in front of it & cross ourselves if we need to walk from one side to the other across that central line say to put up candles to icons.
But then, we also stand for hours during Liturgy unless pregnant, seriously unwell, or elderly. Children can sit on the steps leading up to the alter at the sides in RO.
@@mgkos
As a fairly new catechumen in the Church, I did not know this information. I appreciate the correction!
You made a big mistake at around 20:50We don’t re-sacrifice Christ again at the Eucharist, rather we are offered with the already sacrificed flesh and blood of Jesus Christ
Tako je brate :) Ej ima te svugde :D
@@predragjo5977 haha. Tako brate
Yeah, this vid wad very well done
So the Eastern Orthodox Church is similar to the Anglican Church except the former call their head as Patriarch while the latter call their leader as Archbishop and they don't recognize the papacy higher in authority over their churches am I right?Thanks for this video, this helpful in understanding the experience of a famous evangelical leader who was reported to have joined an Orthodox Church.As a former Roman Catholic I appreciate this video very much specially similarities in both the Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church.
Roughly speaking yes. At one time Orthodox Christians were even allowed to go to Anglican churches and take their sacraments if there was no Orthodox Church nearby. I am not sure if that is still the case though.
yes and no. Its complicated. The EOC is not one monolithic church like the Anglicans. We are a group of churches that are historically and doctrinally tied. Each "set" of churches can have a Patriarch. One Patriarch cannot tell another set what to do, and does not appoint their clergy. Each Patriarchate can (and does) develop slightly different practices, while agreeing on the "big stuff".
Sometimes they have "conflicts of influence" - this is why, for example, The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Patriarchate of Moscow are currently not in communion with each other, yet they are both in communion with various other parts of the EOC. Back in the 6th Century, it was much more geographical (and Mediterranean), but what of new areas of the world, and the converts in them? They were assigned to Constantinople. But even them, Rome didn't recognise the validity of Constantinople in the first place. And then, what about after Constantinople was overrun (first by the "Romans" and later by the Moslems), and wasn't in a position to do much at all? So you get local bishoprics of churches carrying on as best they can, keeping the faith, and these become "national" churches. And new Patriarchs. Moscow had a claim at one time to be the "third Rome". But what about when it was suppressed under the Bolsheviks? Again, local organisations carried on as best they can. Keep the faith until the Patriarchate is restored (ROCOR, for example). ROCOR and ROC(Moscow) came to an agreement a while back. If a Russian missionary goes to America, which Patriarch is in charge of the converts. If Russian immigrants go to America, which Patriarch is in charge of the immigrants? Moscow, because they are "Russian" converts/immigrants, or Constantinople, because they are in "new" lands? (This isn't theory by the way, this is actual history)
It is also why the OCA are recognised by the Moscow Patriarchate, but not by the Constantinople Patriarchate.
Indeed, just in America, there are 3 mainstream "Russian" Orthodox sets of churches, the OCA, ROCOR, and ROC (Moscow). All have roots in the ROC (Moscow), and all are recognised (as autonomous or semi-autonomous) by ROC (Moscow). None are breakaways/schisms either. But not all are recognised by Constantinople, which still claims all EOC churches in "new" lands, except when they say so. So you could say it is partly about whether autonomy can be granted by autonomous Patriarchs, and once autonomy is granted, can it be un-granted.
Example: The biggest two EOC church "sets" are the Greek and the Russian. When the Greek Patriarch dies, the Greeks choose their new Patriarch. When the Russian Patriarch dies, the Russians choose their new Patriarch. By comparison, in the Anglican church the Archbishop of Canterbury is chosen by their combined church, yet must also be approved by the British Monarch.
I am not aware of the EOC political infighting happening in the Anglican church (although they do have lively debates about gay priests and stuff like that, with some American Anglicans thinking it is fine, many African Anglicans thinking it is terrible, and the Archbishop of Canterbury just trying to get the Anglican church to agree on anything).
Doctrinally, the BIG difference between the EOC and the Anglicans is the "Filioque Clause", which the Orthodox Church holds to be an error, yet which the Anglican Church holds as Article 5 of their basic statement of belief (the 39 Articles).
@@donkeysaurusrex7881 depends what sort of Orthodox you are. Apparently (according to the internet) the Greek Orthodox near me actually hold their own services at the main Anglican church in the town. Presumably at different times of the day. But I am Russian Orthodox, and we don't have that agreement. Indeed, we are currently not even in Communion with Constantinople, never mind any non-Orthodox. Because of the autocephalous nature of the EOC, different Patriarchates can make their own deals that are not binding on the other Patriarchates. (thus in the USA, the OCA are in communion with the ROC (Moscow), but not Constantinople, so OCA folks presumably would have a problem in Greek Orthodox churches. However, "valid" vs "licit" comes into play here, as well as autocephaly, so it really is something for the OCA/Constantinople to sort out, rather than me giving a definitive answer "on my opinion" and "on their behalf", as I am qualified to do neither.
Doctrinally, the BIG difference between the EOC and the Anglicans is the "Filioque Clause", which the Orthodox Church holds to be an error, yet which the Anglican Church holds as Article 5 of their basic statement of belief (the 39 Articles). To be frank, a lot of the rest is just procedural and historic, and thus negotiable. Maybe, on the "Filioque Clause" they came up with a sort of "Don't ask, don't tell" compromise, where each does their own Nicene Creed, and doesn't listen too closely to the other one's!
@@chilternsroamer872 There is absolutely no difference in religious dogma between Orthodox Churches. They are only independent in terms of administration, finances, etc.
No,they are totally different,one is “the” church,rest of them are just different Christian faiths
Independent Baptist aren't all congregational. The pastor is like the Pope of the local church in many of them. Not trying to be argumentative. I was a part of independent Baptist for 20 years, 10 as a pastor
In its representation of the Ukrainian situation, this video missed that fact that the groups of Ukrainians that the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognized, didn't have legitimate ordinations of their episcopate and that the "canonical reception" of such groups was done without reordination and repentance. The Ecumenical Patriarch can't just wave his "magic wand" and make them legitimate.
The Confusing Tradition of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox is the same.. But they forgot to focus in the Truth Gospel..
@@tansongpinoy1354
Go to Mt Athos in Greece and witness their lives, worship, and devotion, and you'll realize that it is Protestantism that has lost the "True Gospel".
@@tansongpinoy1354 only comment here with any tinge of aggressive language, not a good promotion for that which you preach.
@@pravolub8 lovely user name
@@mgkos
My user name is a combination of the Slavic root word for Orthodox and my last name "Lubic", which also means love in Slavic languages. It can also mean "True Love". BTW, my last name is an Americanized version of my Croatian Grandfather's last name of Lukatic.
19:05 . There it is: sacraments as mysteries.
I am Baptist. Most Baptist would agree with our Orthodox brothers & sisters that Salvation is a process. I have been saved, I have admitted that Jesus is my Lord and savior. I am being saved as I walk in Jesus life and teaching, putting off my old like and living in His holiness, becoming like Him. I shall be saved when I stand in God's presence face to face where sin is no more.
Exactly, the "date" of Salvation is the date when we START the PROCESS of salvation by giving ourselves to Christ. Works are an evidence of being in the salvation process, not a means of salvation.
hi there.hola hooray hey. here we go the truth coming up,actually turah&bible were from god but they had been corrupted afterwards as a result god sent down quran upon prophet muhammed&god said i`ll preserved the quran thereby god had fulfilled his promise ,let me show u friendly&honestly the truth,okee dokee.shedding the light over christianity to know the truth first of all there is no original bible the 4 main bible are contradicted to each other yet there is 1 quran but who is the writer of bible the answer is paul the jewish who hates jesus let us discuss about the significant event which is crucifixion why does your would claimed god left his only son to crucify without any sin he had committed the disaster reached its uttermost when u found bible said on the tongue of jesus my god my god why do u forsaken me means jesus has never crucified willingly have u an idea why do they `ve crucified jesus because it`s a penalty of an impure &particularly crucifixion because dindn`t touched the earth make it an impured that what paul said jesus gets impure for the sake of us &see the authentic god what does said in quran chapter 3 verse 55 by the name of god the most gracious&most merciful ,
O Jesus, I will take you and raise you up to me, and had purified you from those who disbelieve, and He will place those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection, then to Me is your return, so I will judge between you regarding that in which you differed,the authentic god rose jesus to the sky before they kill him in addition he had purified him from a false accusation of he was an impure . quran verse is comply with the bible itself :So they lifted up stones to stone him. But Jesus did and went out of the temple, passing through them." ( John 8:59 ),let alone of many verses in the bible incites to violence thus u found the largest massacres had happened in history the ww1&2 christian countries against christian countries 100 millions had been killed not to mention the sex stories in the bible nay u never found a single sex word in quran,don`t take it in personal just i clarify u the plain truth,bible said woman when she during the menstruation she gets impure &any thing she would touched it will be impure &should stay at her room till had done of it don`t see that an insulting to woman &how does the claimed god in bible said so he demeans& underrates his own creatures, yet islam honored the woman &she has a complete chapter its name women show us her rights,let us look at modern medicine which refutes the bible, ovulalation happens every 28 days from overy next month from other ovary when fertilization fails to happen mestrual bleading happens it always stops when a female gets pregnant ,menstrual cycle ovulation the female genital system consists of one uterus to overuse vagine& externat genital organs ,,the blood during menstruation could cause diseases to spread and that’s why does a woman during her menstruation needed to isolate so the blood would not be passed around to other people & diseases not be spread that`s what god has said in quran and they ask you about menstruation say, isolate women don't come near them untill they get purified verse 222 chapter 2,why there are priests,pastors&nuns are reverted daily to islam,yet u `ve never a muslim clergy left islam as per western media said that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world,i didn`t like to push islam onto u god said no compulsion in religion verse 256 chapter 2,figure it out then make up your mind,peace....
Woah... we do NOT re-sacrifice Christ (recrucify)!!! The sacrifice is PRAISE from the people (these words are sung clearly in the Liturgy clearly)..
We give ourselves to Christ and He gives Himself to us.
Also, a child is Churched 40 days after birth or if that wasn’t done at 40 days, ‘before’ but never ‘after’ Baptism and Chrismation.
Yes, we do make a decision to follow Christ but it’s not a one and done...We don’t believe that God can’t kick me out of eternal life in heaven no matter what I do! I remember as a Protestant people would say “oh they were never really saved”!)
Orthodox say I am saved... I am being saved. (What others understand as sanctification)
Before I was Orthodox decades ago as a young Baptist, communion was serious and Holy...you dare not receive unworthily! Then... communion and reverence disappeared.
No outsider was offered communion.
Last issue, you quoted only 1 million Greek Orthodox without adding up all the other Jurisdictions in the United States (Russian, Antiochian, OCA, Romanian, Serbian etc.)… we aren’t ‘denominations’. The immigrants that brought Orthodoxy established communities in their own languages. This is changing! All the Greek Metropolis of Denver Church’s use English for services (15 States).
Yes! You are very right to point out that Christ is NOT recrucified in the liturgy. (And to be fair to the Romans, the Catholic church doesn't teach that either.) For Christ to be recrucified would be to put Him to open shame. (Hebrews 6:6) Rather, the liturgy is like the feeding miracles. Remember how Jesus fed 5000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish? After they had all eaten, there were twelve baskets of leftovers! Where did all that extra bread and fish come from? God multiplied it miraculously. It's the same with the liturgy. God takes Christ's flesh and blood from Him when He's on the cross, multiplies it, takes it across time and space to every Orthodox altar at every time the liturgy is being sung, then transforms the bread and wine being offered into the multiplied flesh and blood of Christ, without changing the appearance of the bread or wine. There's a reason John chapter 6 relates this feeding miracle right before Jesus tells of the doctrine of the eucharist.
@@bigscarysteve Does he do that for the Roman Catholics as well?
Boy, you have really researched your subject!
This is good but there is more and more scholarship rejecting the schism happening in 1054. Recommend looking up the work of Dr. Charles Yost on this
The catholic church of the west was not called Roman Catholic until after the reformation by the Anglicans, one of the reasons for the schism was using leavened or unleavened bread for the eucharist and their is a real big difference between Baptist denomination and all orthodox churches.
Its technically not correct to state that Orthodoxy has 7 sacraments. Its more like 7* sacraments which is to say that the entirety of the Christian life is "sacramental". I use scare quotes because the actual greek term, mysterion, is where the term comes from and we likewise refer to every act of God's Grace in our lives as a mystery, because it is often beyond our understanding. For more on this Father Alexander Schmemann's For the Life of the World gives an explanation of the Orthodox view of a sacramental life.
There are some Independent Fundamental Baptist that do anoint with oil for the sick. We do. Because it is in scripture. ln addition we also have what we call a dedication ceremony for small children and babies, in that we stand before God and our local assembly or members, and promise to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
There is more then 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide and at least 5-6 million in the US.
Thanks now I don’t have to comment it
I see a lot of people in the comment section saying they switched from Baptist to Orthodox. I'm wondering if the main reason for the switch is procedural rather than theological. What I mean is, a lot of evangelical, and particularly non-denomination churches, have rock and roll style worship services. Some Baptist churches are also like that, but certainly not all. I was raised Assemblies of God, but the church I attended for the first 11 years of my life was very formal and conservative. When we moved to another state all the churches we went to had rock and roll style worship, and sanctuaries which did not actually look like sanctuaries, but rather just plain buildings. When I got older I found myself deliberately coming late in order to miss most of the worship service, so that I could just hear the sermons and go. I switched to Baptist because it was actually more similar to what I grew up with than what AG has since become. I don't know whether or not it's OK to use rock and roll for worship. I usually don't care for it, but I know there's an ongoing debate where some people say it's inherently evil and shouldn't be used at all, for either worship or recreation. I do think worship should be serious and respectful. I'm wondering how many of these people who switched to Orthodox were essentially pushed in that direction because of the style of worship which they had in their original churches. I think if you're Baptist or AG then you have a lot more in common theologically with Orthodox than Catholic. Catholic church clearly adds to scripture, whereas Orthodox just interprets it differently in different places (or at least that's my current understanding).
It's most political: you either think we all missed the point and Jesus loves everyone and it's basically universalism with a hard anti racist, anti homophobic, strong social justice, and pro feminist leanings
or
You think liberalism went too far, has basically destroyed the West, and is in la-la land championing issues that don't matter while the world burns. That's why Orthodoxy (mainly because they have people like Brother Nathaneal) and IFB/Reformed Baptists are gaining ground.
I think, for example, had the 90s-00s churches been filled with songs singing about say God destroying Pharoah or Jesus judging sinners vs songs about touching Jesus face, wanting to dance for God in the afterlife (even as a man), and various other "Jesus is my boyfriend" style songs you might have gotten a different outcome but I'm not shocked having kids and teens sing gay adjacent sounding songs to Patriarchal God might have led to where we are now.
@@darthbigred22 I agree with your take, but suggest you not use terms like "homophobe" and "anti-racist." Those are communist framing words which exist to classify normal people as "ists" and deviants, when in fact the people who use those terms are deviants themselves.
Yea I hate all that music, and a lot of it does sound gay or borderline gay. I think it's because the target audience is women. My theory is that their strategy to maintain church attendance is to target women, because women will make their husbands and kids come even if they don't want to.
I used to be a Baptist before I became an apostate and we never had communion, I never questioned it until now, I wonder why my branch never did so?
Baptist communion is once a month. If you don't go to church every Sunday it's very easy to miss it.
A very knowledgeable young man. However, he needs to read 2 Timothy 2:15 and learn to rightly divide the Word. I know this will be a shocker to most people watching and following Ready to Harvest, but all the Bible was written for you, but not all the Bible was written to you. This what 2 Tim 2:15 is telling you to do. Study and learn what part of the Bible is for you and what is written to you. God Bless and study the Word.
The Church alone wrote the Bible. The Church alone can DeFine the Bible.
I don't understand why bishops are not permitted to marry in the orthodox church, when Paul in his epistle says a bishop must be married as a prerequisite to being bishop? Why is this writing from Paul to churches not accepted by the orthodox and catholic churches?
@Меѳодїи
I was thinking the issue in the church experienced some change because of challenges that power and money brought to the position of bishop. I think bishops were getting rich and their children inheriting wealth. Because of that i believe the marriage of bishops was renoved. I'm not an expert this is just a vague recollection from what I heard in the past.
@Меѳодїи
Thanks for explaining that issue.
@Methodius ☦️ Also due to practical issues, bishops got more and more responsibilities so it became difficult to care for a family also. Bishoprics became much larger than in the early Church.
Here is my view as a protestant...
Romans 2:14 - What works of the Law did the pagans participated in by nature? It was not the ritualistic part but a moral part since the pagans did not have circumcision or Sabbath.
Romans 3:9,23. - Before the Law (moral) we are all guilty.
Romans 3:27-30 - We all are justified by faith alone without the works of the (moral) Law since it applies to pagans who had no part in Mosaic Law but did some works of the Law (2:14).
Mosaic Law and Abrahamic covenant did not exclude a moral law but they added to it. The problem was that it was much easier to get circumcision and think that this settles the score with God than to repent and believe onto Jesus finished work on the cross. In Galatians Paul is saying that if you think circumcision is the way to get justification, think again because you are obligated to observe the entirety of the Law. If that would mean that Paul is pointing out that these people were to observe entire ceremonial Law then this would not be so impossible. On contrary Paul is pointing them to observe the entire Law, which include the moral part and on that ground people are failing miserably.
The Orthodox premise is wrong. We are saved (past tense) by the faith in Jesus Christ. This faith leads to being born again and having the Holy Spirit who is producing good works in us. Good works are fruits of the salvation, not the cause of it.
well done
I kinda wish he specified which St. George Greek Orthodox Church, given that there are so many of them
The primary meaning of the word “Catholic” is not “universal” but, instead, “complete,” or, perhaps better, “whole.” “Universal” is a secondary meaning which naturally follows from the first.
I am Greek Orthodox and have discussed this matter with my priest we do believe she has sinned. Because it would be a contradiction of scripture
Hello I am Greek from Greece. It's seems weird to me when you said that orthodoxy rejects the Original Sin. Perhaps I can't understand what do you mean. I just want to ensure you that the Orthodox Church teaches us that we are all been born with the Original Sin.
Here's what I refer to: www.oca.org/questions/teaching/original-sin
@@ReadyToHarvest Thank you very much. I understood now what do you mean.
@@kravatarnihailes6489 I would put the idea more metaphorical. Do you experience sin innate in yourself? Were you born sinful and have no control over it?
Have you had the impulse to steal, be cruel, or disrespect others?
That is literally original sin we inherited the impulse. And it is OKAY that you or I are ignorant we can all go beyond it through Christ. We can be better loving people.
@@matthewkopp2391 Actually this is what the Orthodox Church teaches here in Greece at least. Moreover we are all been born with the Original Sin and according to what they tell us here, according to the Orthodox Church, we are free from it after the bapt. But yes, we have this strong tendance or the impulse for do sins until the last moment of our lives.
The orthodox method of theology as an eastern church is not the scholasticist one, so the explanation of the dogma has not a strict definition. That's why I didn't insist over the source that the creator of the video show me from the orthodox Church in America.
The Orthodox position is a little bit more elaborate: original sin is something that Adam and Eve committed but that sin is strictly theirs. We are born and live with the consequences of it though. It’s like a gabler that loses money often gambling: the sin is his, but others suffer also, for example his family.
Also Christotokos = Theotokos + Antropontokos (mother of God + mother of Man). This is Nestorianism as it divides Jesus into two persons.
I would like to say that the point you make about the catholic church viewing orthodoxy as illegitimate is wrong. Post-V2 Catholocism sees orthodox sacraments as valid and if the EO was to recognize papal supremacy then they wouldn't have to change any of their other theologies and practises according to the RCC and we can see this in Byzantine Catholocism. Also an EO member is welcome in catholic communion so orthodoxy is really the only one who denies the other. I encountered this on my journey from evangelicalism to Orthodoxy and actually asked myself, "what does the pope or the western church add that is mandatory or needed that the EO doesn't? The RCCs opinion on Orthodox validity and Byzantine Catholocism basically gives the picture that I wouldn't even need to be catholic and I could just be Orthodox."
Orthodox Church sees Roman Catholic Church as a true Church and vice versa, but they don't believe the other has the "fullness" of the Church
But they priests serve together, and generally relationship between the Churches today is actually quite good
Protestants are on the other hand are seen as Christian Communes rather then full on Churches, because they don't come directly from disciples of Jesus, and having things like gay marriages, female priests and gay bishops definitely didn't help
Actually, not really. While we should "play nice" and we should always cultivate good relations, Orthodox do not serve with any other Christian affiliation, unless it's a rare prayer service. Orthodox will not concelebrate the liturgy with Catholics.
You should mention Baptist church in Georgia (Caucasus) they are eastern protestants and have many things in common with orthodox practices
Baptists don't want to touch alcohol under any circumstances.
Orthodox wins my vote 🗳 ☑️
Good video but here are some things I found incorrect for the Baptist. Time: 2:36- False claim, we believe that God works through the local body which there are many local bodies. We accept and agree that there is a universal body of the church. He is associating the “baptist briders” with Independent Baptist which there are but he should make sure to call this sect out because the majority don’t believe as they do. We do hold to the belief that the Baptist doctrines can be traced back to Christ, but not our literal local church. There are many other brothers and sisters in Christ that are not baptists, yet we still believe they are saved and are a part of the body of Christ.
Time 8:33- How is this not considered a works salvation? Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Time 18:20- We reject this because it would be cannibalism. Why would God tell the Jews to not partake of the blood, but then would tell them to as communion? Its an allegory or it's a contradiction.
Time 28:08- This is false, we are told in scripture to anoint the sick and to lay hands on them.
I do like how when you were speaking on the Eastern Orthodox you seemed to always be quoting their writings. When you were dealing with the Independent Baptist you were always quoting the Bible. Just shows me that Im very happy to be a Born again child of God in a Baptist outfit!
Please learn the difference between Jew and Israelite.
The law was given by God onto Moses, a Levi, for all Israelites.
Jew comes from Judean, a resident of the Roman province of Judea.
There is not necessarily a Judah /Israelite connotation with the original term of Judean.
There are 270million Orthodox christian and 60million Oriental Orthodox christian so about 330million Orthodox not 200million
His count of Orthodox in the United States is shy 2 million or so. 1.5 million is Greek Orthodox only. You have to add up all the other Orthodox Jurisdictions with the Greek and bam! Orthodox America (don’t forget those Oriental Orthodox too!)!
The Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox are two separate churches. Don't let the word "orthodox" in both their names fool you. They are not to be lumped together. Do you think we should add in the number of Orthodox Presbyterians as well? The Christology of the Eastern and of the Oriental churches is very different and wholly incompatible. They do not share the same faith.
@@bonniejohnstone www.rooshv.com/roosh-hour-64-baptism
@@bigscarysteve I disagree Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches agree in 99% of things
@@Georgios1821 I doubt 99%, but I will agree with you that the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox agree on more that what they disagree on. However, that disagreement is crucial. The disagreements are about things that separate the Truth from falsehood.
Couple of corrections on Orthodox Christian Church:
The Orthodox Church does not reject the atonement, it is just not a complete picture of what Christ did on the cross, and when he died and rose again. It's also commonly misunderstood.
Communion is the one sacrifice that occurred at Christ's death. We are there at that one sacrifice in a mystical way. Sounds crazy, sure.
Less so than Catholicism with their transubstantiation
The video is incorrect when it states that both the Catholic and Orthodox churches view each other as illegitimate. The Orthodox view the Catholics as illegitimate but the Catholics view the Orthodox as legitimate and this is explicitly stated in Vatican 2 so I have no clue why this guy is saying otherwise.
my brother in christ, you look like the kid from the brave little toaster.
Very truthful representation of Orthodox Christ's Church 👍 bravo!
Literally just come to christ very recently and now i find the faith is so utterly splintered i dont know where to turn.
My father is a fusion of Evangelical/Bapist and Eastern orthodox. I don't know how he does it. 🤣
What makes your father like both sides of the fusion?
@@clarkelauffer7052
He sees truths from both. He’s more on the Baptist side, but likes certain insights and practices from Eastern Orthodoxy. I can’t fully explain it.
@@mmaphilosophytheologyscien4578 I see allot of what he sees as well, how can I connect with him?
@@clarkelauffer7052
Lol, you don’t. He’s not a social media guy and he’d be angry if I gave his contact away. I’ll leave you with this. It’ll be usual for a Christian of any denomination.
godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html
@@mmaphilosophytheologyscien4578 I’m a Protestant pastor of 25 years now and have studied the Eastern Church for 19 years. Have many Orthodox clergy friends and have visited many churches, monastery’s and been to Mt Athos. My brother a former Baptist pastor became Orthodox over 10 years ago. Is the website you linked your work? Impressive
It would be nice if God would just do a twitter post to let people know what is correct.