An Orthodox Priest Becomes an Evangelical Pastor
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 มิ.ย. 2024
- Rev. Joshua Schooping shares his journey from being an Orthodox Priest to becoming an evangelical Protestant pastor.
*UPDATE*: Josh responds to some of the comments here:
• Further Reflections on...
-Josh's book on theosis: www.amazon.com/MANUAL-THEOSIS...
-Josh's book on atonement: www.amazon.com/EXISTENTIAL-SO...
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com/paypalme/truth...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY BOOKS:
gavinortlund.com/mypublications/
00:00 - Introduction
01:19 - Becoming Orthodox
10:21 - Points of Appreciation
14:00 - Returning to Evangelicalism
23:23 - The Doctrine of the Church
44:05 - What About History?
48:29 - What About Bishops?
56:34 - What About the Eucharist?
01:00:59 - Advice About Converting
01:04:29 - Advice About Learning History
THREE UPDATES:
1) Comments attacking anyone's personal character or motives will be deleted. Disagreements and argumentation are welcome.
2) Rev. Schooping has responded to some of the criticisms reflected in comments here:
th-cam.com/video/i9w8ZoEP-a4/w-d-xo.html
3) One of the points Josh raised is the exclusivity of traditional Orthodox ecclesiology. I thought it might be useful to provide some documentation of this claim, since it is sometimes challenged.
-Dositheos (17th century Patriarch of Jerusalem), on those who affirm the filioque: “When these forsake the church, they are forsaken by the Holy Spirit, and there remaineth in them neither understanding nor light, but only darkness and blindness.”
-Paisius Velichkovsky (18th Orthodox saint and theologian), on the same: “What hope do they have for salvation, unless they openly renounce this Spirit-fighting heresy and become united again with the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church? … Depart and flee from them as speedily as possible lest death overtake you in it and you be numbered among the heretics and not among the Christians.”
-Joachim II (19th century Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople): “Our desire is that all heretics shall come to the bosom of the Orthodox Church of Christ which alone is able to give them salvation.”
This is, in broad contours, the consistent Orthodox position from the Fourth Council of Constantinople (879-880) to the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1848. The label for perceived Western innovations such the filioque is heresy, and the regular claim is that heresy places you outside the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church, and therefore cut off from the grace of the Holy Spirit given in the sacraments, and therefore cut off from salvation. Another example is St. Mark of Ephesus in the 15th century. I am not aware of any exceptions to this perspective until the 19th century.
While these are definitely exclusivist statements, they all are about those who hold to heretical beliefs, and that those who are heretics are necessarily outside of the Church. This seems to be a rather uncontroversial charge that even Protestants hold. Am I not a heretic in your view (you can be forthright, my skin is thick) because I reject imputed righteousness? And being a heretic necessarily puts me outside of the body of Christ?
These quotes you provide all say that being a heretic puts your soul in serious jeopardy. Who disagrees? As I said, I imagine this is rather uncontroversial. Now I can definitely concede to you that us believing the filioque is heretical is a place of controversy. The dialogue between the Tubingen theologians and PAtriarch Joachim spent the bulk of the ink discussing the filioque. I don't remember any ink however being spilled on whether being a heretic excludes you from salvation. I can just assume that the Patriarch and the Tubingeners were in agreement there.
So really, what I imagine is the dispute is whether the filioque is heresy or not.
This is incredibly helpful. Thanks Dr. Ortland! This raises two questions for me:
1) I take it that prior to Vatican II, then, the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches didn’t consider each other’s ordination rites as valid?
2.) If so, how does Rome fit that with magisterial infallibility? Any insight there?
@@anglicanaesthetics former Catholic here who can help with question 2; regardless of whether the RCC changed its position on the validity of EO orders and sacraments , it was never a dogmatic issue per say, never ‘ex cathedra’ and therefore doesn’t conflict with Papal infallibility (The Catholic Church doesn’t hold magisterial infallibility explicitly outside of Ex cathedra/dogmatically binding proclamations from the papacy)
@@anglicanaesthetics Traditionally, Catholic clergy would be received into the Orthodox Church by vesting. That is, they would be received as clergy, without reordination, as vesting is not a sacrament. This points to an implicit understanding of some form of sacramental reality outside of the church
Same goes for reception by chrismation, confession, or unction for various groups
Hi Ortlund, I think you should pin this comment.
Lord please have mercy on us. There is so much dissent we're choking on it. Show us where we went wrong, Father. Give us humility and patience when dealing with each other.
Amen
Amen
Amen
Amen
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word.
Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary.
What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below.
New Covenant Whole Gospel:
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Watch the TH-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
At 40 minutes, he says the differences between Protestant groups are only distinctions which arise from different cultural expressions. Hmmm... I know a few Missouri Synod Lutherans, and if I said, "Hey, do you think the differences between you and Reformed Baptists are just the distinctions which arise in different cultural expressions of the same Gospel?" Well, I don't think they wouldn't go along with that.
I mean, the reason why these groups exist as separate entities historically is precisely because they had something they thought was important to split over - or something which prevented unity. After hearing the fellow say that the unity among the Orthodox is mostly illusory, saying that Protestants enjoy a real unity, differentiated only by cultural distinctions seemed a bit of a stretch.
I don't it's fair to describe his view as saying denominations are *only* based on cultural differences. His main point is that yes, there are theological differences, but they don't exclude the other party from being part of the true church.
@@TruthUnites _"they don't exclude the other party from being part of the true church."_ BUT they do ! Truly Reformed don't recognize Arminians as being part of the true Church. I've had Calvary Chapel types (vehemently Arminian, anti-Calvinist) tell me that Calvinism is of the devil. LCMS and Wisconsin Synod Lutherans don't think either the Reformed or the Arminians have the Gospel right and don't have true sacraments. Pentecostals may not always say it out loud, but many of them very definitely imply that those who don't evidence the charismata (as Pentecostals understand it) are not true Christians. Many more examples could be cited . And of course if you go down this rabbit trail far enough (abhorring any sort of ecclesiological "exclusivity") you end up with the CoExis† crowd singing Lennon's "Imagine" because who's to say that there's only one path to God ?
@@TruthUnites : I agree with you that this is the point he was ultimately driving at. But that doesn't mean he didn't make the point I stated along the way. His exact words were:
"So people make the claim there are 50 billion different Protestant Churches and they say that's evidence of division. No, it's evidence of distinction. If you assume an Orthodox or Catholic ecclesiology you say that that's evidence of division because that's how they conceive of ecclesiology as absolutely maximalist. But if you conceive of ecclesiology as centered in Christ and that various kinds and cultures and locales will create different organizations around Christ, that are going to inevitably be distinctive from another denomination, they don't see that as at the point of a gun. We don't say that if you're a Lutheran you're going to Hell..."
So yeah, while the point he was reaching was that Evangelicals aren't particular to the point where they say everyone outside their group are going to Hell.... along the way he did indeed say the differences within Protestantism are not divisions, but distinctions which arise from different cultures and locales.
@@actsapologist1991 I’m not really grasping why you think that’s significant or at odds with the broader meaning, but I won’t argue with you.
@@TruthUnites : I just found it jarring - that after a rather tough (perhaps unfairly tough) critique of Orthodox unity, that this was his appraisal of Protestant unity.
He may well be correct (I think he is) that the official Orthodox position on the non-Orthodox is unrealistically condemning. And it may be that their claims to unity aren't as strong in reality as they are in the brochures. But... I think his take on Protestant unity was a bit too rose coloured. There are some serious issues there - and they invite the question of what are the "essentials"?
If the Orthodox position is too restrictive (and I think it is), does that automatically mean there is a standard within the Protestant world which has it just right? That was the question I was hoping you'd ask: In practical terms, what is the new baseline of essentials which you've come to believe in. And are all Protestants on board with it?
Lord, have mercy!
Amin
@Dustin Neely 🙏
Lord, have mercy.
I'm curious about you're reply. My best friend is Orthodox and I understand much more about the faith than your average person. I'm Christian of a different denomination. We love our friendship and respects our faiths. God bless.❤️🙏
@Daniel Smith we’re you talking tome?
I've been looking for a video about this for a long time. Great understanding of the issues.
Fascinating convo. Thanks guys
Wonderful exchange Gavin. And thanks for listening well...not always an easy thing to do during interviews!
EO here. Raised in baptized as the southern baptist, became Roman Catholic in college, in the '80s entered in communion with the Eastern Orthodox church. It seems after a long journey that Pastor Joshua has found safe harbor. Although I have not had seminary training nor am I anywhere near as well read as pastor Joshua I have been Eastern Orthodox for over 40 years now. I have listened to other criticisms of Orthodoxy but none so pointed as pastor Joshua. Much of it I believe from my experience to be unfair. In fact it is quite surprising that he had done much research including seminary and had been ordained to the priesthood before he saw his mistake.
I do agree with pastor Joshua and Dr Ortland. One should never make such a momentous transition from one expression of Christianity to another without an extensive. Of discernment. I attended an Orthodox Church for almost 10 years before I requested and was received by chrismation. So for those of you from whatever branch of Evangelical / Protestantism or if you are Roman Catholic, take your time in your decision. I truly believe that God let me to Orthodoxy. I also truly believe that I was in Christian communities when I worshiped at Southern Baptist and Roman Catholic churches. I entered into communion with Eastern Orthodoxy because I truly believed as I do now that I can hear God's voice more clearly. So whatever community of Christians you gather with we must l learn to love and respect each other more than some of the comments from both sides that appear in the comments section. I disagree with pastor Joshua and with Dr Ortland but they are fellow Christians and I pray God's blessing be upon them.
Evangelical s speak of going to hell
Heard that allot as an evangelical never as orthodox
How many sermons did you say certain people are going to hell
Why do you think God would call one person to EO and another to protestant and another to Baptist?
I converted to Catholicism because their meme game was better
Joshua speaks about the difference between what he learned from David Bently Hart, Met. Kallistos Ware, St. Vladimir’s Seminary, and others with what he learned from the Saints of the Orthodox Church. It’s clear that the foundation he was given when coming into the Church, and even at St. Vladimir’s Seminary when preparing to become a priest, was woefully lacking. Universalism, for example, is taken seriously by very few, albeit vocal, people. There is much worthy critique of the heresy of universalism. Yet this doesn’t appear to be the main issue at hand.
It appears, based on Joshua’s own words, he was unaware of the traditional dogmatic ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church. He says he was turned off by the teachings found in various Saints and in the Church’s Synodikon, a long list of affirmations and anathemas proclaimed on the first Sunday of Great Lent. He didn’t know about these things before entering the Orthodox Church. This is very instructive for us all. If you are looking into Orthodoxy, I strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with the dogmatic teachings of the Church as found in the Councils and Saints of the Church, not merely the views of certain Orthodox who are at odds with the vast majority of the Fathers of the Church.
I think the essence of Joshua’s reasons for leaving Orthodoxy come down to a misunderstanding of the meaning of the Incarnation. He turned away because of what he called the “small Christ” in Orthodoxy, a Christ Who has one Church, one Body. The Incarnation did not end at the Ascension. It continues to this day and is tangible and physical just as the Lord’s Incarnation was when he walked in Jerusalem.
For more on this extremely important issue:
“Introduction to the Lives of the Saints” by St. Justin Popovic: th-cam.com/video/q1SQB8O2Aek/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=OrthodoxWisdom
“Becoming an Initiate into the Continuation of the Incarnation” by Fr. Peter Heers: th-cam.com/video/v4m6vkB8-J8/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=TheOrthodoxEthos
In the “Introduction” by St. Justin, he speaks about how the Incarnation continues to be manifest: “The Lives of the Saints are nothing else but the life of the Lord Christ, repeated in every saint to a greater or lesser degree in this or that form. More precisely it is the life of the Lord Christ continued through the Saints, the life of the incarnate God the Logos, the God-man Jesus Christ who became man.” In his book “The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism,” he states, “Just as the Lord Christ cannot have several bodies, so He cannot have several Churches. According to her theanthropic nature, the Church is one and unique, just as Christ the God-man is one and unique. Hence, a division, a splitting up of the Church is ontologically and essentially impossible.”
Essentially, all the characteristics of Christ’s Body when he walked through Jerusalem are also true today: His Body is physical, identifiable, and one must go to His Body to be near Him.
Joshua says to Dr. Ortlund, “You affirm the same Christ as I do” and juxtaposes this with the particular church or denomination that one might affirm. This is another example of his misunderstanding of the Incarnation and its continuation from Pentecost into eternity. Furthermore, Joshua downplays the importance of the filoque, for example, but this doctrine changes the nature of the Trinity, and therefore Christ. The Fathers bled to preserve the truth of this matter because those who accept the filioque and those who reject it have different Christs. But there is only one Christ, without any contradiction or confusion.
Lastly, the advice Joshua gives to evangelicals at the end is good advice, advice that if given him when he was first learning about Orthodoxy, would possibly have led to a different story. Either Joshua would have learned more properly the dogma of the Orthodox Church, and a fuller understanding of the Life of the Church in the Saints, and therefore had a solid foundation to build on, or he would have rejected this “exclusivist God” at the beginning before ever becoming Orthodox or an Orthodox priest. Therefore, Joshua’s example is very instructive for all of us, Evangelical and Orthodox, so that we might more clearly see what is true, and what vows we are giving to God if we become initiated into the Orthodox Church, the continuation of the Incarnation.
Sadly, Joshua has stumbled on the Stumbling Block, the Incarnate Christ Who is both Head and Body. He has rejected the practical implications of the true dogma of the Incarnation, and in doing so, the Church which is Christ. May God bring Him back to Holy Orthodoxy. We pray for this and will gladly welcome him home again.
Ah, a rigorist with time and ability for intense self motivated study!
I've a question for you well-read theologian; if "a division, a splitting up of the Church is ontologically and essentially impossible.” if Paul's 'factions and schisms are sin (missing the mark of Christ's perfection)' then what of the schism between the Slavs and the Greeks? As I understand it's a schism at the level of Eucharist, a 'division' in the Church, or at the very least factions within her.
I'm probably misunderstanding the EO understanding of Full Communion (it sounds like my tradition's 'altar/pulpit fellowship' which describes full official endorsement of both synods as members of Christ's Church, in communion with Christ and all the saints who have gone before); to me the Moscow-Constantinople schism sounds like a denial of the other's orthodoxy/catholicity/apostolicity/unity; yet St. Justin says that's impossible?
@@j.g.4942 Churches were out of Communion between each other in the past. It is nothing new, plus both Russia and Constantinople are still part of the Church even if they have to sort out issues.
@@j.g.4942 good to see a fellow rigorist with time and ability for intense self motivated study in the chat 🤪
Are you really comfortable with saying Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, Hilary of Poitiers etc. all "have different Christs" simply because they confess "and the Son"?
@@BrandonCorleyTheGoat Saying that St. Augustine believed in the same filioque as the Roman Catholic means you should lurk more.
The end of this video is puzzling to me in how the guest equates the position of reformed writers with Lutheran writers on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If you actually read Lutheran documents you’ll find out rather quickly that genuine Lutheranism is EXTREMELY opposed to how the reformed talk about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and believe that the Reformed (Calvin, Zwingli and company) do NOT have the Eucharist at all.
He seems to have a poor understanding of the actual doctrinal divisions within different Protestant groups.
@Daniel Smith what I wrote is perfectly correct. Lutheran theologians, notably the ones sorting out the teaching of their churches after the death of Luther, absolutely reject the Calvinist position in the Formula of Concord and specifically go after Melanchthon for altering the text of the Augsburg Confession to make it easier for Calvinists to sign on to it. Private correspondence between Luther and Calvin is irrelevant to the dogmatic position of the Lutherans as expressed in the Book of Concord.
Absolutely in agreement. I highly recommend Pastor Jordan Cooper video on extra Calvinisticum. John Calvin believes that Christ is in two natures at all time forever but spatially His humanity is localized in heaven alone. This is why during the celebration of the Eucharist he argues that the faithful alone brought by the Holy Spirit to heaven and partake the body and the blood spiritually. This way the unfaithful can't partake the Eucharist as they're not elevated to heaven spiritually. This is Nestorianism. In St Cyril's second letter dogmatized at Ephesus the Eucharist is the unbloody sacrifice where the incarnation deified His humanity. This is why His glorified body could walk pass through the wall when the disciples lock the door. The deified humanity has transcend physical limitations. John Calvin also deny communicatio idiomatum which Ephesus dogmatized. I grew up in Dutch Calvinism. Went to Westminster in 2010. I'm now a deacon candidate in the Byzantine Catholic Church. I wish Rev Joshua Schooping best wish for his journey. I hope he'll find peace with God. I do lament his trauma inflicted by Fr John Romanides who denied original sin and penal substitution. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox accept original sin and penal substitution. 1999 joint declaration on justification addressed this explicitly.
He's just doing dishonest polemics, nothing more. Makes me think there's something more behind his reversion than simply intellectual, since the intellectual case he's trying to make is absurd. Something personal.
@Daniel Smith no the heck he didn’t, Phillip Melanchthon threw away Calvin’s letter to Luther about the Eucharist because he knew he would hate it.
Hi! I found this enormously edifying and insightful, thank you for uploading. May God bless you both!
Absolutely fascinating interview. Thank you so much to both of you.
Excellent and fruitful discussion. I was exposed to Frithjof Shuon, DBH, and other issues mentioned in this video a number of years ago and had to wrestle through many of these same questions. I really appreciate Josh's insights and am grateful to see where he has landed!
As an Orthodox Christian for 13 years, I will have to look up some of what he is referencing, but I can say that every priest I know emphatically states that we cannot say that anyone anywhere is going to Hell or how God will judge. We can only focus on ourselves. It is true that there are cannons stating that those outside the church will not be saved but it has always been presented that those were written specifically during early times when the only other option was paganism. I also feel that he is taking the cannons out of context in the same way that anyone might take scripture out of context. Just posting this to say for anyone watching that I believe his understanding of the Orthodox Church to be mistaken. Also salvation has a different meaning therefore it's apples and oranges to try to take Orthodox statements about "salvation" and think they mean the same thing in any Reformed sense.
@cwthomas I disagree with your view that Joshua is taking the his understanding of the Orthodox Church as mistaken, actually he is very correct in his view. I have been Orthodox for over 20 plus years I have also noticed discrepancies in the church’s teachings and interpretations. Reading scripture and taking theology courses allows one to question some things of the church.
The issue is that no matter what each individual says about salvation the church canons say there is no salvation outside the church. No matter if 99% of the church moves away from the institutionalised salvation they have the 'infallible' canons holding them back.
Either the canons are right or you're right. You can't be both right.
@@choicemeatrandy6572canons aren’t infallible and are written in light of specific situations or crisis. Christianity wasn’t across the entire world as it is today. Canons saying no salvation outside the church make no sense today because there’s billions of people that are not part of the Orthodox Church and are still in Christ. There is no salvation outside of Christ. No where in scripture does it make the claim that salvation is part of a specific church. Those canons were correct back then when the church was the only place the Bible was taught, but not anymore. The gospel is supposed to be spread across the entire world, which the Eastern Orthodox haven’t done. Are all those not saved? They deny the sufficiently of Christ and His grace.
There is no salvation outside of CHRIST!
Thank you. Very interesting and instructive conversation.
Learned so much from this interview....thank you!!!!
Dr. Ortlund, your channel is bringing me to tears. I havent stopped watching in weeks. This is so essential for people to hear right now. I pray for unity in the body of Christ 🙏 Thank you for freeing my soul to not be so shut in and reminding me to come back to love. Makes me think of Revelation 2 where the LORD says he hates also what they hate but that they lost the love and they need to come back to the works they did at the first. I believe this channel will change the walk of all who listen forever! Praise God for these discussions! 🙏
I tried attending a Serbian Orthodox church here in middle America for a while. I enjoyed and liked the people. I never could clearly understand the theology. I remember sitting in a special service of some kind on a Saturday morning. I was sitting there watching the rituals, trying to understand the words, watching the movements of the priest and others in and out of that back room, wondering what it all meant. Then the thought hit me that the whole thing made me feel a separation from God in that holy hidden room from myself and the people in the audience. I remembered thinking that at the death of Jesus the veil in the temple was torn. Why were we now rebuilding the wall between God and man? So as I sat there the thought occurred to me that I could ask the Holy Spirit what He thought of all of this, so I asked Him what he thought of all of that ritual. I believe I heard him immediately answer that He does not like the separation between Himself and the people like it was in the Old Testament, so I got up and left and never went back.
Also, I have at least one Christian friend who since he went Orthodox he has broken all contact with me. When he switched to Orthodox I had this sinking feeling that I was loosing him as a brother, and sure enough it has happened that way. I believe there is a sectarian demon that fosters this divisive, exclusivity attitude in all kinds of Christian groups. I believe such is a doctrine of demons.
I have also spoken with Christians from nations primarily in Europe and the Middle East where the Orthodox Church dominates. The Orthodox priests in those places hinder the distribution of the scriptures in such nations, and as a result those nations are politically dark and backward economically and politically and in every other way. As a contrast, where other versions of Christianity have gone, prosperity and freedom has followed. See the books by Vishal Mangalwadi like THE BOOK THAT MADE YOUR WORLD. And which groups have been most prolific spreading the gospel of Jesus to the world. Certainly not the Orthodox.
Love, love, love this video. Totally, gently enlightening. The focus is Jesus...the author & finisher of our AND YOUR faith!😊❤
Loved the episode..
God bless this pastor. Orthodoxy is none of the negative things he’s mentioned. I encourage all to taste and see.
Can you be more specific? This man was an Orthodox Priest for 5 years with an MDiv and MA from St Vlads. What did he say that was not true?
@@Jordan18561 I mean, realistically he came to Orthodoxy because he thought it's perennialist, universalist, and doesn't teach any form of penal substitution, went to a liberal seminary that didn't teach him any better, and then left when he got disillusioned with the reality. Do some of his points about prejudiced ethnic congregations or poorly catechised congregations land? Sure, but I don't think that's devastating to Orthodoxy. Does he overstate the evidence for the Lightfoot Hypothesis? Yes.
The real takeaway from this video is that Orthodox Christians should be more careful not to misrepresent their faith and need to tone down the triumphalist apologetics to a level that is more realistic about some of the contemporary difficulties that Orthodoxy faces.
@@johnsthoughts4389 Which Orthodox seminaries are not considered liberal? I'm only familiar with Protestant seminaries
@@Jordan18561 I only know in the English speaking world that Fordham Orthodox studies centre is ultra-liberal, St Vladimir's is known for being fairly liberal, and Jordanville and St Tikhon's are more conservative. In Australia St Andrew's is more liberal and SCMOI is very traditionalist.
@@johnsthoughts4389 Thanks for the info on the seminaries. It's good to have an overview.
Back to your earlier post, I think bro Joshua's bigger point is about 'exclusivist ecclesiology' (not just triumphalist apologetics).
thank you, excellent discussion!
I loved this interview! It was very insightful!
I REALLY enjoyed this interview. I learned a ton. Thank you. Need more of these types of interviews.
I grew up in a Christian Missionary Alliance church. Loved it❤
A thousand likes! Thank you for sharing Pastors. All glory to God.
This has helped me tremendously. Thank you. I hit a like. ;)
Great discussion!
Thanks for bringing in the insights of Luther and Lutherans in the discussion.
At 19:05ff concerning St. Symeon the New Theologian, his homily goes on to say that because of the sacrifice of Christ we can experience a re-creation in Holy Baptism, the anointing of Holy Myrrh, and having been made worthy, to commune His Flesh and His Blood to become one with God. In a word, the Holy Mysteries.
Further in the same homily he goes on to say those who have rightly understood the Cross and its power have the duty to make the sign of the Cross over themselves with fear and trembling, with reverence and heedfulness. St. Symeon's homilies are meant to lead one into the Church, not away from it. His application is quite clear.
And Protestants cannot affirm the Nicene Creed as it was understood by those who wrote it, because they did not endorse denominational diversity. They in fact considered schismatics who were doctrinally Orthodox in every other respect, to be outside the Church.
Protestantism, no matter the depth of the historic roots of whatever sect/group in question, always tends to fall back on what appears to be a hermeneutic of “loosey goosey” in regards to the problematic doctrinal rigidity of their earlier manifestations.
@Daniel Smith so, what do you think it proves? During a theological controversy, there are people who are pushing heresy, people opposing it, and many are confused. The fight is to keep as many in the fold as possible, but when it becomes clear who cannot be swayed, they are cut off from the church. This is in complete accord with Christ's instructions on the matter. What you don't find is doctrinal diversity among multiple denominations, that nevertheless still consider separate groups to be still part of an invisible Church.
@Daniel Smith Temporary divisions because of unusual times of persecution does not make a full schism. And the Arian controversy did involve a great deal of persecution of the Orthodox, which resulted in temporary divisions among some of the Orthodox, but those divisions were healed. The situation with the Old Believers is complicated, but by removing the condemnation of the Old Rite, neither ROCOR nor Moscow declared those in schism to not be in schism. And I am not sure what you mean by "with ecumenism" but the Orthodox Church has not declared the Copts to be any branch, lung, kidney, or otherwise. The Balamand agreement was a proposal that was not ratified. Ecumenism, in terms of hold a branch theory of the Church, is a heresy.
There have been a number of "ecumenical" commissions that have proposed all kinds of things. That doesn't mean that they speak for the Church, and thankfully, those kinds of dog an pony shows seem to be largely a thing of the past.
That church died in 1054 with the Great Schism. We are all schismatics now.
@Daniel Smith and there’s been cast fighting over scripture down the centuries
In reference to the four churches on the corner, as an Anglican, I would just like to say that we do not claim to be the one unchanged church, but a part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. We’re the one church on the corner described that would not unchurch the others around it. We would say we follow the teaching of the Bible and the early church and have a lot to offer but we do not claim so exclusively.
Maybe Anglicans should try being more exclusive to draw in new people 🤔 Can you imagine that, an Anglican priest saying salvation is only found in the Anglican church? 😂
For real though, I love Anglicanism. I was there for twenty years or so before I finally bit the bullet and converted to Orthodoxy. I took it slow because the LAST thing I wanted to do was convert, then apostasize. (Don't tell my church, but I still use a CoE book for devotional reading -- Common Worship, Daily Prayer. It's REAL GOOD.)
Among traditional Anglicans, the Orthodox church is held in pretty high regard. What do you think about it?
Great video on an important topic, thanks!
I had been drawn to Orthodoxy and this video helped a lot. Makes me sad, because a lot of the liturgy and tradition I love. However, there are just pills I cannot swallow to become Orthodox.
What is it about orthodoxy that you can’t accept?
It helped you a lot by keeping you away from the true Church..? What problem do you have with Orthodoxy?
Silly bagel. Submit to Rome!
@lerikaharevic
Replacement Theology
Sola Eclessia (Ultimately that is what the Scripture and Church are equal boil down to)
Infallibility of the church.
Making non-essentials dogmatic and obligatory.
I like the flexibility of sitting next to a Calvinist in church without having to be called or call someone a heretic.
Essentially Orthodoxy calls everyone a heretic that doesn't agree with them.
You can affirm the same Christ, same Gospel, same Triune God...but don't agree tradition and Scripture are equal? Heretic...don't want to venerate an icon? Heretic. Etc etc
@@mattrivera8587 Sounds more like you're choosing who's right based on your emotions. Without an authoritative church you can't even say what's essential and non-essential dogma. Just because a deviation from the truth might be "small" doesn't mean it should be tolerated. Small deviations lead to big deviations
I do admire how you've been vulnerably willing to share your honest opinions on the "paper unity" and how unity should be objectively and practically redefined. Your comments on it speak volumes about so many layers of the issues in today's Christianity and provide hope of brotherly love to the scattering sheep all over the different denominations. May Christ be glorified in His Church and we be satisfied in Him.
Lol
Lmao even
“If you want to help the Church, it is better to try to correct yourself, rather than be looking to correct others. If you manage to correct yourself, one small part of the Church is immediately corrected. Naturally, if everyone did the same, the body of the Church would be in good health. But, today, people concern themselves with anything but themselves. You see, judging others is easy, whereas working on yourself takes effort.” - St Paisios the Athonite
Superb!!
The real church is made up of all of the people from all nations and all languages who worship our God and put their faith in Jesus Christ in spirit and in truth.
YES!! The confession is what Jesus built his church on. That Jesus is the Christ!!
Jesus established catholic church
@@nirmaljose7763sadly that holds no truth. Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail his church ….that disqualifies the Catholic Church. Og comment got it right
Praise God, Josh 🙌
Reverend Joshua thank you so much for sharing your story. I say this as a Protestant Seminarian. I think you make us Protestants look too nice! Wether they say it or not we can be just as "tribal" and dogmatic as any other religious denomination. People actually weed out people based on secondary issues. They debate, yeah if they do not hold to xyz I do not even consider them true believers. I love Dr. Smith's argument in his book "Evangelical, Sacramental, and Pentecostal: Why the Church Should Be All Three". There's much to learn from the Evangelical , High Church, and Pentecostal communities of the body of Christ- I love seeing communities trying to tie the 3 strands together. If the American Church is not yet there- I can easily see the American Church becoming as against the new converts and focused on upholding their National culture over uploading Christ above all.
You are completely right that protestants can be just as tribal and dogmatic as orthodox people. But that wasn't Joshua's point. He himself admitted that it took him years to learn about this issues with orthodoxy *because* lots of orthodox christians and even orthodox priests are unaware of them.
What sets orthodoxy apart from other denominations is the official canon. And as far as the orthodox official canon is concerned, what qualifies one as being a member of the church is narrower than in other denominations. This is just a fact.
this was an interesting interview for many reasons. I appreciated his explanation on how he squares the episcopacy and "Real Presence" where he is currently faith wise. I would have liked to see, as an Orthodox Christian, and explanation of how he maps his rejection of exclusive ecclesiology with rejecting that the Eucharist is Christ's literal flesh and blood and that the episcopacy is the order of Church government given to us by Christ.
Debunking catholicism
I'm more blessed than mary
Proof = Luke 11:27-28
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen
_________________________
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach
Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul.
Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop
_________________________
Jesus said Matthew 23:9
9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11
11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father.
Sad
_________________________
Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God
Use this to defeat the argument.
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”.
Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards).
By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26.
_________________________
We should not pray to apostles
Romans 1:25
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Acts 10:25-26
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
Acts 14:15
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
Revelation 19:10
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 22:8-9
8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Colossians 2:18
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession [a]for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34
34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Hebrews 7:25
25 Therefore He is also able to save [a]to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles
There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.
_________________________
Apostles are allowed to marry,
1 Corinthians 9:1-5
1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry?
_________________________
The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic).
1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple
2)He sank down while walking on water
3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan
4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times
5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven
6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear
7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles.
8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land),
9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit),
10)King Soloman messed up,
11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11).
Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up)
12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up.
13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20
If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up.
____________________________________
Galatians 4:21-26
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Sarah is mother of all, Not mary.
_________________________
Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics.
_________________________
Also, if the apostles didn't wrote it, I don't want it.
@@mynameis......23 Whoa that’s a lot of words. Too bad I’m not reading em.
@@mynameis......23 In the Luke verse in the original Greek he affirms she is blessed and explained why she is blessed she believed and did what God wanted without question. Unless you're implying Mary isn't a believer which is silly. Also, yes Mary is the mother of Jesus AKA God unless if you're Morman, Muslim or JW.
Orthodox priests can be marry so I won't get into that.
Matthew 23:9 Jesus was talking about hypocrites if you actually believe he meant that literally it would be a sin to call your dad father which is also silly.
Acts 10:25-26, Revelation 19:10 worshipping humans is forbidden by orthodox and Catholics. You have a weird definition of worship.
We ask for people in heaven to intercede on our behalf because of James 5:16
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
Prayers of righteousness men are powerful we ask them to pray for us like another other human. If anything, their prayers are more powerful because they are with God.
Colossians 2:18. the Colossians believed that angels were above Christ. Showing angels respect and asking for their prayers is not Worship.
Correct there is one mediator, and the holy spirit intercedes for us. Interceding is literally just praying on someone's behalf and the bible tells us to do it again in James 5:16. Intercessors still go through the mediator just like if you wanted me to pray for you.
The early church did refer to themselves as Catholics the earliest surviving document we have on it is from Ignatius of Antioch (A disciple of John). They also called themselves the holy catholic church during councils. Many of the apostles were bishops and there is a straight line of succession that only the Catholics and orthodox have a legit claim to.
You also say if the apostles didn't write it you won't accept it but probably will not accept the Didache. Or what any of the other early church fathers/early Christians have to say. Don't forget they did a lot of oral teaching 2 Thessalonians 2:15 most people were illiterate back then and to top it off Christianity was an illegal religion of course a lot of stuff didn't get written down or if it did it got destroyed. It's silly to think after Paul got martyred the churches just ignored everything he said and just stuck to the letters they left him.
P.S.
I'm not catholic but to my understanding Catholics understand the pope isn't perfect they only believe he is infallible when he speaks "Ex cathedra" I disagree with this, but straw manning people isn't a good look.
You are a blessing Dr Gavin. May the Lord continue to bless you and what you do
Great Interview. I find that lots of Orthodox hate Roman Catholics calling them papists and the like all the while claiming some sort of elite status for themselves. I find this prevalent amongst converts to EO from Protestants. I tried converting to EO from Catholicism several times but could never go through with it.
This was beyond helpful!! Very eye opening! God bless you Dr.Ortland! I have said before lol your videos have really helped me!
so glad to hear that!
This is yet another example of why a convert shouldn’t be able to become a priest so quickly after his entry into the Church. It creates scandal…. Sad.
Absolutely true... And this applies also to countries traditionally Orthodox... Criteria for priesthood must be strict and double checked by the spiritual father who gives testimony for the priesthood of the candidate.
Sadly, he and his children/ family are in a worse state than before as apostates. Terribly sad.
He’s completely damned his soul now.
@@iwads1 But it's perfectly fine to bow to paintings though right ?
Glad he is exposing yal false teaching like Peter Dimond
I absolutely adore how they are calling themselves Evangelical and not Protestants. Luther and Calvin called themselves Evangelicals. Catholics labeled us Protestants afterwords
This so good to hear!
This was immeasurably helpful!!!
Loved your analogy of additional coats & hats, adding so much to the Bible & the gospel! Thank you Gavin for your wonderful input & welcoming another true believer/ sharing your platform, & expanding the outreach to hearts & minds that are open to GOD'S TRUTH!!!! The real truth.😊
I love the analogy to the sun for the presence of Christ in the Eucharist 💖
It took me 20 years or so to convert to Orthodoxy after I discovered it, partly because of the things he mentioned. Thanks be to God, the priest who taught me the faith (off and on throughout all those years) never hid the messy parts of the Orthodox church from me. For anyone considering Orthodoxy, you need to know it isn't a monolithic tradition -- for that reason, I very much appreciate this interview.
I don't understand though, how having become Orthodox, anyone can return to an Augustinian tradition. The things western Christendom argues about make me want to bang my head against the wall 😬
As per usual, none of you who talk about Orthodox or Roman Catholic church talk about Jesus Christ, justification, escaping the wrath of God, peace with god. Only bells and whistles, oh it's so ancient, liturgy is beautiful this analogy helped me so much, such a rich tradition... All things of man, not of God. Not a surprise for an unconverted hearts....
@@SilenceDogwood. nonsense... In Orthodoxy we eat and drink Jesus Christ Flesh and blood literally in every Divine Liturgy... We inhale and exhale Jesus Christ by praying ceaselessly the Jesus prayer of the heart:Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on me a sinner... You know nothing about Orthodox Church what are u talking about? You are following a Christian community not a real Church established around 1500 or later and not the original Church Jesus Christ founded, without Grace, without Apostolic Succession without the Holy Spirit and u dare speak about Orthodox Church ?
@@SilenceDogwood. st. Paul says pray ceaselessly... How do you literally fulfill this? Ceaselessly means non stop with every breath
@@SilenceDogwood. Jesus said:this IS my Body and this IS my Blood... In Greek the verb εστί means IS in real not symbolically... He moreover said if you do not eat my Flesh and my Blood you don't have life in u... How do you protestants fulfill this? You don't ... I am Greek and I know much better than you the way it was originally written the Gospel.. Give me a break
@@SilenceDogwood. With the Jesus prayer we confess Jesus as our God Lord and Son of God and we confess the belief in Father God since we confess His Son and we also confess the Holy Spirit because no one can confess Jesus Christ as God but only in The Holy Spirit as st. Paul says... And we beg for the mercy for our sins.. This is a complete prayer beit said by Orthodox ceaselessly
Getting Fr.Patrick Henry Reardon on will help clear up some his conclusions about penal substitution or the atonement. If you can consider bringing him on your show! 🙂
100% Agreed. Orthodox teaching on the Atonement is so poorly presented here, I wonder how he was able to earn an M.Div. and be ordained by the Orthodox Church.
@@Simeonpravoslav Exactly! I was literally chatting with an Orthodox priest today that said the same thing.
That's why if the Truth Unites YT channel is interested he should get Orthodox priest and scholars who are apart of the Orthodox Church if he's really interested in getting the truth instead of looking for Orthodox people who have abandoned the faith that are probably causing confusion for those inquiring into Orthodoxy.
Where's the truth in that?
An Orthodox response to Joshua Schooping th-cam.com/video/2uQ17ijWWo4/w-d-xo.html
Gavin, thanks for hosting this discussion! So fruitful to learn from others in different positions. Thanks to Joshua too for taking the time!
Thanks Josefa! :)
Changes like these bring a chill to my spine, what an intellectually and spiritually honest man. May God bless your life Josh.
@Conquering Death, how do you know that he "isn't being intellectually honest"?
Bravo! This is awesome interview. Thank you both! This is a concisos and brave guest!
God bless you.
Is that bless of God deity as orthodox say or something created as catholic say...
I would ask any Protestant this question: if Protestantism is the authentic genuine Christianity that was taught by the Apostles, where are all of the people reacting against the introduction of supposed innovations like a sacradotal priesthood? Why do we not see anyone opposing this for 1,500 years? Where are the people in 800AD who believed what Protestants today believe? If a sacradotal priesthood is an innovation and in fact not a part of authentic Christianity, where are all of the people saying "woh what are you doing, we all know this is heresy!"
Excellent question.
The re-appraisal of sacerdotal clergyism came about with the rediscovery of Scripture, made possible by printing presses and the rise of literacy in the population. As small groups of believers discovered the great truths of the faith for themselves, they saw the importance of being baptized as believers, and going on in devotion to Christ and living from His Word. Read for what they actually say, the Gospels and Epistles show that God raises up elders/overseers/pastors from the men of a congregation as they grow in the Word and become capable of ministry.
@@arttyree4504 You didn't understand the question. If your view is correct, and the original Church was congregational, then when did the supposed "innovation" of sacerdotalism occur? Because sacerdotalism is present in St. Ignatius of Antioch, who lived in the 100s AD. So, when this "innovation" supposedly occurred, why did no one at the time condemn sacerdotalism as an innovation or a heresy? Because no one did.
Actually learn some real Church history, focusing on the first 1,000 years. And learn about the eastern half of the Church. In the Greek-speaking Church there was no loss of the Scriptures and therefore no need for a "re-discovery."
Hi Paisios,
You asked, “if Protestantism is the authentic genuine Christianity that was taught by the Apostles,”…
This is a misrepresentation, I will assume you do it out of ignorance and not with mal intent. However, I would just like to correct that from the very beginning by saying that no Protestants actually believe that. If you find one, he/she is a minority who knows nothing about church history,
Thanks
@@edwinnunez7538 so you're admitting that Protestantism isn't the faith of the Apostles?
I loved how he clarified the reason evengelicals are not submerged in historical religion and philosophy. It's because we're too busy saturating ourselves with the word of God and working daily on conforming our minds and bodies to that
The Logos is far beyond your printed translation.
@@BarbaPamino do you even read it?
@Matthew Rudolph read what? The Scripture? Yes. In the language it was written in and cross reference in the context of the time of the language alongside the exegesis of the men that physically preserved the Holy Scripture with their hands. Have you?
This!!
@@BarbaPamino yes. So are you saying that if I’m not Orthodox I’m not saved?
18:50, 20:38, 21:10 - penal substitution
22:17 - John Chrysostom and guilt of the criminal
23:57 - “fragmentation”
Interesting discussion. I think there's a lot of deeper soteriological premises that are not well understood by Rev. Schooping with regards to penal substitution and the Eucharist. The issue is about the sacrifice of Christ and what a sacrifice means. It was only when I became Catholic and studied this topic in depth did it become clear how skewed my idea of sacrifice was when I was a Protestant.
Hey, that's cool. I pastored the C&MA church for three years in Fort Smith, just 45 minutes from the Russellville church. We went there a few times. I think I even preached once. I know the former pastor very well 🙂
Loved it...greetings from Pittsburgh Josh...excellent. Love your TH-cam channel Gavin...!
Interesting interview. I am a Baptist from England, but, living in Eastern Europe, I also got interested in Orthodoxy and have read The Way of the Pilgrim, Kalistos Ware and David Bentley Hart (is he a universalist??). My prayer is that the denominations could learn more each other.
Back filling the history,,,great insight....
Thank you for this. My wife and I are Lutherans, and I have been learning about Orthodoxy. I was convinced that I was doomed.
I hope this works out for him. I'm a Catholic Convert.
Lord have mercy! I am so heartbroken for this man not as much that he left the Church but that he renounced the Holy priesthood and of course left the Church. May God guide him home.
Do not worry. He just left one of the branches or one of de facto EO denominations. He remains in Christ's Church.
Hopefully he will repent. If not, as an apostate, he will be damned without a doubt. It's a very frightening situation. It should serve as a warning to all of us.
@@angelbonilla4243 So it’s your contention that one part of Christ’s body can teach Calvinism while the other teaches free will? Is it your position that Christ can simultaneously teach the real presence in the Eucharist while the other teaches symbolic sacramentology?
There is ONE church. Not a million different branches teaching radically different things. From our standpoint, sad as it is, Joshua has left Christ’s church.
Sam?
@@angelbonilla4243 - I believe you are sincere and are trying to be charitable and broad minded, but as much as I'd like for it to be true, the so-called Branch Theory (most often put forward by Anglicans, but there are other variations of it) doesn't really work in the real world.
For starters, there are Our Lord's own words in his high priestly prayer: _“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be _*_one_*_ , as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be _*_one_*_ in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me”_ (John 17:20, 21).
Secondly, there is no agreement or binding dogmatic position among the various Protestant proponents of the Branch Theory about which "branches" are to be included in the Branch Theory. Many high-church Anglicans would only allow for the Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox as among the "branches" of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Other Anglicans would add the Old Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Moravian, Persian, and Scandinavian Lutheran churches among the "branches". Some other Anglicans would include the Methodist, Presbyterian and other Lutheran (non-Scandinavian) denominations. Low-Church evangelical Anglicans generally hold to the broader Protestant notion of an "invisible Church" with no visible unity. I read an article where Roman Catholic scholar Adrian Fortescue noted that according to this [branch] theory, Christ's Church has no visible unity, but is comprised of numerous denominations that are somehow invisibly connected. Fortescue says that this theory is common among most Protestant bodies, although _"each one generally holds that it is the purest branch of the Church"_ . In the same article, it is noted that Reformed theologian Karl Barth (in his book, Church Dogmatics) defined the "Evangelical Church" as having only three branches: Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican. For Barth, the "Evangelical Church" was to be distinguished apart from what Barth called the "three heresies of Neo-Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy". (this seems noteworthy in light of the accusation made by Joshua Schooping about the supposed sectarian "exclusivism" of Eastern Orthodoxy being the reason he was compelled to leave the Orthodox Church. Yet many Protestants hold to a default position that excludes the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox from being among the "branches" of Christ's Church. )
This is good stuff even though I am not and have not been orthodox Christianity are even Baptist but I have an old time Pentecostal background not this new charismatic Pentecostal Gobbledy goop but even watching now the transformation evolving problems between old time Pentecostal Apostolic churches till now the application of this discussion I'm looking at it through his lens and can see some of the same problems are that's really not a problem at all so this is a really good conversation so I've applied it to the spiritual condition in life that I'm in now and it's helping me to solidify and be stronger in my faith yet be open to not only walking in present truth but to go further with Christ
I know a lot of people who almost converted to EO. Myself included. It's really interesting to see the reasoning of people to convert/not to.
I mostly agree he is being truthful.
Just an tip for someone interested in learning some basic church history and likes podcast types stuff. Ryan Reeves has an excellent youtube channel with basic church history information.
Welcome Home bro💪🏾
A comment on substitutionary atonement in EO, I think one reason why the EO is so allergic to it is because often in the west the mystery of salvation has been systematically reduced to the theology of penal substitution, whereas the EO (and scripture IMO) would find that to be a woefully inadequate account of what’s going on with Christ and salvation. I think there’s a way to think about substitutionary atonement in an orthodox framework, but it’s got so much Western baggage it may seem easier to reject it outright.
We are not to reject it because it's dogma. Yes, we emphasize the therapeutic atonement aspect more (Christ conquering death), but substitutionary atonement is still true.
We are to interpret the substitutionary atonement in an Orthodox & patristic way, not in the *penal* substitutionary satanic interpretation of the Reformers that the Father damned the Son (read "Was Christ damned in your place?" on Nick's Catholic Blog).
Orthodox believe in penal substitutionary atonement, but we do so according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers who were successors of the Holy Apostles.
The over-emphasis on penal substituion reminds me of evangelical "once saved, always saved" theology. It is simply incomplete, it's like the story ends there and is missing the richness of the fullness of the faith.
As OSAS theology is Christianity without the Cross, adhering only to Penal substitution is Christianity without the resurrection.
Both OSAS theology and the over emphasis on Penal substitution is reflective of the root and stem of all Protestant error, that is, placing soteriology before christology. Figuring out who Christ is before figuring out how we are saved should be obvious. Protestant theology prays upon the insecurity and vanity of man.
@Daniel Smith do some basic research on the role of penal substitution in Orthodox soteriology. Many excellent resources out there.
@@lordofhostsappreciator3075
Hi Gaming,
You started: “We are to interpret the substitutionary atonement in an Orthodox & patrístic way, not in the penal substitutionary satanic interpretation of the Reformers…”
This was a very interesting statement. I’m unaware of anyone using the language of Christ being “damned” on our behalf other than RC Sproul. Sproul however, was obviously not a Reformer, so could you please cite someone who held this view in the Reformation or Post Reformation Developments? I would enjoy it for my research. I would also be curious to ask what you mean by “not in the penal substitutionary….interpretation”? Is it merely what you said about Christ being “damned”? Because I’m sure it certainly isn’t in reference to Christ being punished, being that you can see that language in the Church Fathers of course.
Thanks
What was said here is 100% true!!!! Denominations are simply how different cultures praise Jesus. I’m a baptist and hold hands with my reformed Calvinist brothers, Lutheran brothers, Presbyterian, Non Denominationional, heck even Orthodox. I go back and forth about Roman Catholic but I can’t deny they’re godly people. I hope you all continue to love Jesus, regardless on how you praise Jesus all I ask is that you love all your brothers in Christ and don’t divide the church.
I agree with you. I was raised Methodist and United Reformed and recently became interested in the Orthodox Church. I've changed my mind about even exploring more because some, not all, of their church members, were very hostile towards me. Why? Because I'm not Orthodox. That's it.
I was merely enquiring about orthodoxy and this deeply offended them even though I never once attacked or criticised them. I was told you have to be 'chosen ' to be an orthodox and serious about your faith. I was told we're apostates because we're not orthodox. And despite me telling them repeatedly that we believe Jesus is God and Son of God and we believe in his birth death and resurrection and observe the trinity, they insisted I wasn't a Christian because I'm not Orthodox.
I was told non Orthodox folks are using Jesus for who knows what and that we worship 'something' but it's not Jesus. It was even implied that we worship the devil because any church started by a man or woman isn't God approved. So we're satanists.
They then started to attack and insult the Catholic church even though I'm not Catholic myself and repeatedly said this. I was then told only their Church is true the rest of us are practising a fake religion. They even refused to acknowledge themselves as Christian just Orthodox. I was like wow! So much hatred and anger exists in their church.
And if you're not one of them and even dare ask about orthodoxy, you're met with hostility. I realised then that the problem is them not the rest of us. I can only imagine how they treat non Christians e.g.Muslims and non religious folk who may be interested in Christianity but may only have an orthodox church nearby.
I was taught growing up that everyone is welcome in the house of the Lord. Even non religious people and other religions. And if anyone enquires about Christianity and the church we attend, we're told to be kind and respectful and try to help. If we can't, find someone who can. By being hostile and aggressive, we risk putting people of Christianity all together and Jesus would be angry with us.
But Orthodox Christians do this regularly. Everyone apart from them is not a true Christian.
We're taught as non Orthodox that if we're Christian, we're ALL God's children. No matter what church we attend. Jesus loves even unbelievers. The orthodox church disagree with this. It's sad how hateful they are. Some not all. We'd welcome them into our churches and would be happy to engage in a respectful manner about Christianity and our Church. I also told them that there are folks living in China and Islamic countries, where Christianity is totally banned or restricted.
Any churches even orthodox are destroyed and Christians are banned from even getting together to pray. Even killed. Thus these Christians go it alone and worship Christ in secret or in China, Christians there use caves and the wilderness as churches.
Are these people doing anything wrong as Christians? The orthodox church and governments in Islamic countries and China think so. Whilst we admire the bravery and determination of persecuted Christians around the world, the Orthodox Church mock them.
They are not orthodox so are not saved. Never mind the fact NO churches or forms of Christianity are allowed in certain countries yet people do their best to worship and serve Jesus. Because we're not orthodox, we're not Christians. So very sad and hateful. What church would have so much anger and hatred towards anyone, is beyond belief.
But I'll most definitely not be showing interest in the orthodox church again.
But what about Mormons and JW? You do draw the line somewhere no?
@@mikemolaro4198 well of course I draw the line when the deity of Christ or the Gospel message is being tainted or corrupted. I was more referencing actual Christian denominations. A “denomination” that doesn’t believe that Jesus is God but merely an angel isn’t a Christian, a church that preaches that we can become god’s one day and God isn’t the only God let alone the first. They aren’t Christian’s. For the majority of Christian denominations they are saved as long as they believe in sola scriptura and sola fite.
@@AM-mw2wu This is exactly how the Orthodox behave. They worship the Orthodox Church, not Jesus Christ.
@@user-en6zl1cm5r it's truly frustrating. And they treat the rest of us like non believers. Lol you can't make this BS up.
Interesting interview. On the episcopate: Anglicans view bishops as part of the presbytery. But they are the most authoritative Presbyter. That’s why bishops can still perform all priestly functions like consecrating the Eucharist. We would argue that this is the historic position of the church: the bishop is the head Presbyter among presbyters.
On apostolic succession, I didn’t know Luther was a priest! That actually makes me feel more comfortable about the whole Lutheran and main Reformed (Presbyterian) tradition. Thanks for that!
Just out of curiosity, why would Luther's ordination affect your view of the traditions of Zwingli, Calvin, and Knox?
Also, what did you think Luther was lol ?
This is an excellent video, and I respect this man's scholarship and his decision. For me, after 50 years of Protestantism, (I like Fr. Trenham's term "folk Protestantism") I had some serious issues about church history or the lack thereof in my brand of Protestantism. To me, there was also a theological disconnect between the "faith alone" (and by faith, I mean intellectual assent) and once-saved-always-saved theology of my version of Protestantism versus what seems to be taught in the Bible and what appears to have been taught in the early church (martyrs believed they literally had to hold onto their confession until the end of theirs lives). Perhaps this was most magnified to me when I read arguments whether or not modern Christians are "under" the Sermon on the Mount (of course, dispensationalism teaches- or is interpreted as teaching- that Jesus' "hard sayings" were written to the Jewish people still under the Law, and therefore Christians don't have to worry about following Christ's commands.) Again, I realize that discussing "Protestant" doctrine is rather like trying to make a blanket statement about Orthodox doctrine in some issues. I also saw, in Orthodoxy, more of a pre-Renaissance mindset. I'd been teaching (in historical programs) for years the fact that people in the past thought differently than we do today, and yet I'd been trying to interpret the Bible with a modern mindset. Orthodoxy is VERY different in the way it approaches theology and worship. I'm not fully Orthodox yet, and I admit there are some issues that need to be recognized and clearly articulated before a person becomes Orthodox. Orthodoxy made some statements during times and in places when Christianity and culture was MUCH different than it is today. One of the struggles Orthodoxy will face is how it will respond coming into Western culture with an influx of Westerners, many of them former Protestants.
My concern with Josh is that he is doctrinally agnostic. He said that having thousands of Protestant denominations is good because it makes them distinct, as if false doctrine does not exist or imperil believers. He also cited Ligoniers in a study reference, which suggests to me that he may be a Calvinist. I don't disagree with him that believers in Christ can exist in every area of Christendom, however no minister should hold the view that theology is merely academic or inconsequential.
@@PETERJOHN101 G'day Peter. Is there any real problem if he is a Calvinist? Seems like someone could believe in some sort of divine determinism(or merely quote from resources of people who do) and live out their faith just fine. Sorry if I misunderstood just sounded like you were using Calvinism as if it's a slur. Maybe you've had negative experiences with Calvinists before or consider it a heresy but prefer not to qualify such a claim but either way I'd say this is not a good way to use the name of a broad group of people within the faith.
Personally I'd rather have multiple denominations(not thousands though) if it allows for at least some of them to be closer to Biblical truth rather than a single Church that is bound by tradition to such an extent that if heresy is already in the Church it can never really be dealt with effectively. I believe the Scriptures are vital to give the church an immune system and this was neglected for a long time which is why the Reformation, as messy as it was in some ways and still is to some extent, was needful.
Seems to me that the numerosity of denominations in question is kind of like when atheists cite the number of textual variants in the NT. Yes, it's a big number, but only if you count every minute discrepancy as a variation. When you consider only the major relevant distinctives it goes down drastically.
This was a very enlightening and encouraging discussion.
Fascinating to hear about Rev. Joshua's journey and the many insights he's given into some of the claims from our EO brothers.
Thank you for doing this, brother Gavin!
We may be brothers in our humanity, but not in the Faith.
There were three tiers of clergy in the NT: Apostles, Bishops/Presbyters, and Deacons. By the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, the successors to the office of Apostle were called Bishops, and the next tiers were called presbyters and deacons. There is no innovation, and when one has to decide between a disciple of the Apostle John and someone 1500 years later, the choice should be obvious.
Do Not call Anyone on earth your "father" ... • Matthew 23:9.
@@jg7923 What do you call the guy who raised you?
@@inbetweennames4438 pops
@@jg7923 you think that’s a serious argument still?
@@l21n18 Literally the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Those who depart from the Orthodox faith, dazzled by destroying heresies, do enlighten by the light of Your holy wisdom, and unite them to Your Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church. Amen.
@Daniel Smith That’s an irrelevant loaded question that’s shoots itself. God would never direct a person to worship other gods. That would make that charismatic prophet, a false prophet. I hope that answers your question.
@Daniel Smith The fact that someone would trouble himself to offer up an incense sacrifice to a brazen serpent would not think he would be doing it to a mere statue. The idol is a body and representation of what he considers to be his god, that has been ritually prepared to serve as dwelling for that god (a demon, for clarification). That’s how idolatry in this scenario works.
@Daniel Smith Ouch 😂. I’m not an adept in all the scriptures, but I know enough to understand the context which you will find from reading chapters 16 and 17 of 2 Kingdoms. The once symbol of healing was not abused, but now was being worshiped as a god along with the other gods that the Israelites made. Together with the Lord, the heavenly hosts and even Baal.
@Daniel Smith We won’t get anywhere. Get some education in cultural and historical background. For deities I recommend Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, you’ll learn a ton. Keep at it and good luck. Peace!
@Daniel Smith Typo corrected! Thank you!
This has been so refreshing to hear because I immediately picked up on this idea of the claims of orthodoxy’s full unity and how it did not seem right to me, even in my ignorance of not studying much of the fathers yet. The way they claim that they have the original church and customs passed down from the apostles led me to research this stuff and listen to many different voices or ideas. Furthermore, when I would hear orthodox talk about hey they are the originals and that It is the true church my spirit was definitely reacting to that idea because of the incredible amount of things God has done through Protestants and how He is working through them. I cannot reconcile any further idea that God works through them despite that. It is really interesting researching the ideas and beliefs of the Orthodox Church. I have had those red flags so thank you for sharing your experience and conclusions!
Lord have mercy
This was a fantastic interview, thank you both!
glad you enjoyed!
Incredible interview !. This Pastor is impressive in his vast knowledge, and I really enjoyed this. There is only one Jesus. No disrespect to anyone but ,these denominations all think they are the only way. There is only one way and that is in Jesus. Amen
Fellow Christian Missionary Alliance here. It was good to hear your journey.
Really helpful content! Keep it up!
Gavin, in your view, what’s the distinction between Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist and Christ’s real presence in the world in general? In other words, is Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist more special than his real presence in the world in general? If so, why/how is it more special in your view?
Orthodox unity is the unity at the chalice…
My non-Catholic or Orthodox Church drinks from the same chalice weekly. Due to covid we've had to change that but it's still the same.
The coat and hat analogy made a lot of sense to me. “Who moved?” Great question.
Great video. I definitely agree that there needs to be more exposure to perspectives going in the other direction. It is also good because he was Orthodox and a priest for a few years and went to seminary so you can't really say that he was not really Orthodox. However after listening to what he said it sounds like he never really understood what it is to be Orthodox.
He needed to understand that it's all about making money at food festivals and being unwelcoming to American inquirers, and bowing to paintings and never evangelizing and having extravagant decorations for the church and counting the money people give to buy candles at the entrance of The Church.
@@icxcnika2037 It's not a sin to point out what Eastern Orthodox Churches do and are really about.
@@icxcnika2037 He also needed to understand that all that belief about touching Holy Relics and icons being able give Healing and Grace goes out the window when "covid" happens and your bishops will do what ever the world and government tells them to do. The Disillusionment with Eastern Orthodoxy sets in pretty fast when you see their true colors.
@@jg7923 2 Kings 13 : 21
“So it was, as they were burying a man, that suddenly they spied a band of raiders; and they put the man in the tomb of Elisha; and when the man was let down and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet.”
Yup, relics can’t grant healing. Somebody should correct the Bible!
@@jg7923 You have no understanding of what you're saying.
I like your channel and your spirit Gavin. Your channel name is nice. Truth in service to God's love will win in the end I believe that. Unfortunately so far in the history of the church it seems overwhelmingly that Truth has not united Christians. Christ's high priestly prayer has not as of yet been answered or so it appears.
The interviewer is thoughtful and excellent. Rev. Schooping, for me, is a man and pastor displaying deep contradictions in his concerns. For example he speaks to the "disunity" he finds in both the Orthodox "paper" organizational system and within the parishes in terms of fellowship and a sense of belonging. He then speaks at the end saying we should be "non-judgmental." Every Orthodox Christian knows that we are a church with challenges, in particular the boldness of faith and community engagement so prevalent in Evangelical churches. However, we must remember that to be Christian is to be Evangelical! Also if we do not frame the troubles and torments within our churches and within the hierarchy of the church in a spiritual context (Ephesians 6:12) then we have not only missed the mark - we have no true ground to fight nor win this battle.
Humble and pray. Worry about my own salvation . Saint Mary of Egypt pray for this generation
Orthodoxy does not teach that all who are outside in life are necessarily damned in the afterlife, it simply teaches that all those outside the Church in life are outside the Church in life. This is because Orthodoxy preserves the original apostolic view of the Church as the Body of Christ and Kingdom of God in which salvation and deification in this life is possible. Those who die outside the Church in this life in ignorance, we leave up to the mercy of God. Hell has been defeated, Christ has power in Hades.
Schooping also misunderstands how anathemas work. Anathemas are not traps for the ignorant within or outside the Church, they are the official position of the Church and do curse heresy, but their curse comes into effect upon those who knowingly affirm them against the Church's position. So again, heresy is condemned, specific indivudals outside the Church are not placed under judgement of where they will ultimately end up.
Schooping unlike the ignorant is a heretic. He knows the Orthodox doctrine not only of the Church but also its anathema against universalism, and he continues to believe these things and has apostatized. He came into the Church with protestant and universalist baggage, didnt like that he couldnt warp the faith to suit his views, and has left. He was a subversive and good riddance. "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us (1 Jn 2:19)."
It's rather odd that he continues to sell the books he published while still outwardly presenting himself as an Orthodox priest. On Amazon he still sells his *"A MANUAL OF THEOSIS: Orthodox Christian Instruction on the Theory and Practice of Stillness, Watchfulness, and Ceaseless Prayer"* and also his re-published catechetical works: *"The Catechism of St. Peter Mogila: Fundamental Teachings of the Orthodox Christian Faith"* by Peter Mogila (Author), J.J. Overbeck (Editor), Joshua Schooping (Editor), Philip Lodvel (Translator), J.N.W.B. Robertson (Introduction) , and *"The Longer Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church"* by St. Philaret Drozdov of Moscow (Author), Philip Schaff (Editor), Joshua Schooping (Editor), R.W. Blackmore (Translator) and *"The Holy Standards: The Creeds, Confessions of Faith, and Catechisms of the Eastern Orthodox Church"* by Peter Mogila (Author), Dositheus of Jerusalem (Author), Philaret of Moscow (Author), J.J. Overbeck (Editor), Joshua Schooping (Editor), Philip Lodvel (Translator), R.W. Blackmore (Translator), J.N.W.B. Robertson (Translator) . Why would he sell such books if he now embraces Protestantism ? I wonder what his function was as "Editor" of these works ?
@@jeanandre4023 correct comment... May God have mercy on him... We must be aware though of the spiritual invisible war that takes place against all Orthodox and mostly against the priests... If we consider that factor many seemingly inexplicable behaviors and facts like that you just mentioned become clearly explained
@@jeanandre4023 It's all about the clout!
@@evans3922 There seems to be a lot of guilt on whoever catechized him and the seminary he went to, because they clearly did a very poor job, and most of all whoever ordained him, who had an extreme lack of discernment. Lord have mercy.
Seems to be that there are different views on this matter in orthodoxy. There isnt a set view that is affirmed
As someone who grew up in the Orthodox church and converted to Evangelical Christianity, I have a lot to say about this discussion. First of all, I would like to say that it's extremely humbling and courageous of Pastor Joshua to open up about this topic and share his story. Unfortunately my experience in the Orthodox church is very similar to what Pastor Joshua mentioned. The social status of a priest in any Orthodox Christian community puts him higher than anyone else. The priest has the right to refuse confession and to refuse communion to someone and many more things that put priests in power and takes me away from the original picture of Christianity which is Christ. I would confidently say with no doubt whatsoever that my first 21 years of my life in the Orthodox church were spiritually empty and a waste of precious time. I always had a feeling in my heart since I was a child that going to the Orthodox church and supporting it is wrong. I regret my service as a deacon and every step I've taken inside this satanic alter that still sacrifices Christ after his full sacrifice. There is no holy spirit in the Orthodox church. Its an extremely false version of Christianity based on tradition by people who enjoy power over others. I do not apologize for this comment because I truly mean every single word.
I left the Orthodox church for the same reason.
There is no salvation for heretics, schismatics, and quitters.
You dont have the authority to say it is wrong. Lol
Praise God. This is beautiful. Lord have mercy.
Thank you for this. I’ve been looking into Orthodoxy lately and their exclusivity was causing me to doubt my standing as a Protestant. I felt that the Orthodox Church was too exclusive with their claims. This is a great interview and a God-send for me. Bless you, brothers.
I grew up charismatic protestant, I'm 26 now, and I found Orthodoxy in recent years. It's important to realize the Church excludes heresy. There are two reasons someone would be 'Christian' but not Orthodox, one is ignorance and the other is heresy.
@@dw4270 Hello. Beware of the Orthodox modernistic theology which occurred in the first half of the 20th century and which differs from the original, patristic Orthodoxy. Modernism recognizes the penal substitutionary atonement only in the aspect of Christ saving us from mortality by dying instead of us but it denies the aspect of Christ justifying us through satisfying God’s wrath, thus saving us from the second death - the eternal punishment for our sins, by substituting the eternal penalty with the penalty of the Cross that He took as an innocent instead of us. It is true that God’s wrath is not a passion because the divine nature is passionless. God’s wrath refers to God's abandonment of man:"Man was led into his captivity when he experienced God's wrath, this wrath being the good God's just abandonment of man." (St.Gregory Palamas 16th Homily on the Holy Saturday). But it still refers to God's justice - ,,just abandonment of man'', so the satisfaction of God’s wrath refers to the satisfaction of His justice. That second aspect of the penal substitutionary atonement which is the legal understanding of Christ’s Sacrifice, is rejected by modernistic theology (as Joshua Schooping also explained) as a supposedly un-Orthodox teaching but in reality it has always been an Orthodox teaching.
If we go through the history of the Orthodox polemics with the West regarding the Western deviations of the ancient faith. We will see nowhere a rejection by the Orthodox theologians of the penal subsitutionary atonement as supposedly a Western error. If the penal substitutionary atonement in the mentioned aspect, was a Western heresy, it would have been condemned as such exactly in the polemics of the Orthodox with the West, for example during the attempts for a union between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church because during those attempts there clearly arose the dogmatic differences between the East and the West. So the theory about the Latin captivity of Orthodox theology is a modernistic myth.
In the Encyclical letter of St.Photius (867) to the Eastern patriarchs (when Rome had not yet fallen into a schism but had already embraced heresies), St.Photious mentions the heresies of Rome. (churchmotherofgod.org/salvation-history/new-life-church-history/6257-encyclical-letter-of-saint-photius-867.html). He mentions the heresies of Rome - the celibacy of the priesthood, the rejection of the validity of the chrismation made by priests, the fasting on Saturdays, the heretical Filioque addition in the Creed. But he does not mention the penal subsitutionary atonement.
The Definition of faith of the Local Council of Blachernae ( 1157 CE) says:,,…When Christ our Lord sacrificied Himself willingly, He offered Himself as man, and as God He received the sacrifice together with the Father and the Spirit. …To begin with, at the Lord’s Passion, the Logos as the God-man offered the salutary sacrifice to the Father and to Himself as God and to the Spirit. …But now He likewise offers the bloodless sacrifices to the All-perfect and perfecting Trinity, and the latter receives them. …“ (Doctrinal Disputes in the History of Nicetas Choniates by Dr. Harry J.Magoulias, p.207). The Council denies the false assumption that Christ's offering was made only to the Father but it does not reject the legal aspect of the PSA.
After the acceptance by emperor Michael VIII Paleologos of an union with Rome which was, however, short-lived, the Athonite monks of the Bulgarian Zographou monastery sent a letter to the emperor in which they pointed out the major heretical teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and the penal subsitutionry atonement in the aspect of Christ taking the penalty of the Cross as a replacement of the everlasting punishement of the hell fire that we would otherwise undergo, thus saving us from that everlasting punishment, was not among them:
''26 Monkmartyrs of the Zographou Monastery on Mou nt Athos In the year 1274 at the Council of Lyons (in France), the Byzantine emperor Michael VIII Paleologos decided to buttress his waning power by forming a union with Catholic Rome. This step evoked universal discontent. In 1278, the emperor issued a decree to introduce the Union at Constantinople by forceful measures, if necessary. Mt. Athos stood in firm opposition to the Union. The Athonite monks sent a letter to Michael pointing out that the primacy of the Pope, his commemoration in the churches, celebrating the Eucharist with unleavened bread, the insertion of the “filioque” [“and from the Son”] into the Creed, could not be accepted by Orthodox, and they asked the emperor to change his mind. “We clearly see,” the letter said, “that you are becoming a heretic, but we implore you to forsake all this and abide in the teachings that were handed down to you.... Reject the unholy and novel teachings of a false knowledge, speculations, and additions to the Faith. (www.oca.org/saints/lives/2016/10/10/108024-26-martyrs-of-the-zographou-monastery-on-mount-athos-at-the-hand). They mention celebrating the claim for the primacy of the pope, celebrating the Eucharist with unleavened bread, the Filioque. But they do not mention the legal aspect of the PSA as a Roman Catholic heresy.
The differences between the East and West were discussed also during the negotiations at the Councils of Ferrara 1438-1439) and Florence (1439-1449) that led to the setting of the Ferraro-Florentine union of Rome and the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1452. In his 1444 Encyclical letter (orthodoxethos.com/post/the-encyclical-letter-of-saint-mark-of-ephesus) St.Mark of Ephesus who opposed the establishing of the union, mentions among the fundamental heresies of the Roman Church the Filoque, the addition to the Creed, the claim for the supremacy of the pope, the celebrating of the Eucharist with an unleavened bread, the purgatory, the moment of the consecration of the Blessed Sacrament. But he does not mention among the fundamental heresies of the Roman Church the penal substitutionary atonement in its legal aspect.
In his 1570s' letters to the Lutheran theologians of Tubingen, Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople (1572-1595) does not mention, especially in his commentaries on the Augsburg confession of faith, the legal aspect of the penal substitutionary atonement as a false teaching of the Lutherans.
The Pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople of 1672 which condemned Calvinism and the total depravity of the unregenerate man, and affirmed the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, also does not mention as a heresy of Western Christianity the penal subsitutionary atonement in its legal aspect.
The Patriarchal encyclical from 1895 by the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Anthimus VII (1895-1896) from 1895 which is a reply to the Papal encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (1853-1903) Praeclara Gratulationis publicae (On the Reunion of Christendom) summarizes the heretical deviations of the Papacy but does not mention the legal understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement:
,,VI. And indeed for the holy purpose of union, the Eastern orthodox and catholic Church of Christ is ready heartily to accept all that which both the Eastern and Western Churches unanimously professed before the ninth century, if she has perchance perverted or does not hold it. And if the Westerns prove from the teaching of the holy Fathers and the divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils that the then orthodox Roman Church, which was throughout the West, even before the ninth century read the Creed with the addition, or used unleavened bread, or accepted the doctrine of a purgatorial fire, or sprinkling instead of baptism, or the immaculate conception of the ever-Virgin, or the temporal power, or the infallibility and absolutism of the Bishop of Rome, we have no more to say. But if, on the contrary, it is plainly demonstrated, as those of the Latins themselves, who love the truth, also acknowledge, that the Eastern and orthodox catholic Church of Christ holds fast the anciently transmitted doctrines which were at that time professed in common both in the East and the West, and that the Western Church perverted them by divers innovations, then it is clear, even to children, that the more natural way to union is the return of the Western Church to the ancient doctrinal and administrative condition of things; for the faith does not change in any way with time or circumstances, but remains the same always and everywhere, for 'there is one body and one Spirit,' it is said, 'even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx).
The Patriarch mentions the biggest heretical deviations of Rome - the Filioque addition to the Creed, the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, the purgatory, the practice of sprinkling instead of immersion in baptism, immaculate conception of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, the teaching of the created grace, the infallibility and the claim for supremacy of the Pope. But he does not mention among them the penal subsitutionary atonement in its legal aspect.
It is evident that throughout the whole history of the Orthodox Church the legal view of the penal subsitutionary atonement was never refuted and so was not considered a non-Orthodox teaching and a Western influence. So the modern theory that it is a Western influence on Orthodox theology is a 20th century modernistic myth.
@@dw4270 The modernistic rejection of that aspect of the PSA is indirectly related to the ongoing crisis within the Orthodox Church today that is related to the internal schism that occurred in 2018. That in turn means that some Local Orthodox Churches fell from the Orthodox Church, fell into schism in the recent few years and thus fell from grace. That is not much talked-about. So in the case of joining the Orthodox Church it is crucial to understand which Churchs fell into schism and which are still Orthodox. The schism within Orthodoxy today is rooted exactly in the ongoing modernistic anti-PSA theology (at least that is one of the major reasons for the schism) because the Churches that fell inito schism had been gradually embracing it since the late 1950s. But significant Orthodox theologians (some of them saints) have clearly defined the anti-PSA understanding of the Redemption as a heresy. St.Theophan of Poltava (1875-1940) calls it a ,,cross-fighting heresy'' because it fight against the Cross as a tool of the Redemtion of our sins. It is also refuted by St.Seraphim Sobolev (1881-1950).
The first major source of the cross-fighting heresy is Metpolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky (1863-1936) with his work ''The dogma of Redemption'' (1917) which rejects the patristic Orthodox understanding of Redemption. Metropolitan Anthony gave the name ,,moral monism‘‘ to his anti-legalistic teaching. What characterizes moral monism is the rejection of the traditional Patristic teaching of the Redemption, Retribution and Judgment. Metropolitan Anthony expressed his anti-legalistic teaching also in his Cathehism (1926). He explicitly rejected the penal substitutionary atonement on the Cross and claimed that Christ redeemed humanity with His tears in the Garden of Gethsemane and not through His Suffering and Death on the Cross. A follower of his ideas and another major modernist of the 20th century is Protopresbyter John Romanides (1927-2001) with his fundamental modernistic work ,,The Ancestral Sin'' (1957). Another fundamental modernistic work is ,,The River of Fire'' (1980) by Alexandre Kalomiros (1931-1990).
There are four significant moments that refer to the events in Orthodoxy in the recent few years and that must be mentioned.
First, it is the conducting, most notably by the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate of a policy of ecumenism which attempts to unify all Christian denominations on an unprincipled basis by neglecting the dogmatic differences.
Second, the decade-lengthy process (starting more severely in the late 1950s) of spreading anti-PSA modernistic theology by some modernistic Orthodox theologians, unfortunately gave bitter fruits to the point that the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate embraced the modernistic claim that the teaching of the penal subsitutionary atonement which is an Orthodox teaching and a teaching of the ancient Church, is a late Western teaching like the modernists claim and today rejects it. (www.goarch.org/-/btb-173?inheritRedirect=true). (As it was said, the Orthodox modernistic theologians recognize the term PSA only in the sense of Christ saving us from death by subsitututing it with His Death on the Cross but reject the term in the sense of Christ saving us from God's wrath and the eternal punishment by substituting with the penalty of the Cross the the penalty awaiting the unrepented sinners.)
Third, the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate has embraced an eastern form of papism. Here is what Patriarch Bartholomew says:,,The beginning of the Orthodox Church is the Ecumenical Patriarchate; “in this is life, and the life is the light of the Churches.” The late Metropolitan Kyrillos of Gortyna and Arcadia, a beloved Hierarch of the Mother Church and personal friend, was right to underline that “Orthodoxy cannot exist without the Ecumenical Patriarchate.” (www.uocofusa.org/news_180901_1). This is a indirect claim for infallibility.
Fourth, there are the non-canonical actions of Constantinople in Ukraine. These actions caused an arising internal schism within the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is an English translation of the 2019 letter of the Bulgarian Metropolitan Daniil of Vidin to and eparchial metropolitan bishops of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Church of Cyprus, Church of Greece, Albanian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church: new.sliven.net/res/news/292888/___________________.pdf. He explains the issue of the 2018 Moscow-Constantinopolitan schism entirely from a canonical perspective.
This is a link to a famous 1995 Letter from Patriarch Bartholomew to Patriarch Alexey of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Ukrainian Diaspora: orthodoxsynaxis.org/2018/10/10/1995-letter-bartholomew-alexey/. In the letter the Patriarch clearly refers to the groups that were later included by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the recently formed Orthodox Church of Ukraine (2018) by issuing of a Tomos of autocephaly, as schismatic groups. The Patriarchate of Constantinople openly entered communion with the newly formed church of Ukraine that consists of those schismatic groups. But the communion with excommunicated persons, leads to excommunication of those who have communed with them:,,And, if any one of the bishops, presbyters, or deacons, or any one in the Canon shall be found communicating with excommunicated persons, let him also be excommunicated, as one who brings confusion on the order of the Church.'' (canon 2, Council of Antioch, 341). That is why it is argued by some Orthodox theologians and priests that the Patriarchate of Constaninople is no longer a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church since 2018. In other words it fell from the Church like the non-Chalcedonians in 451 and Rome in 1054. Unfortunately there is a danger that the internal schism could grow bigger. The Alexandrian Patriarchate supported the schismatic OCU in 2019 and as a result the Moscow Patriarchate ceased Eucharistic Communion with it like with the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate in 2018.
That way the Alexandrian Patriarchate also fell from the Body of the Church. Nowadays the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate and the Alexandrian Patriarchate and the Churches which took the side of the schismatics and recognized them are not part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Those other Churches are partially the Churches of Greece and Cyprus - partially because some of the bishops of their Holy Synods did not and still do not recognize the new OCU - from the Church of Greece those are the Metropolitans of Kaisariani, of Kythira, of Dryinoupolis, of Mesogaia, of Ilia, of Aitolia and Akarnania, and of Karystia; from the Church of Cyprus those are the Metropolitan bishops of Limassol, Kykkos and Tamassos, and the bishop of Amathus. Things can change if they can become again part of the Orthodox Church but right now they are in a schism, thus being out of the divine grace, wherefore salvation in those Churches is now impossible.
There are modernists and ecumenists within all Orthodox Churches but the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate and the other Local Churches that supported Constantinople and fell into schism, too, have embraced the anti-PSA modernistic theology as a doctrine, whence they fell into schism. Schisms are a result of embracing a heresy . That has always been the case in the history of the Church. That was the case with the non-Chalcedonians (who misleadingly call themselves ,,Oriental Orthodox'' since 1908) in 451 and with Rome in 1054. In that sense the statement that it is the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate and respectively the other Churches that recognized the actions of Constantinople, that fell into schism, is not political but refers to dogma.
th-cam.com/video/2uQ17ijWWo4/w-d-xo.html
@@Yasen.Dobrev Seguires ser files al papa y pronunciar el Filioque. Focio fue un cismatico que era un ambioso del poder y deponer al legítimo patriarca San Ignacio de Constatinopla. Soy un cristiano romano occidental. En el reino visigodo de Hispania se añadió el Filioque para contrarrestar la herejía arriana.
I’d love to hear a debate-discussion between Joshua and an Orthodox priest. Curious what others think?
Also, THANK YOU to Joshua for sharing his story. I’m sure it will be a great source of comfort and grace to anyone in a similar situation. I’d love to hear more from him about what Protestants can/should learn from Orthodoxy. I’m sure there’s more than he had time to mention here.
Keep it up, Gavin!
I agree, that would be an enriching conversation!
Fr. Patrick would be a great choice.
No. He needs a confessor and spiritual father to help him work through his spiritual delusions. Please don't suggest such a thing to the poor man. May the Lord have mercy and deliver him.
@@noahjohnson2611 fr. Josiah Trenham better
@@evans3922 amen
I went to college (undergrad) where is now and lived there for 9 years. It’s a small world!
QUESTION: Hello gentlemen, wonderful interview. I'm writing about the "short" you posted recently about ministering to those who are living in fear and anxiety because for one reason or another we rejected Orthodoxy. I was raised Baptist am now conservative Lutheran, after spending about five years investigating Orthodoxy. I was rattled by the dogmatic statements of a priest online, that no Lutheran, Anglican, or Catholics have any hope of heaven. It didn't matter about our personal faith journeys, but rather about being a member of the correct "club," so to speak. He was quoting church fathers and it discouraged me greatly. Is there a chance that you two could do a show even if it's only a half hour long to help those like myself that are struggling to find peace with this issue? Thanks!
Here's another set of videos you might find useful:
"James White's Stance on Eastern Orthodoxy" by Dividing Line Highlights
-
th-cam.com/video/IQqJQ4zD4_c/w-d-xo.html
"Five Reasons I Am Not Eastern Orthodox" by Dr. Jordan B. Cooper
th-cam.com/video/9NOxubtykFY/w-d-xo.html
"The Differences Between Lutheranism and Eastern Orthodoxy" by Dr. Jordan B. Cooper
-
th-cam.com/video/6Rkn8GHSgGk/w-d-xo.html
"Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox" by Barely Protestant
-
th-cam.com/users/liveYBA2ZrSnTSs?feature=share
You are the first Baptist I've ever admired and whose teachings I've found tear-jerkingly valuable. Why does my Old Adam resent that? Who will deliver me from such grievous sin and this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?